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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 THE HAGUE 001740 
 
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 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR CHUPA 
WINPAC FOR FOLEY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC AORC RS CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR 
33RD SESSION OF THE OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, 24-28 JUNE 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 1707 
     ¶B. STATE 179233 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 1509 
 
(U)  This is CWC-72-03. 
 
(U)  See action requests in paragraphs 10, 28. 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (U)  In part due to the lack of documents and the slimmed 
down agenda, the EC-33 Session ended a day earlier than 
scheduled and left a number of important issues requiring 
attention at the September EC.  Along with the U.S., many 
delegations highlighted the Technical Secretariat (TS) 
problem of late submission of documents.  The 
Director-General noted this problem in his opening statement 
and informed States Parties that he was tasking Deputy 
Director-General Brian Hawtin specifically to deal with it. 
A number of documents that merited substantive discussion, 
and should receive attention at the next session, were only 
"received" by the Council vice "noted". 
 
¶2.  (U)  The most concrete results came out of discussions 
with the Russian Federation concerning conversion requests, 
facility agreements and combined plans that were the main 
focus of the week (Ref A).  Four of Russia's combined plans 
for conversion (Lewisite, Sarin, Soman, and Phase II) were 
approved as well as the U.S. detailed plan and facility 
agreement for Umatilla and the U.S. combined plan for 
destruction at Newport.  End Summary. 
 
---------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Three: 
Statement by the Director General 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U)  The Director General (DG) highlighted what he sees 
as the three most important developments since he took 
office: re re-establishing working relations with the States 
Parties, resolving the staff tenure issue, and making the 
budget process more open and transparent.  He briefly touched 
on the first two, indicating that progress had been made 
toward reforming the bonds of trust between the TS and States 
Parties and that the TS was already implementing the recent 
EC decision on tenure (staff notifications on one-seventh 
turnover for 2003 are nearly complete).  The remainder of his 
statement focused on budget issues.  The TS is taking steps 
to put in place a "results based budgeting process." 
However, given the lack of technical expertise relating to 
this process the 2004 budget was put together using the 
previous process.  He argued that he had directed his staff 
to attempt to achieve zero nominal growth, but that 6.1 
percent of the 8.3 percent budget increase the TS is 
requesting for 2004 are statutory or fixed increases that are 
unavoidable.  There were five budget items that he felt it 
important to defend (ICA, Travel, Consultants, Training, 
Re-activating Posts).  In particular, he defended the utility 
of the six consultants he is currently using on issues such 
as optimization of verification assets, Latin American 
Implementation, and Korean Peninsula Implementation.  On 
Article IV/V payments, he noted 2 ways to resolve this issue: 
either the States Parties allow the TS to use budget 
surpluses to cover Article IV/V shortfalls or set up an 
advance payment system by possessor states.  He closed by 
stating that he had directed the Office of Internal Oversight 
to investigate the reasons behind the delays in TS issuance 
of documents and gave a brief description of program delivery 
for the past quarter. 
 
¶4.  (U)  During the general debate following the DG's 
statement the Russian Federation noted that the US had 
released $160 million for construction of a destruction 
facility a Schuch'ye and stated its intention to destroy the 
nerve agent filled munitions from Schuch'ye and Kizner at the 
that site.  Because of cost and safety considerations, they 
intend to neutralize the nerve agent munitions at Pochep, 
Leonidovka, and Maradovsky on site which would in Russia's 
estimation equal destruction.  Finally, Russia indicated that 
contrary to a TS report released the prior week Russia had in 
fact completed conversion of 15 of the 16 facilities approved 
for conversion and they were awaiting certification. 
(Subsequent sidebar conversations indicated Russian belief 
that rendering facilities incapable of further producing 
chemical weapons in fact constitutes conversion.) 
 
-------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Four: 
Status of Implementation of the 
Convention and Related Issues 
-------------------------------- 
 
----- National Implementation Measures ----- 
 
¶5.  (U)  The Executive Council (EC) did not task the 
Counter-Terrorism Working Group, under its mandate from 
EC-XXVII/Dec.5, to develop the Article VII Action Plan per 
the instructions of the First Review Conference.  Iran, 
France and others opposed that proposal.  Instead, 
delegations accepted report language under "Any Other 
Business" that reads: 
 
"The Council noted with satisfaction the outcome of the first 
Review Conference and also noted the need for a number of 
follow-up actions.  The Council decided to include these 
various issues in its work program." 
 
¶6.  (U)  This leaves the Chairman free to appoint Mark 
Matthews of the UK del as facilitator, reporting directly to 
the Chairman, for the Article VII Action Plan. 
 
----- Optimization of verification activities ----- 
 
¶7.  (U)  The DG made it evident at the margins of and during 
the EC that the desire to further optimize resources was a TS 
priority, and must be for States Parties too. The DG 
acknowledged that States Parties needed to be closely 
consulted in moving this initiative forward.  A surprise was 
the DG's statement suggesting there would be a U.S. visit by 
BG Diamantidis, a TS French Consultant for development of a 
cost-saving verification concept.  BG Diamantidis briefed the 
EC on the status of developing a general concept for lowering 
costs at CW destruction facilities (CWDF).  On the margins of 
the EC, Amb. Javits chaired an informal discussion with BG 
Diamantidis and Dr. Reeps (Director of Verification) with del 
representatives present to discuss our approach and to assist 
the TS in its optimization efforts.  The Del expressed the 
view that, before the U.S. is able to entertain a visit by BG 
Diamantidis, it is necessary to determine within the 
interagency what the U.S. believes is absolutely required for 
verific 
ation.  Only then could a determination be made with the TS 
and other States Parties as to what constitutes an acceptable 
level of verification.  Del agreed that a visit by BG 
Diamantidis may be possible once such steps were taken.  Del 
also stated that whatever BG Diamantidis recommends in terms 
of use of additional monitoring equipment/technologies would 
be just that, a recommendation. 
 
---- Status of implementation of Articles X and XI ---- 
 
¶8.  (U)  The EC noted the Report by the Director-General on 
the status of implementation of Articles X and XI of the 
Chemical Weapons Convention as at 31 December 2002.  Prior to 
this decision, the US and UK both voiced concern at the small 
number of States Parties that have complied with their 
Article X declaration requirements.  Iran and India commented 
that the lack of agreed declaration formats has prevented 
them from submitting the relevant Article X declarations. 
 
----- 2002 Verification Implementation Report ----- 
 
¶9.  (U)  The Council noted the 2002 Verification 
Implementation Report (EC-33/HP/DG.1, dated 14 March 2003) 
and three associated documents: (A) the Draft Corrigendum 
(EC-33/HP/DG.1/Corr. 1, dated 14 June 2003), (B) the Director 
General's Note on the Comments and Views Received on the 2002 
Verification Implementation Report (EC-33/GD.13, dated 24 
June 2003), and (C) the Chairman's summary of the informal 
consultations on the 2002 VIR (EC-33/2, dated 23 June 2003 
and Corr. 1, dated 25 June 2003). The Russian Federation 
reiterated one of its written 'corrections' from the initial 
compilation (item (B)) concerning their destruction of 
leaking munitions at CWSFs, repeating the assertion that 
their use of mobile destruction units was within the 
definition of normal CWSF operation. They also expressed 
concern over the potential for this issue to prevent the 
future closure of inspection files. Concerns were raised by 
other States Parties with the VIR corrigenda being 
unclassified. The TS responded that the corrigenda did not 
 
SIPDIS 
contain any confidential information as such, but in the 
future VIR corrigenda could be produced as Highly Protected 
documents, if so desired by the States Parties. 
 
----- Article VI related obligations ----- 
 
¶10.  (U) Del underlined that this important document had been 
received without sufficient time for delegations to present 
substantive comments, which is essential, given the saliency 
of the issue.  This document was received by the Council with 
the understanding that it could be returned to at a later 
date if necessary.  (Action Recommendation:  Delegation 
requests guidance and suggests we request to have this item 
on the agenda for the next EC in September.) 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Five: 
Deadlines for Destruction of Category 1 
Chemical Weapons Stockpiles 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (U) Russia reiterated its success in meeting its 1 
percent CW destruction milestone and stated that its 
destruction line at Gorniy will be ready to begin destroying 
lewisite in the third quarter of FY03.  Moreover, all its 
stocks at the Gorniy facility would be destroyed by 2005. 
The Council noted the DG Report on the progress made by 
Russia in destroying CW at Gorniy (EC-33/DG.9, 20 June 2003). 
 In his report, the DG stated that optimization of 
verification measures at Gorniy continue to be discussed 
between the TS and Russia, and that the Facility Agreement 
for Gorniy would be distributed during the session.  In 
coordination with the U.S. Del, the UK Del raised the issue 
of conducting the first of the EC Chairman's annual visits to 
the Russian CWDF under construction at Kambarka, as called 
for in the Decision document C-7/Dec.19, 11 October 2002, 
adopted during CSP-7.  However, the UK Del was unsuccessful 
in negotiating with the Russian delegation suitable language 
for inclusion in the Council report 
on this subject.  (Note:  C-7/Dec.19 calls for the EC 
Chairman to report the results of such annual visits to the 
Council.  What's more, based on the recommendation of the 
Council, it calls for the Conference to take a decision 
during CSP-8 establishing a substitute deadline for the 
twenty percent deadline established in the Convention, as 
requested by the Russian Federation.  If CSP-8 is to take 
such a decision, the Kambarka trip will have to occur prior 
to the September EC session, so that the Council can receive 
the Chairman's report and render a recommendation to the 
Conference.  Otherwise a special session of the Council will 
have to be convened to receive the report and make a 
recommendation.  Delegation recommends approaching the EC 
Chairman with a view to energizing the process of organizing 
and conducting this trip sometime in August or early 
September.  End note). 
 
---------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Six: 
Detailed Plans for the Destruction 
of Chemical Weapons 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (U) Russia stated they could not join consensus on the 
ABCDF plan due to the precedent it establishes regarding the 
declaration of the post destruction facility.  (Note: Though 
not stated by Russia on the floor of the Council, this 
position relates to the issue of Russia's "end-point 
destruction" concerns and the status of the 14 March CTR 
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the U.S.-funded 
Schuch'ye facility (Ref A). 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Seven: 
Combined Plans for the Destruction or 
Conversion and Verification of Chemical 
Weapons Production Facilities 
--------------------------------------- 
 
------- Bosnia and Herzegovina Combined Plan ------ 
 
¶13. (U) The Council approved the plan put forward by Bosnia 
and Herzegovina (EC-32/DG.3, dated 14 Feb 03) with 
corrigendum including U.S. comments. 
 
------- Russian Combined Plans ------- 
 
¶14. (U) The Council deferred the combined plan for conversion 
and verification of the CWPF (production of a VX-type 
substance and filling it into munitions) at Open Joint Stock 
Company "Khimprom", in Novocheboksarsk the Russian Federation. 
 
¶15. (U) The Council approved the 4 remaining Russian combined 
plans for conversion and verification.  A corrigendum 
containing U.S. requested language was approved for the Open 
Joint Stock Company "Sibur-Neftekhim", "Kaprolaktam" plant, 
Dzerzhinsk, the Russian Federation. 
 
¶16. (U) The Council approved the combined plan for 
destruction and verification of the CWPF at Newport Chemical 
Depot, the United States, with the German-requested 
corrigendum. 
 
¶17. (U) The Council received a report from the DG on the 
status of the conversion of former chemical weapons 
facilities.  At the request of the U.S. a note was added to 
the Council report which included the need for transparency 
measures, in accordance with instructions in Ref B. 
 
------Text of Council Report Language on Transparency------ 
 
¶18. (U) "It is the view of the Council that during its last 
regular session of each year, it should be fully informed by 
relevant States Parties about the status of conversion at 
those Chemical Weapons Production Facilities (CWPFs) located 
on their territory where conversion is still in progress. 
 
In addition, it is the view of the Council that the Director 
General should inform the Council at its first regular 
session following the conduct of a usual annual inspection by 
the Technical Secretariat at those CWPFs where conversion is 
still in progress, of the progress made at such facilities. 
 
The Council understands that if a change in the schedule of 
conversion activities at a CWPF occurs, an appropriate 
amendment to the Combined Plan for the conversion and 
verification for that facility will be submitted to the 
Technical Secretariat as soon as possible." 
 
---------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Eight: 
Facility Agreements 
---------------------------- 
 
-------- Belgian Facility Agreement -------- 
 
¶19.  (U) Per Belgium's request, consideration of the decision 
regarding Belgium's Schedule 1 protective purposes facility 
draft facility agreement (DFA) (EC-31/DEC/CRP.1, dated 11 Nov 
2002) was deferred. 
 
------- Aberdeen and Umatilla Facility Agreements ------- 
 
¶20.  (U) The Council approved the Umatilla Chemical Agent 
Disposal facility FA (EC-32/DEC/CRP.5, dated 10 Mar 2003) 
 
¶21.  (U) At Russia's request, consideration of the Aberdeen 
Chemical Agent Disposal facility FA (EC-32/DEC/CRP.5, dated 
10 Mar 2003) was deferred. 
 
------- ROK Facility Agreement ------- 
 
¶22.  (U)  The ROK delegation asked that this item be deferred 
to the next session of the Executive Council. 
 
--------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Nine: 
Chemical Industry Issues 
--------------------------- 
¶23.  (U)  The facilitator for intersessional consultations on 
Captive Use had intended to circulate a formal draft decision 
for EC consideration, but held off because there was no 
consensus on the proposed text.  Instead, the facilitator 
issued a formal document labeled "Facilitator's Proposal" of 
a draft decision (EC-33/DEC/CRP.4 dated 26 June).  Technical 
Secretariat staff confused the versions of the text, and 
 
SIPDIS 
erroneously used an older version without the facilitator's 
most recent changes.  A revised document will be issued 
shortly. 
 
¶24.  (U)  Until this week, the sole opponent to consensus was 
the Russian Federation, which takes the position that 
Schedule 3 intermediates (e.g., chemicals not isolated for 
use or sale off the plant site) are not declarable.  However, 
during sidebar discussions this week, the German delegation 
indicated they also do not support a decision on Captive Use 
(draft German paper faxed to Washington).  The draft paper 
raises many objections, but from informal discussions it 
appears the German del opposes a Captive Use decision because 
they do not support declarations based purely on 
"theoretical" calculations.  Germany argues that there is no 
firm basis for inspectors to verify such a declaration.  DEL 
NOTE: Declarations based on calculation are clearly required 
by the already-approved Boundaries of Production decision 
text and are not specific to Captive Use situations.  As 
written, the Captive Use decision text only clarifies that 
there are no downstream physical handling activities that 
negate or mitigate a State Party's obligation to declare 
production if both concentration and quantity thresholds are 
exceeded. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Ten: 
List of Validated Data for Inclusion 
in the OPCW Central Analytical Database 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶25.  (U) This list was approved by the Council without 
discussion. 
 
----------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Eleven: 
Financial Issues 
----------------------------- 
 
¶26. (U)  Article IV and V:  In his opening statement, DG 
Pfirter called for a permanent fix to the reimbursement 
mechanism.  U.S. also called for a permanent fix in 
Ambassador Javit's opening statement and from the floor under 
this agenda item.  Russia stated that it would need to 
carefully study the issue.  India stated that the U.S. may 
have some good ideas, but reiterated its familiar line that 
domestic legislation will prevent India from making advance 
payments. 
 
¶27.  (U)  DG report on cash surplus for 2001: TS Director of 
Administration Schulz reported that the cash surplus for 2001 
is $3,405,000.  As of May 31, the OPCW cash balance was 
$8,050,000 and that the 2001 cash surplus has not been 
touched.  In response to a U.S. call to use the 2001 surplus 
to take care of the 1999 deficit, Schulz replied that it made 
sense and the TS would look into it. 
 
¶28. (U)  The Council "noted" the report by the DG on income 
and expenditure and "received" the ABAF report and the DG 
note on transfers made between or within programmes in 2002. 
The DG also notified the Council of transfers made between or 
within programmes in 2002.  U.S. Del noted that late 
distribution of ABAF report and the documents on transfers 
made it impossible for delegations to provide substantive 
comments on these important documents.  (Action 
Recommendation: Del asks for Washington guidance on whether 
to bring these items back up for discussion at the September 
EC.) 
 
----------------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Twelve: 
Draft OPCW Programme and Budget for 2004 
----------------------------------------- 
¶29. (U)  Budget facilitator Beerworth (Germany) presented his 
report on consultations to date.  Beerworth plans to soon 
distribute four papers so that capitals can study them during 
the summer.  The papers will be on inspector training for 
2004, ICA (based on RevCon recommendations), additional 
information on security, justification for four new 
positions.  After some discussion, the Council agreed that it 
"received" the draft budget rather than "noting" it. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Thirteen: 
Provisional Agenda for the Eighth Session 
of the Conference of the States Parties 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶30.  (U)  The Council approved the draft provisional agenda 
(EC-33/GD.7, dated 13 June 2003). Consideration was given to 
the removal of Agenda Item Twenty - Date and Duration of the 
Next Regular Session of the Conference of the States Parties, 
as the dates have already been established for these 
conferences through 2010. However, the decision was taken to 
leave this item in to comply with Conference of States Party 
rules, and to facilitate future changes in date or duration, 
if required. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Annotated Agenda Item Fourteen: 
Any Other Business 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶31.  (U)  The Council approved the appointment of John D. Fox 
(U.S.), Sajjad Kamran (Pakistan), and Sang Soo Lee (Korea) to 
the Advisory Body on Administration and Finance, effective 
June 4, June 9, and May 27, 2003,respectively. 
 
¶32.  (U)  The Council approved the inclusion of a statement 
in the report for the Thirty-Third Session noting the 
Council's satisfaction with the outcome of the First RevCon 
and the need for a number of follow-up actions to be included 
in its future work program. 
 
¶33.  (U)  Hans Schramml (Austria), incoming facilitator for 
Article X issues, announced that he plans to hold 
consultations in September, and requested that delegations 
review and provide comments on draft forms for Article X 
reporting. 
 
¶34.  (U)  Greece notified the Council of their EUR50,000 
voluntary contribution as well as an additional EUR25,000 
contribution to the Article X voluntary fund. 
 
¶35.  (U)  Javits sends. 
SOBEL