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 000585 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
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 LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) - SCENESETTER 
FOR THE 36TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 
 
This is CWC-28-04. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  The accession of Libya to the OPCW undoubtedly 
will be the highlight of the March 23-26 Executive Council 
session.  The presence of the Libyan Ambassador also provides 
an opportunity to emphasize the importance of the OPCW 
tackling new challenges, and having the financial and 
administrative base to handle those new tasks.  Indeed, we 
anticipate administrative and financial questions (under 
Agenda Item 14) will play a key role in EC-36, ranging from 
the impact of Libyan accession on OPCW operations, to the 
implementation of results-based budgeting, which may be the 
most significant goal for the organization this year.  We 
should use the EC to prod the Technical Secretariat and 
States Parties to pursue implementation of the Article VII 
and universality action plans, and resolve some industry 
issues which appear ripe for decision.  End Summary. 
 
----- 
LIBYA 
----- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Director-General Pfirter utilized the March 5 
presentation of the Libyan declaration to generate 
substantial press coverage of the OPCW.  While it is 
questionable whether the presence of the Libyan Ambassador at 
EC-36 on March 23-26 could generate similar press interest, 
Libya will be the focus of attention among the States 
Parties.  For example, it is a good bet that a number of SPs 
are pouring over the Libyan declaration for any indication of 
support that had been provided from overseas firms for the 
Libyan CW program. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) In addition, there has been a general concern about 
whether the extra activity caused by Libyan accession would 
lead to operational difficulties for the TS.  Some of the 
discussion is on whether industry inspections may suffer as 
resources are devoted to Libya.  And some senior TS staff are 
attempting to use Libya as an excuse to put on hold 
implementation of the tenure policy.  So far, the DG has held 
firm on not halting implementation of tenure, and the general 
message from the DG and Deputy DG Hawtin has been that 
additional Libyan requirements this year are manageable, 
though some amendments to TS activities may be necessary. 
 
¶4.  (U) As for the rest of the EC-36 session, the following 
items are addressed as included on the annotated agenda 
(EC-36/INF.2/Rev.1, dated March 5 2004): 
 
------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM THREE: DG STATEMENT 
------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (U)  We know the DG will report on the state of OPCW 
activities regarding Libya, including the destruction of 
unfilled bombs, as well as the issue of resource 
implications.  We will provide the text of his statement when 
it becomes available. 
 
--------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM FOUR:  GENERAL DEBATE 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (U)  We will provide a draft statement for Ambassador 
Javits to AC/CB for Washington's consideration. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
AGENDA ITEM FIVE: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Implementation of the universality action plan 
(item 5.1) has deteriorated into a discussion over process. 
The question revolves around whether a facilitator is needed, 
and, if so, whether Consuelo Femenia (Spain) should continue 
in that role.  Huang Yu, External Relations Director, has the 
TS lead on this issue and is expected to provide a report on 
 
SIPDIS 
the status of implementation.  We will forward it when it is 
available.  We do not believe the U.S. has a particular 
interest in how the issue of a facilitator is resolved. 
Instead, our interest is in prodding the TS and SPs to do 
more on this action plan. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) A report on implementation of the confidentiality 
regime is noted under 5.2 (EC-36/DG.9, dated February 11, 
2004).  Item 5.3 involves proposed amendments to the OPCW 
policy on confidentiality (EC-36/DEC/CRP.2, dated December 
11, 2003).  The absence of a facilitator for this issue has 
complicated consideration of the proposed changes. 
Informally, the TS has indicated to Del that the proposals 
reflect the current TS practices. 
 
¶9.  (U)  The EC is also requested to note a report 
(EC-36/DG.5/Rev.1, dated February 17, 2004) on readiness for 
a challenge inspection (item 5.4). 
 
---------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM SIX: ARTICLE VII 
---------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  The report on the status of implementation 
(EC-36/DG.16, dated March 4, 2004) is frankly disappointing. 
Almost no progress has been made since the DG's September 
2003 progress report despite the approval of the Action Plan 
during the November 2003 Conference of States Parties.  Only 
ten States Parties provided the TS with information required 
under the Action Plan regarding assistance States Parties 
needed or assistance they could offer by the February 1, 2004 
deadline set by the TS or the March 1 deadline set by the 
Action Plan.  This lack of response adds to our concern 
regarding the level of support States Parties have for the 
action plan.  One problem is communication: a number of 
delegations report that they never received the TS Note 
Verbale; reportedly this includes WEOG members as well as 
States in regions known for problematic communications 
between member states and the TS. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) The facilitator, Mark Matthews (U.K.), has 
informed us that while it will be important to make the case 
at the EC that more activity is required to implement the 
action plan, it might be a tactical error to make too much of 
that point this early in the process.  Whatever the merits of 
those arguments, we share his general point that it would be 
beneficial for the U.S. to emphasize its support for full 
implementation of the Article VII action plan. 
 
------------------------------------ 
AGENDA ITEM SEVEN: DESTRUCTION OF CW 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶12.  (SBU)  The U.S. detailed plans for verification of 
destruction at Aberdeen, Pine Bluff and Dugway are covered 
under this agenda item.  There is also a notation under 7.2 
of the requirement for States Parties that have requested 
extension of destruction deadlines (U.S., Russia and a State 
Party) to provide a report on the status of their plans and 
implementation.  Finally, the plan for verification of 
destruction of unfilled bombs in Libya is noted in EC-36/S/6, 
dated February 24, 2004, with the TS to report to the EC on 
these destruction activities. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
AGENDA ITEM EIGHT: DESTRUCTION/CONVERSION OF CWPFS 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶13.  (U)  The sub-items are as follows: 
-- 8.1 covers the combined plan for the VX production 
facility at Novocheboksarsk (EC-32/DG.8, dated February 19, 
2003 with the draft decision EC-32/DEC/CRP.8, dated March 11, 
2003). 
-- 8.2 and 8.3 cover Pine Bluff. 
-- 8.4 covers the combined plan for the Lewisite production 
facility at Dzerzhinsk (EC-36/DG.11, dated February 11, 2004 
and the draft decision EC-36/DEC/CRP.8, dated February 11, 
2004). 
-- 8.5 covers the DF Production facility at Volgograd 
(EC-34/DG.1, dated June 4, 2003). 
-- 8.6 covers changes at the facility for non-chemical parts 
of chemical munitions at Volgograd (EC-34/DG.3*, dated June 
10, 2003). 
-- 8.7 covers the Russian changes on the chloreother 
production facility at Novocheboksarsk (EC-36/DG.2, dated 19 
January 2004). 
-- 8.8 notes a DG report on CWPFs where conversion is in 
progress, and of progress at such facilities (EC-36/R/S/1, 
dated January 30, 2004). 
 
------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM NINE: FACILITY AGREEMENTS 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶14. (U)  The sub-items are as follows: 
--9.1 covers the Belgian facility agreement (EC-31/DEC/CRP.1, 
dated November 11, 2002). 
--9.2 covers Aberdeen. 
--9.3 covers Gorny and the corrigendum (EC-35/DEC/CRP.1, 
dated September 23, 2003, and Corr. 1, dated March 1, 2004). 
--9.4 covers a Spanish facility agreement (EC-36/DEC/CRP.1*, 
dated November 5, 2003). 
--9.5 covers a Slovak facility agreement (EC-36/P/DEC/CRP.2, 
dated January 22, 2004). 
--9.6 covers Pine Bluff. 
--9.7 covers Dugway. 
--9.8 covers two U.S. facility agreements for Schedul 1 
facilities. 
--9.9 covers modifications to five U.S. facility agreements 
for CWPFs. 
--9.10 covers five U.S. facility agreements for CW 
destruction facilities. 
 
-------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM TEN: INDUSTRY ISSUES 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶15.  (U)  States Parties will have several elements to 
consider during EC-36 related to industry issues.  In terms 
of decision documents, captive use and clarification requests 
are likely candidates, but discussions during the industry 
cluster are continuing.  Facilitators for clarification 
requests, transfer reconciliation, facility agreements, and 
the handbook on chemicals are also anticipated to table EC 
report language, as detailed below. 
 
¶16.   (U)   Regarding captive use, as of March 10, the Indian 
delegation continues to lack guidance to join the consensus 
on the Schedule 2/3 decision text, but assures States Parties 
that they will have guidance by EC-36.  However, during 
discussions on captive use on March 10, the Indian delegation 
attempted to reopen discussion on the issue of definition of 
transient intermediates and their exclusion from the Schedule 
2/3 decision text.  Indian technical representatives assured 
us that they agree with the text, as written.  However, 
Indian delegates informed us that the text is with their 
industry and legal reviewers and that the text is still under 
review.  We anticipate the will table the decision for 
adoption at EC-36 in the hopes that the Indian delegation 
will consider the text favorably. 
 
¶17.   (U)   Regarding clarification requests, although 
discussions on this issue have not yet taken place during the 
industry intersessionals, bilateral discussions indicate that 
a consensus is possible on the decision text.  With a few 
non-substantive changes requested by the German and Indian 
delegations, the text should be accepted and ready for 
adoption at EC-36. 
 
¶18.   (U)   Facilitators for facility agreements will table 
EC report language to recommend the TS be more flexible in 
determining whether or not to pursue facility agreements 
during Schedule 2 inspections, taking into account plant 
complexity, flexibility and frequency of inspection.  The 
text provided to us in draft form is as follows:  "The 
Council requested the Secretariat to apply, on a case by case 
basis, more flexibility regarding the necessity to conclude 
Schedule 2 facility agreements, taking into consideration the 
information available through its verification activities and 
the interest of the Inspected State Party involved.  The 
Council expects that this will lead to a noticeable reduction 
in the overall number of Schedule 2 facility agreements which 
are required to be negotiated between the Inspected States 
Parties and the Secretariat and brought before the Council 
for approval.  The Council noted that this approach does not 
deprive either the Secretariat or the Inspected State Party 
of their roles with respect to finding an agreement on the 
need for a given Schedule 2 facility agreement in accordance 
with the provisions of the Convention." 
 
¶19.   (U)   On the issue of clarification requests in 
relation to transfer reconciliation, the facilitator 
anticipates tabling EC report language to summarize the last 
round of discussions held during the February industry 
intersessionals, as follows:  "The Executive Council noted 
(insert document reference of TS Clarification Request 
report).  The Council considered that the Technical 
Secretariat efforts to monitor and seek to resolve 
 
SIPDIS 
significant discrepancies in declarations of import/export 
Aggregate National Data (AND) were useful and should be 
continued.  Council members urged the Technical Secretariat 
(TS) to continue its efforts to streamline the clarification 
request process.  In particular, the Council encouraged the 
TS to focus its efforts on these discrepancies where both the 
 
SIPDIS 
relative mismatch between import and export data and the 
absolute amount of material involved in the mismatch are 
significant in terms of the object and purpose of the 
Convention, and suggested that the relevant thresholds for 
production declarations were good indicators of amounts that 
could be considered "significant."  Council members agreed 
the TS requires sufficient time to implement these new 
analytical procedures and that such efficiencies will better 
enable the TS to identify trends and anomalies which pose a 
risk to the object and purpose of the Convention, and were 
mindful that the harmonizing effects of C-7/DEC.14 would be 
seen for the first time in declaration of past activity for 
¶2003.  Therefore, the Council decided to return to this issue 
at an appropriate time to evaluate whether further 
efficiencies to maximize efforts to seek clarification for 
deviations contrary to the object and purpose of the 
Convention, while minimizing the administrative burdens both 
on the TS and States Parties, as necessary." 
 
¶20.   (U)   The facilitator for the discussion on handbook on 
chemicals also is anticipated to table EC report language to 
require the TS to "mark" Schedule 2/3 chemicals in the 
declaration handbook that have been declared since entry into 
force of the Convention.  Such a marking process, indicated 
by an "*" next to the chemical name, would assist States 
Parties in identifying those chemicals most normally expected 
to appear in trade.  The text being considered is as follows: 
 "The Executive Council took the view that all scheduled 
chemicals which have been declared by State Parties since EIF 
should be in the "Handbook on Chemicals".  In order to make 
it easier for National Authorities to identify the most 
commonly used Schedule 2 and 3 Chemicals which are declared 
above the relevant thresholds the should be appropriately 
marked.  The EC therefore requested the Technical Secretariat 
to mark the inclusion of chemicals in future versions of the 
"Handbook on Chemicals" through an additional column in all 
electronic formats and hardcopies.  The heading of this 
column is "declared above declaration thresholds".  The TS is 
further requested to update this information annually.  The 
EC emphasized that marking of declared chemicals does not 
indicate that other chemicals which are not marked, not yet 
included or not yet synthesized are of greater or lesser 
significance for the object and purpose of the Convention." 
 
-------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM ELEVEN: APPROVED EQUIPMENT 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶21.  (U) Sub-item 11.1 covers a proposed item under 
EC-35/DG.1, dated October 10, 2003 and the draft decision 
(EC-35/DEC/CRP.8, dated November 26, 2003).  Sub-item 11.2 
requests approval of revisions for specifications of two 
items (EC-36/DEC/CRP.3, dated January 9, 2004). 
-------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM TWELVE: NEW VALIDATED DATA 
-------------------------------------- 
¶22.  (U)  The EC is requested to consider the DG's note on 
new validated data for inclusion in the OPCW Central 
Analytical Database (EC-36/DG.6, dated February 5, 2004 and 
draft decision EC-36/DEC/CRP.6, dated February 5, 2004). 
 
--------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM THIRTEEN: ABAF REPORT 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶23.  (U)  The report of the 15th Session of the AFAB is 
available at EC-36/DG.8, dated February 9, 2004. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM FOURTEEN: FINANCIAL ISSUES 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶24.  (SBU)  Members of the U.S. delegation as well as the 
other major contributors met on March 4 with DDG Hawtin and 
raised a number of issues which are covered under this agenda 
item, including insurance (14.2), reorganization of the 
travel-management function (14.4), and the provident fund 
management board (14.5).  Unfortunately, the response has 
been less than stellar, and the report on travel management 
(EC-36/DG.14, dated March 4, 2004) simply noted that the TS 
is examining this issue.  Effective management of resources 
is an item of increasing importance to other delegations, 
particularly those who make the largest contributions. 
Whether in the formal EC sessions or in side-bar 
conversations, the concern of the U.S. in particular on this 
issue needs to be driven home to the TS. 
 
¶25.  (SBU) To be fair, one of the responses from the DDG to 
the contributors was the pitch for the DG to have more 
operational flexibility in order to achieve efficiencies. 
The Del has supported that point and continues to see the 
merits of granting the DG such authority.  Under 14.6 
(EC-36/DG.15, dated March 4, 2004), the DG will notify the EC 
of transfers of appropriated funds within or between budget 
programs.  We will press the DDG to provide a list of 
specific proposals to give the DG more leeway for 
Washington's consideration. 
 
¶26.  (SBU)  Finally, the DG will report on the status of the 
implementation of results-based budgeting, which may well be 
the most challenging and important task for the organization 
this year.  The March 2-3 RBB workshop may have been tedious, 
but it was a success as fundamental objections to RBB appear 
to have dissipated among delegations.  That, however, is a 
far cry from accomplishing the extensive amount of detailed 
work that must be completed on performance indicators for an 
RBB-based budget.  The DG publicly reiterated that the 2005 
budget will be provided in an RBB format, and we should 
ensure that there is no deviation from that goal.  However, 
we are under no illusions about the extensive amount of work 
that will need to be undertaken by the TS in the coming 
months, and the complications that may face budget 
facilitators Ian Mundell (Canada) and Gordon Eckersley 
(Australia), should the process be substantially, but not 
fully, completed as budget deliberations head into the 
end-game. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
AGENDA ITEM FIFTEEN: OIO AND EXTERNAL AUDITOR'S 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶27.  (U)  The reports are contained in EC-36/DG.7, dated 
February 9, 2004 and EC-36/S/3, dated February 11, 2004.  The 
results of a March 8 Geneva Group meeting on the OIO and 
External Auditor will be reported septel, but the general 
consensus was that action on concrete proposals regarding 
these two bodies should not be initiated at this EC, but at 
the June EC. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
AGENDA ITEM SIXTEEN: ELECTION OF EC CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMEN 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶28.  (U)  We understand that the Ambassador of Peru will be 
the Latin American candidate to assume the EC Chairmanship, 
and that all that remains is the official decision. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM SEVENTEEN: ANY OTHER BUSINESS 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶29.  (SBU)  The minor point under this item is the list of 
SAB recommendations (EC-36/2, dated February 16, 2004).  The 
critical point under this agenda item is the DG's report on 
the status of the implementation of tenure, which has become 
the overriding issue among TS personnel.  As we have 
informally notified Washington, the second round of 
separations under tenure has seriously affected staff morale. 
 As a result, it is predictable that senior TS staff would 
try to use work regarding Libya to try to freeze the tenure 
policy.  Such efforts must certainly be rejected, and the DG 
has remained solid on this point so far.  However, we note 
that the TS is trying to come up with measures that can ease 
the transition of staff who have been given separation 
notices, and we believe such measures warrant full support 
from Washington. 
 
¶30.  (U) Ito sends. 
SOBEL