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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 THE HAGUE 001105 
 
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 LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC):  WRAP-UP FOR 
9-23 APRIL 2004 
 
This is CWC-52-04. 
 
------------ 
Article IV/V 
------------ 
 
¶1.  (U)  Facilitator Johan Verboom/Netherlands held a 22 
April consultation on his draft decision on the Late Receipt 
of Article IV and V Income and the Working Capital Fund. 
Regarding the preambular paragraphs, Russia and Korea 
expressed concern that the language regarding possessor 
states' responsibility for the cost of destruction is 
misleading, and requested that CWC language from Article IV 
paragraph 16 should be used instead.  Delegations agreed to 
put the language calling for the financing of the Working 
Capital Fund (WCF) using the cash surpluses at the end of the 
second operative paragraph.  Delegations were confused by use 
of the terms ceiling and level and requested that the term 
level be eliminated. 
 
¶2.  (U)  The TS presented a paper justifying its request to 
raise the WCF to ten million euros and allowing for three 
years after the financial period to replenish the WCF (faxed 
to AC/CB).  The TS request to raise the WCF to ten million 
euros was supported by Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, 
Canada, and China; Japan requested a more thorough 
justification; and Italy stated that it could not support the 
requested ten million euros.  No delegation supported the TS 
request for an additional three years to replenish the WCF. 
Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Iran and Canada 
all supported one additional year.  India requested 
clarification on how the increase would be funded, asking 
whether the cash surpluses would be refunded to SPs and then 
returned after a special assessment.  The TS replied that no, 
the money would stay in the TS accounts. 
 
--------------------- 
Financial Regulations 
--------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U)  April 15 Consultation:  Facilitator Peter Van 
Brakel/Canada held a consultation on 15 April to invite final 
comments on two papers: the Proposed Amendment to Financial 
Rule 12.2.01 and the EC decision document and Annex of 
proposed amendments to the Financial Regulations.  No 
discussion ensued, so the facilitator presumed consensus. 
Next the facilitator asked for discussion of the draft U.S. 
paper suggesting other amendments to the financial 
regulations.  Delegations were confused by the definition of 
contingency margin that mixed the concepts of income 
currently received with a future determination of funding 
adequacy.  Germany noted the relation to regulation 4.7.01 
which directs the DG to calculate the contingency margin as 
related to assessed contributions, but does not account for 
Article IV/V contributions and interest.  Finally, 
delegations agreed to live with the contradiction as it 
accurately reflects current practice.  The facilitator 
suggested that the term "income received and anticipated" 
might eliminate the confusion and noted that this would be 
discussed in the next session (22 April). 
 
¶4.  (U)  Next delegations focused on the definition of 
"object of expenditure."  TS official Herb Schulz remarked 
that the TS had already streamlined these after ABAF 
suggested that this would clarify expenditure records.  India 
asked for a definition of uniform classification, along with 
several concrete examples.  Further discussion was deferred 
to the next session.  Discussion moved to Article 13.3, where 
delegates were concerned about the concept of "value for 
money" audits and asked whether the TS had ever authorized 
one.  Schulz explained that there are two types of audits, 
one strictly financial, the other that looks at efficiency 
and effectiveness.  India asked how the TS sets guidelines 
for external audits and whether this was consistent with the 
practices of other UN organizations.  Schulz responded that 
there are internationally accepted audit standards, which 
direct audit processes.  Schulz also noted that the auditors 
have discussed why there has not yet been a TS "value for 
money" audit in the past and have recommended that the TS 
have them done in the future.  One may be done on the 
recruitment process, according to Schulz. 
 
¶5.  (U)  Final tidbits: Other proposals suggested in the U.S. 
paper were amendments to Regulations 2.2, 3.5, 3.7, 4.7, and 
4.12.  At the next session, the issue of waiving the 
eight-week advance submission to the next EC for a 
supplementary budget (Regulation 3.5) will be discussed. 
Discussion will also include changing the Regulation 3.7 
period to a year, and whether Regulation 4.12 should be 
discussed in this consultation of transferred to the Article 
IV/V consultation.  Germany proposed holding joint sessions 
where the two topics overlap.  The facilitator noted that he 
would make changes and redistribute the paper (forwarded to 
AC/CB 19 April). 
 
¶6.  (U)  April 22 Consultation:  At the April 22 
consultation, Van Brakel reported that discussion of all 
proposed changes to the regulations would fall in his 
facilitation.  Those relevant to the Article IV/V discussions 
would be carefully coordinated with the facilitator.  Debate 
focused on the 20 April facilitator's paper (e-mailed to 
AC/CB).  With regard to Regulation 2.2, contributions were 
defined as those amounts payable by States Parties (SPs) 
subject to the provisions of Articles IV, V, and VII of the 
Convention.  With regard to Regulations 6.2, 6.3, the 
delegations overwhelmingly supported using the term 
provisional cash balance because at the end of the financial 
year, there is always a deficit, due to the invoicing process 
(no invoices are issued during the first and last six weeks 
of the year), late receipts of interest, etc.  All 
delegations preferred the bracketed language Article V of 
these regulations.  For Regulation 6.3 (c) tick 3, Russia, 
China, Germany, Italy, and France argued that the 
hierarchical structure needed to be maintained, and the 
U.S.-proposed change to the word other is too general.  What 
needs to be deducted is payment for any arrears of Article 
IV/V payments, and Germany proposed revising tick 3 as 
follows: any arrears of assessed contributions subject to the 
provisions of Articles IV and V of the Convention. 
 
¶7.  (U)  The U.S., supported by Russia and Germany, noted 
that more time was needed to consideration the Regulation 5.4 
proposal.  Russia suggested that one way forward might be to 
mirror 4.12.01 ticks d and e, where 60 days is allowed for 
the SP and TS to settle any disputes regarding the invoiced 
amounts and then the SP has 30 days to pay the agreed amount. 
 Austria noted that Russia got it wrong: the TS has 60 days 
to present the invoice and then the SP has 30 days to pay it. 
 Germany suggested revising via something such as: invoices 
with sufficient detail, will be forwarded by the TS to the SP 
within (tbd) days.  After being checked for accuracy, the 
invoice shall be paid by the SP within 30 days.  All 
delegations agreed that more time was needed to consider the 
proposed language for Regulation 4.13.  The facilitator noted 
that he had tried to mirror Regulation 4.12 in reflecting the 
Article IV/V situation, but recognized that more work was 
needed. 
 
------------ 
Universality 
------------ 
 
¶8.  (U)  Delegation worked with WEOG Chair Ruth Flint 
(Switzerland) to elicit views on wither the 5-7 May Malta 
Workshop should be postponed.  Most delegations agree that TS 
preparations have been inadequate, and would support 
postponement, but believe that it may be too late.  The sole 
hold out was Spain, which believes that a regional workshop 
in the Mediterranean region focused solely on National 
Implementation will advance OPCW goals.  On the margins of 
the financial regulations consultation, External Relations 
Director Huang Yu told delegations that the TS is pressuring 
Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey to 
ensure their participation (note: but as of 19 May, only 
Greece has formally indicated its attendance).  Egypt 
informed the TS that it will not have official representation 
in Malta, but Huang told delegations that his Egyptian 
friend, an academic, might be willing to attend.  The two 
NSPs who have confirmed are Israel and Comoros; the TS has 
not heard from Djibouti or Somalia. 
 
¶9.  (U)  Flint alerted delegation that during her 
conversation with Rafael Grossi, he indicated that the DG 
wants the workshop to go ahead, that attending delegations 
will be able to pressure Israel to ratify the Convention, 
that copies of the documentation will be distributed to 
Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, and that the workshop has been in 
preparation for over a year.  Grossi said that Egypt and 
Syria should not be allowed to "veto" a workshop, and that it 
is important for the TS to reach out to the region.  The DG 
has announced that he will chair a consultation on the Malta 
Workshop on 23 April. 
 
¶10.  (U)  As of 19 April, the following SPs have registered 
for the workshop: Albania, Bosnia, Greece, Japan, Libya, 
Moldova, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia, Spain, UAE, and the UK. 
The EU and the Arab League also have confirmed their 
attendance.  The TS assured delegations that Algeria, Cyprus, 
Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey had verbally indicated that they 
would send representatives but had yet to confirm. 
 
¶11.  (U)  On April 23, the DG chaired a meeting to discuss 
the status of the Malta workshop.  He noted that a 
Universality-related exercise had been requested by the 
Mediterranean SPs some time ago and has been under TS 
preparation for about a year.  Originally it was to have been 
held in Algeria, but the venue was changed to Malta after the 
Algerians were unable to host it due to a conflict with the 
timing of their national elections.  As of Thursday 22 April, 
the following Mediterranean SPs have indicated their 
participation: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Comoros (nonSP), 
Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Israel (nonSP), Italy, Libya, 
Moldavia, Morocco, Portugal, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, and the 
UAE.  Other registered participants are China, Japan, Russian 
Federation, the UK, and the U.S.  The DG reported that the TS 
would continue to press Algeria and France to attend. 
 
¶12.  (U)  The DG summarized TS efforts to encourage non-SPs 
to attend.  He met locally with the Ambassadors of Israel and 
Egypt, but was unable to arrange similar meetings with the 
Ambassadors of Lebanon and Syria.  He also met with Abu Musa, 
the DG of the Arab League of States.  These meetings resulted 
in the attendance of two Israeli participants and a 
representative from the Arab League.  The Tunisian delegate 
reported that she contacted the Lebanese Charge who advised 
that Beirut had yet to provide instructions but expected 
something by 28 April.  She also reported that she contacted 
the Jordanian embassy that had reported Amman is willing to 
participate, but because the National Authority was being 
reorganized, it had yet to respond. 
 
¶13.  (U)  Responses from the attendees ranged from support 
for the conference to requests for postponement.  All present 
supported the concept of the Mediterranean regional workshop 
on Universality and regretted that some of the regional 
nonSPs would not be attending.  China, Japan, the Russian 
Federation, and Spain all supported the 5-7 May conference 
dates even without the presence of all the regional nonSPs, 
but stressed the importance of follow-up with these states. 
Japan noted that it would be sending its former Ambassador to 
Egypt to report on the conference and to lobby the nonSPs for 
accession after the workshop.  Spain emphasized that the 
workshop would allow attendees to make progress on National 
Implementation. 
 
¶14.  (U)  France appealed for postponement, noting that it 
would not attend the conference if held 5-7 May.  France 
noted that the situation in the Mideast is delicate at best, 
and requires careful treatment and approaches that have not 
been met by TS preparations.  France stressed that the Action 
Plan called for the TS to provide SPs a comprehensive and 
structured plan of activities for the coming year, but so far 
the list of activities have lacked structure, detail, and 
strategy, noting that the usual approach of seminars and 
workshops which have worked well in some regions may not work 
in others.  France called for more in depth thinking on new 
ways interactively among the TS and SPs.  Iran and The 
Netherlands supported the French intervention and called for 
postponement.  Algeria, Canada, and Germany expressed their 
preference for postponement but noted that time was too short 
and called for the TS to better coordinate with SPs in the 
future. 
 
¶15.  (U)  Algeria, supported by the other attendees, stressed 
to the TS that it needed to carefully consider which 
participants it sponsored, limiting sponsorship to those 
truly in need, noting that some requesting sponsorship could 
swim to Malta.  Algeria noted that in spite of the pride the 
TS is taking in its efforts to involve the Arab League, the 
 
SIPDIS 
Arab League has no official statues and cannot speak for its 
member states.  Algeria also noted that not all of the nonSPs 
were members. 
 
---------------------- 
Information Technology 
---------------------- 
 
¶16.  (U)  During the 20 April WEOG, Information Systems 
Branch chief Greg Linden presented the status of and plans 
for the Verification Information System (VIS) Enhancement 
project (faxed back to AC/CB).  Delegates welcomed and 
actively supported this effort.  Linden emphasized that the 
VIS project is a "people project" vice an information 
technology (IT) development project -- it includes elements 
targeted at training users (TS and SPs) as well as ensuring 
that the system meets the needs of the primary TS users. 
There is a project board is headed by the DDG, and there are 
a number of project managers (Linden is one).  There also is 
a function team (comprised of individuals from security/OCS, 
Declarations Branch, Verification Branch, and others) and a 
quality assurance team that is evaluating the deliverables 
received from the contractor Sitar, Inc. 
 
¶17.  (U)  By late summer 2004, the TS plans to ask SPs to 
help test the VIS prototype and by March/April 2005, the TS 
expects that SPs will be able to send to and receive 
electronic data from the TS.  The TS intends to use the 
October 2004 industry declarations to permit the Verification 
and Declarations Branches to test the system.  Linden noted 
that several SPs have approached the TS and volunteered to 
participate.  Sitar, Inc, is putting together a final 
detailed schedule, which is being vetted by the TS and is 
expected to be finalized in May 2004. 
 
¶18.  (U)  New Zealand and Canada noted the different 
reporting requirements among SPs with large industries which 
can require thousands of pages of information using many of 
the 48 forms in the Declaration Handbook while SPs with small 
industries only require a few pages using a minimal number of 
forms.  They noted their concern that a read/write tool 
developed by a SP with a large industry that includes all 48 
forms might not be user-friendly for SPs with small 
industries.  Linden noted that the U.S.-developed CFTS will 
be provided to SPs on a trial basis and welcomed their 
assessment.  The TS is first developing the VIS for its own 
use, but it then plans to engage SPs to determine what works 
best for all necessary.  He noted that whatever read/write 
tool eventually is given to SPs will adhere to the CFTS 
protocol. 
 
¶19.  (U)  Germany noted the need to balance the security of 
the VIS with the security audit function.  It noted the past 
irregularity of audits as well as the lack of standard 
mandates and asked whether the TS would establish annual 
security audits once the VIS is in place.  Germany also asked 
if an outside institution or company accredited for security 
reviews might be hired for an independent assessment.  Linden 
agreed that the security audit process needs to be 
regularized, but that this falls under the purview of OCS. 
He reported that the TS considered hiring a company to do an 
independent audit, but while it could certify that the TS met 
IT ISO standards, the estimated cost was $250,000. 
Furthermore there is no international standard, so that one 
country might not recognize another country's security 
assurance certification.  Linden noted that the TS will meet 
the ISO standard for information security and discussed one, 
less expensive possibility that would involving hiring a 
company to come in and "break" the system, leading to 
identification of IT security flaws. 
 
¶20.  (U)  Netherlands first asked about the cost of the 
project (answer: ten contractor, ten in-house, all funded by 
a voluntary contribution) and secondly about VIS 
implementation: if SPs don't have the skills to implement 
Article VII, how does TS plan to help them acquire the IT 
skills needed to participate?  Linden replied that SPs will 
still be able to submit paper copies; he also is meeting with 
Magda Bauta to plan how to provide expertise and/or train 
eventual users.  Linden also noted that if a SP turns in a 
hard copy declaration, the TS intends to provide it with an 
electronic copy of its declaration, allowing it to easily 
update declarations as well as permit future electronic 
submissions of its industry data.  The TS recognizes that 
this will be a slow transition but if the TS can get the 
10-12 SPs with the largest industries to participate, the TS 
will receive 80% of industrial data declarations 
electronically. 
 
------------------------- 
Scientific Advisory Board 
------------------------- 
 
¶21.  (U)  On April 16, we met with TS representative Ralf 
Trapp to discuss TS efforts to coordinate with the Scientific 
Advisory Board (SAB) temporary working group on Biomedical 
Samples.  The first meeting of this working group is 
tentatively scheduled, pending funding and attendee 
availability, for 16-17 June at the OPCW headquarters.  Trapp 
provided Del with a proposed list of attendees, containing 
the names of two Americans (J.R. Smith from US AMRICD and Dr. 
J.R. Barr, CDC), whom the TS has been in contact with 
regarding participation in the working group.  Trapp 
requested the U.S. support American participation in the 
working group and indicated attendees may have to pay their 
own way to the meeting. 
 
¶22.  (U)  Javits sends. 
RUSSEL