CWC: WRAP-UP FOR TWO WEEKS FROM SEPTEMBER 21 TO

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000597 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR, SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP> JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC COMMERCE FOR BIS (BROWN, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO) NSC FOR LUTES WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR TWO WEEKS FROM SEPTEMBER 21 TO OCTOBER 2, 2009 REF: A. THE HAGUE 566 ¶B. THE HAGUE 584 This is CWC-57-09 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) In the run-up to the 58th Executive Council (EC-58),the frequency and number of meetings at the OPCW has increased. This cable covers the two weeks from September 21 to October 2 including the regular weekly meeting of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG); a range of budget consultations; and consultations on articles VII, X and XI. ¶2. (SBU) Dr. Robert Mikulak, ISN/CB Director and U.S. Representative to the Executive Council, visited The Hague on September 24 to consult with key delegations on the selection of a new Director- General (DG) for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),as reported in Ref B. Other reporting on the DG selection will be sent septel following the first informal straw poll scheduled for October 5. -------------- WEOG -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Coordinator Ruth Surkau (Germany) convened the WEOG on September 22. Budget Co-Facilitator Martin Strub (Switzerland) stated his expectation that the afternoon's budget meeting would likely include discussion on key performance indicators (KPIs) and the budget of the Office of Special Projects (OSP). Strub stated that the South African delegate had voiced an intention to challenge OSP's existence, as he did last year. Delrep stated that the elimination of this office is not a budget decision but rather a policy decision for the Conference of the States Parties (CSP). ¶4. (SBU) EC Vice-Chairperson Ambassador Lohman (the Netherlands) stated that Iran had continued to press for attention to the report from the visit in June by EC representatives to the U.S. and for a strong statement against delays in U.S. destruction. At the request of EC Chairperson Ambassador Lomonaco (Mexico),Lohman will convene informal consultations on the visit report before EC-58. Swedish Delegate Lodding enquired about the format for the meeting and suggested that the report's authors are answerable for the report, and �A;questions specific to the U.S. program should be deferred to bilateral discussions or the informal destruction consultations. Delrep suggested that this meeting be held just in advance of the EC which may also allow for the Indian representative who attended the visit and is from capital to be present for the meeting. (Del note: Lohmans's meeting on the report of the visit in June to the U.S. is scheduled for October 8. End note.) ¶5. (SBU) Lohman also gave a summary of the EC Bureau's meeting the week before in which Lomonaco outlined progress on the selection of the next DG. Based on his "confessional" meetings, Lomonaco feels that there are clear and consistent trends, and he intends to approach relevant, or lower- ranked, candidates about his findings. Lomonaco planned to convene a meeting on September 29 to inform EC members of any withdrawals and to call for a straw poll if not. (Del note: No candidates have withdrawn. The straw poll is scheduled for the morning of October 5. End note.) ¶6. (SBU) Delrep intervened to inform the group that the Libyan deadline extension request was available for review and inquired if there were any preliminary impressions. Swedish Delegate Lodding stated that this might be handled as a revision of an earlier EC decision since Libya's request does not go beyond the 2012 deadline. French Delegate Rabia stated that France had been approached in Tripoli to support the request. Surkau will include the item for future discussion in WEOG. ¶7. (SBU) Mike Byers (Australia),Facilitator of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Terrorism, described his intentions for the OEWG, including having an open discussion with member states to solicit input and concerns on the OEWG's priorities and activities. Byers suggested convening this session on October 6, however multiple delegates (from the Netherlands, France and the UK) recommended postponing such a session until after EC-58. Byers responded that there is value in parallel meetings, particularly as the budget discussions on the Office of Special Projects may affect the OEWG. Delrep encouraged WEOG members to defend the OEWG and to be prepared to contribute to its future agenda. -------------- BUDGET CONSULTATIONS -------------- EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, ERD AND PMO -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Co-Facilitator Francisco Aguilar (Costa Rica) convened the budget meeting on September 22 to discuss the Executive Management offices, External Relations Division (ERD) and Support for the Policy-Making Organs (PMO). There were few questions on most of the office programs, and some, like the Office of Internal Oversight and the Health and Safety Branch had no comments or questions at all. For ERD, questions centered on KPIs pertaining to travel and the overlap with the International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA) Branch and with the Office of Special Projects (OSP). The South African delegate also questioned the transfer of one professional position from ERD; the DDG responded that it was a temporary shift of one position to the DG's office. The Dutch Ambassador inquired about the projected increase in media coverage, to which the DDG replied that two new staff members have been added to the Media section and there are a growing number of hits on the web site, so the Technical Secretariat (TS) considered 10% a reasonable increase in projected activity. ¶9. (U) On his own office, the DDG noted that travel for the Scientific Advisory Body is included in his budget, but now broken out to show that it is not his own travel. Labib Sahab (Head, Budget Planning) explained the "other staff costs" items and the new separation of travel costs for consultants, located in the DG's section of the budget. ¶10. (U) Director of Special Projects Paturej presented his budget as the smallest section and of the same size (3 people) as when the office was created 12 years before. He outlined his counter- terrorism work, coordination with stakeholders, and Qterrorism work, coordination with stakeholders, and joint activities with ICA and ERD, as well as his fundraising role. The Iranian delegation objected to the use of "weapons of mass destruction" as being over-broad for the chemical weapons mandate of the Organization. Paturej noted that it was the same language as in the budget last year; the DDG assured the Iranians that only chemical weapons are within OPCW's mandate but that OPCW's work contributes to the broader WMD agenda as reflected in the language. The South African delegate then launched into a series of questions on OSP's activities and the overlap with other branches; he also questioned why counter-terrorism, which should be an integral part of the OPCW's work, is still considered a "special project." He requested a formal break-down of the work being done by OSP, particularly with relation to other divisions. Delegates from the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Australia spoke in support of OSP's cross- cutting work. The South African delegate reiterated his request for the budget breakdown for OSP activities, which the DDG promised to provide at a future meeting. (Del note: Delrep later learned that the breakdown was provided bilaterally to the South African delegation in order to avoid further discussion on OSP at later consultations. End note.) ADMINISTRATION DIVISION AND MEDIUM-TERM PLAN -------------- ¶11. (U) On September 24, Co-Facilitator Martin Strub (Switzerland) convened a consultation on the Administration Division's budget, the final in the series of consultations focusing on specific divisions within the TS. Administration Director Ron Nelson reported no significant changes in his Division's budget for 2010 and explained that the reduction in staff turn-over costs (EUR 300,000 less than in 2009) is based on estimates of tenure- related separations. Responding to a question posed by the South African delegate on moving to International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS),Nelson said that the TS will continue to engage an external consultant but is on track to have everything in place by the end of 2010 for a full roll-out of IPSAS beginning in 2011. ¶12. (SBU) Moving to the Medium-Term Plan for 2010- 2012, the South African delegate asked why the TS plans to deploy more contract (SSA) inspectors rather than hiring more fixed-term inspectors. The DDG noted that using SSA inspectors provides the TS with flexibility to respond to fluctuating verification needs. Acting Inspectorate Director Renato Carvalho added that destruction activity is expected to peak in 2011 and then drop substantially in 2012, so having experienced SSA inspectors for a year is more practical than recruiting and then training inspectors who ostensibly would expect to work for three to seven years. The South African delegate then launched into a debate on whether SSA inspectors can be trusted and questioning their loyalty to the OPCW. The DDG stressed that using SSA inspectors has been endorsed by all member states in previous budgets and medium-term plans and does not represent a new mode of operation for the Organization. BUDGET WRAP-UP SESSION 1 -------------- ¶13. (U) On September 28, Aguilar chaired the first Q13. (U) On September 28, Aguilar chaired the first wrap-up session to address outstanding issues on the budget and to discuss the draft decision for approving the budget, which was circulated during the meeting. At the outset, the Indian, Iranian, Chinese and -- for the first time -- Pakistani delegates stated their inability to agree to the budget given their objections to the increase in inspections for other chemical production facilities (OCPFs). The Iranian delegate also insisted on adding language to the draft decision from last year's budget decision regarding the policy nature of industry inspection numbers and the need for such policy discussion to take place in the Industry Cluster. The British and French delegates responded that insertion of any such language would depend on the number of industry inspections finally agreed. ¶14. (U) The Chinese delegate proposed adding a reference to abandoned chemical weapons (ACW) in Core Objective 1 of the OPCW, which currently only mentions the elimination of chemical weapons (CW) stockpiles and CW production facilities (CWPFs). The Dutch delegate proposed putting the reference either in the indicators of achievement or the key outcomes for 2010 for Core Objective 1 rather than redrafting the objective itself. Aguilar suggested that the Chinese and Japanese delegations confer bilaterally to find agreeable language. ¶15. (U) South African Delegate van Schalkwyk then started a discussion on whether to approve the budget on a programmatic level, as has been done since the 2005 budget, or on the sub-programmatic level considering the re-introduction of sub- programs in the 2010 budget. Budget Planning Head Sahab responded that the sub-programs were introduced as a transparency measure but on a trial basis in order to give the TS experience and data to use when setting levels for 2011. Van Schalkwyk said if sub-programs are included in the budget, Financial Regulation 4.6 regarding transfers of funds between sub-programs has to be observed; Sahab countered that the regulation would not apply if the budget were adopted at the program level and that the TS wanted to maintain some flexibility during the trial year to assess the accuracy of its estimations for sub-program budget levels. The DDG added that the TS does not expect to transfer more than 15% between sub-programs (the level set in Regulation 4.6). He also noted that the ABAF had endorsed the TS's proposal to adopt the budget at the program level; van Schalkwyk -- the ABAF vice- chairperson -- said that he agreed with the ABAF endorsement in his personal capacity but that South Africa's national position is to insist that all financial regulations and rules are complied with fully. German Ambassador Burkart asked for an opinion on the matter from the Legal Advisor, which the DDG promised to have for the next consultation on October 1. ¶16. (U) Turning to the Verification Division's KPIs, van Schalkwyk reiterated his request for more detail in the KPI related to Article IV/V (CW destruction) activity. The Iranian delegate asked that the term "chemical-warfare agents" in the KPI be changed to "chemical weapons"; Verification Director Reeps agreed that this would be an accurate modification. On the 2010-2012 Medium- Term Plan, the Russian delegate stated that he did not like the term "steady-state situation" related to TS plans for continued verification of converted Qto TS plans for continued verification of converted CWPFs, and the DDG agreed to consider alternative wording in consultation with the Russian and UK delegations. BUDGET WRAP-UP SESSION 2 -------------- ¶17. (U) Strub chaired the second wrap-up session on October 1. Updated drafts of the budget decision and revisions to the budget, as well as the revision to the Medium-Term Plan were circulated. The DDG noted the changes to the Verification Division KPIs to add the detail to Article IV/V activities previously requested by van Schalkwyk. ¶18. (U) The DDG then raised the issue of sub- programs, stating that Financial Regulation 4.6 would apply in 2010 if the budget were adopted at the sub-program level. However, he stressed, the TS would prefer the sub-programs in the budget be used illustratively and not concretely until formally introducing them in the 2011 budget. Legal Advisor Onate then gave a thorough legal opinion on the applicability of the financial rules and regulations, concluding that the TS is required by Financial Regulation 3.3 to divide the budget into two chapters and the two chapters into programs; however, the division of programs into sub-programs is not mandatory but rather applicable only when considered appropriate. Onate stated that, if the budget were to be adopted at the program level, Financial Regulation 4.5 (on the transfer of funds between programs) would apply but Financial Regulation 4.6 would not as the budget formally would not have sub-programs and therefore would be outside of the scope of Regulation 4.6. After Onate's report, van Schalkwyk stated that South Africa's firm position is that Financial Regulation 4.6 should be enforced, and he insisted that the budget be approved at the sub-program level to ensure the Regulation's applicability. -------------- ARTICLE VII -------------- ¶19. (U) New facilitator Rami Adwan (Lebanon) convened his first consultation on Article VII implementation on September 25. Legal Advisor Santiago Onate gave a detailed overview of the annual report, which will be considered at EC-58. Onate drew particular attention to the suggestions in the report's introductory cover note (paragraphs 11-16) as possible elements to be used in a decision on Article VII. Onate announced that since the cut-off date for the report (August 19), Barbados and Comoros each have established national authorities. He also confirmed that the TS responds within 10-15 business days to requests from States Parties for comments on their Article VII submissions. ¶20. (U) France, Sweden (in its EU Presidency capacity) and Germany all noted the assistance they provide to member states, particularly in Africa, in meeting their Article VII obligations. WEOG delegations (France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany) noted their general satisfaction with the overall positive trend in this area but stated that there is still more progress to be achieved. Russian Delegate Konstantin Gavrilov contended that progress is too slow and offered that it was time for delegations to start considering the option of "punitive" measures and for the TS to "name and shame" countries into meeting their obligations. ¶21. (SBU) The South African delegate encouraged the TS to sustain momentum in engaging State Parties on Article VII, highlighting the value of reaching out to parliamentarians. The delegate also stated his persistent view that the TS should not include the Qpersistent view that the TS should not include the annual declarations of past activities (ADPAs) as a measure of compliance with Article VII as not all member states have declarable activities. German Ambassador Burkart responded that countries without declarable activities can still submit "nil" declarations. Adwan recognized that the issue also had been raised last year and promised to work with interested delegations and the TS in finding an agreeable solution. ¶22. (U) On October 2, Adwan held a follow-on consultation to discuss what recommendations, including the possibility of a decision, the EC should make to the CSP when forwarding the report. The Iranian delegate stated that Tehran has not sent instructions yet; while he did not see any problem with noting the factual parts of the annual report, he said that the TS "recommendations" in the introductory cover note are "subjective" and need further discussion. Delrep pointed out that the cover note only contained suggestions or options for consideration and not TS recommendations. Delrep and other delegates (from Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland) noted that the suggestions provide useful elements for recommendations for future action. The Russian delegate described the report as purely technical and ready for noting; however, he said that any draft decision would need further discussion, suggesting the addition of new measures to build on last year's decision. The Czech delegate stated that a draft decision would help maintain momentum on Article VII implementation, and the Brazilian delegate said that any draft decision should offer innovative ideas rather than merely repeating past decisions. ¶23. (U) The South African delegate again raised his objection to the inclusion of ADPA data in the report and said that any report language or decision will need to take this into account and give clear guidance to the TS on what to include in future reports. Adwan scheduled the next consultation for October 8. -------------- ARTICLE X -------------- ¶24. (U) On September 25, Facilitator Maciej Karasinski (Poland) held informal consultations on assistance and protection against chemical weapons under Article X. He opened the meeting by soliciting feedback from States Parties on the utility of the Protection and Assistance Databank. The Technical Secretariat provided a brief presentation on the databank. The Russian Delegate provided a positive assessment on the considerable progress made. The Italian Delegate provided generally positive feedback, but stated that he intended to follow up with his capital for more substantive comments. The Czech Delegate provided specific feedback on incorrect data that was included related to participation in conferences and suggested adding subcategories in the section on experts. The French Delegate opined that further reflection may be required on the disclosure of information of national experts as this information may be sensitive, and that she would follow up with her capital for instructions. ¶25. (SBU) Karasinski circulated the nomination request for qualified experts (S/775/2009). The TS provided a short presentation on the role of qualified experts, explaining that they are intended to augment the OPCW team when specific expertise is needed. The core group of qualified experts comprises eighteen individuals from three distinct disciplines: medical, CW explosive ordinance disposal (EOD),and disaster management. Qordinance disposal (EOD),and disaster management. These experts are retained on a contract basis; the special service agreements for the current group of experts expire in February 2010. The deadline for nominations is October 30, and experts will be selected in November. Training for selected experts will occur in February 2010 with the goal of operational preparedness by March 1, 2010. Seven nominations have been received thus far. Following questions from the floor, the Technical Secretariat stated that there has been no previous specific request made for these qualified experts to support the OPCW as intended, however several have been used as instructors or speakers at regional events. To the French Delegate's inquiry about the breakdown of military and civilian representation, the TS stated that ten of the experts are military and eight civilian. On the experts' obligations to protect information, the TS stated that there is a secrecy agreement as part of the experts' contract that forbids the sharing of information and in that sense there is a legal guarantee similar to that found in employment contracts with the OPCW. ¶26. (SBU) Karasinski distributed a chart depicting the current status on the submission of declarations of national protection program, as required by Article X, Paragraph 4. Karasinski reminded States Parties of their obligations to provide this information and reported that more than 100 members have not yet reported. Several delegates (Italy, Germany, the U.S., Yemen, and the UK) encouraged improved procedures by the TS, specifically including better coordination among divisions of the TS that may be engaging States Parties to better communicate the outstanding requirements and foster compliance, and particularly calling for a snapshot or comprehensive list of all treaty requirements and current status arranged by country. -------------- ARTICLE XI -------------- ¶27. (U) Facilitator Chen Kai (China) held his first consultation on September 28. The tone of the brief meeting was positive and upbeat. Chen stated that the workshop proposed in 2008 still appears to have general support although a number of details remain outstanding. He believes the workshop should be a forum for all relevant stakeholders, including participants from government, industry, academia and civil society, to brainstorm ideas on how to promote the full implementation of Article XI. Any results or recommendations from the workshop could then feed into the ongoing consultative process at the OPCW. Chen proposed drafting a simple decision for CSP-14 to give a green light to holding the workshop in 2010, leaving details to be worked out later though consultations. ¶28. (U) The Iranian delegate stated the importance of the full implementation of Article XI but reserved comments on the workshop for the next consultation. Other delegates (from South Africa, Italy, Poland and the U.S.) intervened to offer their general support for the concept of the workshop. The Cuban delegate was the only one to support preparing a decision for CSP-14 and said that it should promote the full implementation of Article XI and not just endorse the workshop. Chen concluded the consultation by promising to consult with interested delegations and to discuss draft Qwith interested delegations and to discuss draft decision language at another consultation prior to EC-58. ¶29. (U) BEIK SENDS. LEVIN