This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 001545 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
WINPAC FOR FOLEY 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR CHUPA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR 
9-13 JUNE 
 
REF: NEW YORK 1306 
 
This is CWC-66-03. 
 
-------- 
Summary 
-------- 
 
Topics: 
-- RevCon Reactions 
-- Budget Consultations 
-- ABAF 
-- Counter-terrorism Working Group 
-- Libya Inching Toward Ratification 
 
¶1.  There has been little commentary or discussion on the 
RevCon. However, in general, the RevCon exceeded 
expectations. Many delegations are eager to discuss how we 
will pursue RevCon follow-up. 
 
¶2.  Three rounds of budget consultations were held 11-13 June 
on Programs 3-6. The facilitator will hold one more round of 
consultations, on 1 July, to cover Program 7 (Administration) 
and any other outstanding issues.  Consultations will then 
not resume until the end of August. 
 
¶3.  The ABAF session from 9-13 June was hampered by a number 
of issues: a preponderance of non-experts on the board; a 
draft budget document devoid of justifications, descriptions 
of real program activity, and 2003 actual figures; and a 
Technical Secretariat notetaker incapable of writing 
comprehensible English for the draft report. 
 
¶4.  The Counter-terrorism working group met 12 June to 
discuss whether the Action Plans for universality and Article 
VII implementation tasked by the RevCon might come under the 
purview of this group. 
 
¶5. Libyan parliament has passed the necessary measures to 
allow Libya to join the CWC.  The next step, according to the 
Libyan charge, is to send the paper work to the FM. 
 
----------------- 
RevCon Reactions 
----------------- 
 
¶6.  Since the end of the First Review Conference (RevCon) 
there has been little commentary or discussion on the 
Conference. In general, the RevCon exceeded expectations. 
Many delegations came away with the sense that future work 
had been enshrined in the two agreed texts.  They see the 
RevCon as an impetus to further action and as developing an 
overall action plan for the Organization. 
 
¶7.  Many delegations are eager to discuss how we will pursue 
RevCon follow-up and it will be a topic at next week's WEOG. 
DDG Brian Hawtin has told delegations that he would like to 
see one over-arching RevCon follow-up "Action Plan".  Del has 
expressed concern that such an exercise might allow a couple 
delegations to hold hostage the two implementation-related 
action plans tasked by the RevCon review document: on 
universality and Article VII implementation. 
 
¶8.  Overall there has been no negative feedback on, only 
praise for, the RevCon in general as well as U.S. actions at 
the Conference. 
 
-------------------- 
Budget Consultations 
-------------------- 
 
¶9.  The facilitator (Peter Beerwerth, Germany) held three 
rounds of consultations 11-13 June on Verification, 
Inspection Management and Operations, and International 
Cooperation and Assistance.  Senior program directors (D-2 
level) continued to air their differences with management 
decisions not to include their full requests in the draft 
budget. 
 
¶10.  India has approached the facilitator to say that they 
have problems with the increase in OCPF ("Other Chemical 
Production Facilities") inspections under Article VI. 
¶11.  The facilitator will hold one more round of 
consultations, on 1 July, to cover Administration and any 
other outstanding issues such as the Indian complaint. 
Consultations will not resume until the end of August. 
 
¶12.  Del has been joined by others (South Africa, Iran, 
Japan, Germany, France, the UK, Canada, Spain, Austria) in 
asking for language in the budget document to justify 
unfreezing four additional positions, and to elaborate on 
what activities would be carried out in key areas such as 
External Relations' outreach for universality and 
International Cooperation and Assistance.  There is virtually 
no language at all in the current budget document in these 
respects.  The new Deputy Director General, Brian Hawtin, has 
now heard these pleas and acknowledged the requests.  The 
Director for External Relations handed out a non-paper with 
additional justifications, but it is unclear if his 
rationales were cleared within the Technical Secretariat. 
 
¶13.  With respect to the request to unfreeze a P-3 position 
in the Legal Office, Del recommends we tell the Director 
General to reassign qualified staff already on board to meet 
the very considerable demand for additional legislative 
implementation support.  Talented German national Ralf Trapp 
who supported the RevCon documents preparation, and Canadian 
Gordon Vachon who currently fills an unneeded Inspectorate 
post unfrozen by the former Director General so as to give 
Vachon a job, are natural candidates. 
 
¶14.  The Director for International Cooperation and 
Assistance confirmed that the Director General found an 
additional 336,000 euros for ICA programs, as promised at the 
last annual Conference, and these are being spent.  The 
additional funds came entirely from keeping posts vacant. 
The draft budget contains a general unsubstantiated statement 
that funding for ICA remains inadequate.  The director added 
orally that for 2004 "we have practically taken a step 
backward in terms of what we can do." 
 
¶15.  India and Iran spoke to insist that the percentage 
increase in the ICA budget exactly match the overall budget 
percentage increase in 2004. 
 
¶16.  DDG Brian Hawtin appealed to delegations to avoid 
micro-management and to lift constraints under the current 
system that do not contribute to effective use of resources, 
such as the constraints on transfers between Chapter 1 
(Verification) and Chapter 2 (Administration), and 
constraints on regrading or shifting posts.  He referred to 
broader structural problems such as the lag in Article IV/V 
reimbursements because of the uncertainty about when this 
money is going to come in. 
 
¶17.  Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and 
Germany all told WEOG that their capitals would have great 
difficulty agreeing to the proposed budget.  Germany points 
out that the almost 9 percent increase includes three percent 
just to fund turnover in implementation of the decision to 
begin enforcing a non-career organization. 
 
---- 
ABAF 
---- 
 
¶18.  The session from 9-13 June was hampered by: 
 
--    a preponderance of non-experts on the board; 
 
--    a draft budget document devoid of justifications, 
descriptions of real program activity, and 2003 actual 
figures; and 
 
--    a Technical Secretariat notetaker incapable of writing 
comprehensible English for the draft report. 
 
¶19.  The UK and the Netherlands did not send experts, and 
Germany, Japan and Italy were represented by non-expert 
delegates.  Washington might consider approaches to these 
capitals to urge that they support ABAF by providing 
qualified financial experts capable of straightening out the 
disarray that continues to characterize the OPCW's budget 
process. 
¶20.  The Director General made a strong pitch to ABAF to fund 
consultants to enable him to "further the universal 
geographic distribution of staff".  The Argentine delegate as 
said that because the CWC is a security treaty, "major" 
countries are pressuring the Director General to use such 
consultants to remedy what they see as under-representation 
by their countries among the senior staff of the TS. 
 
------------------------------------- 
Counter Terrorism Working Group Meets 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶21.  The Executive Council's Counter Terrorism Working Group, 
under the chairmanship of Deloff, met on 12 June to hear a 
report from Special Projects Director Sergei Batsanov on his 
trip to the Security Council's Counter Terrorism Committee 
New York on 15 May.  It also heard a report on a meeting of 
the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI) attended 
by Irakli Beridze of Batsanov's staff, and discussed the way 
forward in implementing the action plans on universality and 
implementation of Article VII tasked to the TS and Executive 
Council at the Review Conference. 
 
¶22.  In his presentation, Batsanov said little that was not 
covered in Reftel.  Beridze reported that SECI, a regional 
organization dedicated to combating trans-border crime 
(Albania, Bosnia and Herzgovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, 
Hungary, FRY of Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Serbia 
and Montenegro, and Turkey) had created an anti-terrorism 
sub-group.  Beridze's pitch focused on legal compliance.  He 
passed out to the Working Group a draft report of a SECI WMD 
subgroup that had an item calling on member states to focus 
on "harmonizing/ developing their legislation with the EU and 
international legal framework in force, applicable to NBC 
issues, on civil and penal aspects." 
 
¶23.  Delegations took note of the need for action plans on 
universality and legal implementation.  The chair raised the 
question of whether pursuit of those issues might be taken up 
under a different facilitation, but no delegates expressed 
particular interest in taking the EC's action on the issue 
elsewhere.  The chair at the end asked the TS to provide its 
thoughts on an action plan to the Working Group. 
 
¶24.  The chairman of the working group will seek to place the 
counter terrorism issue on the agenda for EC-33 either as a 
separate item or under "Any Other Business."  This will allow 
the Council to task the Counterterrorism Working Group to 
develop an action plan for both items in close consultation 
with the TS.  Del understands that the TS will offer its 
thoughts on an action plan in the DG's statement to the EC. 
Del also understands that the TS is giving careful 
consideration to sending small teams comprised of TS staff to 
selected countries in the greatest need of assistance on 
compliance issues such as Article VII as well as Article VI. 
 
¶25.  The Working Group is likely to meet again in mid-July to 
review the action plans and make a recommendation on them to 
the September Executive Council Session (EC-34).  Del would 
welcome Washington thoughts on specifics for an action plan 
that would involve the capabilities of the TS and member 
states. 
 
--------------------------------- 
Libya Inching Toward Ratification 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶26. OPCW special projects director Sergei Batsanov advised 
Del on 12 June that he had just met with the Libyan charge in 
The Hague who told him that the Libyan parliament had passed 
the necessary measures to allow Libya to join the CWC.  The 
next step, according to the Libyan charge, is to send the 
paper work to the FM.  It would take about a month, he said, 
to complete the necessary paper work before they file papers 
to join. 
 
¶27.  Kellogg sends. 
SOBEL