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 001144 
 
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):  WEEKLY WRAP-UP 
FOR 7 MAY 2004 
 
This is CWC-54-04. 
 
--------------- 
DATA AUTOMATION 
--------------- 
 
¶1.  (U)  The DDG held a May 3 meeting with the Delegation on 
the status of the VIS Enhancement.  Attendees were the VIS 
project management board: DDG, Chief/Admin Herb Schultz, 
Chief/Information Support Branch Greg Linden, 
Chief/Verification Horst Reeps, and Acting Chief/Inspectorate 
Carlos Trentadue.  The DDG provided Del Reps a draft TS Note 
announcing the project and requested general Washington 
comments before the draft is sent to the DG for sign off and 
distribution to SPs.  Linden noted that the draft is the 
first in a series of probably two or three papers.  (Note: 
When read in conjunction with the timetable briefed to WEOG 
on April 20 (faxed back to AC/CB), it provides a general 
overview of the project timeline.) 
 
¶2.  (U)  Linden reviewed the status of the project.  The TS 
received bids from three companies (U.S., Netherlands, U.K.) 
on its proposal to design, develop, and test the Relational 
Database Management System (RDBMS), all of which exceeded the 
$500,000 provided by the U.S. voluntary contribution.  The 
contract was given to the US company on August 7, 2003, with 
the understanding that the contract would be renegotiated 
once certain ambiguities were clarified.  This final contract 
negotiation will be a fixed price contract with a no 
renegotiation clause, giving the contractor incentives to 
finish the job expeditiously.  The DDG also noted that an 
additional $70,000 from the management piece of the U.S. 
voluntary contribution was used to fund certain pieces of the 
VIS project. 
 
¶3.  (U)  The final timetable will be finalized and the 
contract will need to be renegotiated by the end of May 2004. 
 The TS estimates that the project will require up to an 
additional $350,000 (worst case scenario) to complete the 
project by the March/April 2005 completion date.  Schulz 
noted that the additional funds necessary could be obtained 
from the verification piece of the U.S. voluntary 
contribution, and both Reeps and Trentadue noted that the VIS 
would enhance their ability to verify treaty-related 
obligations, justifying the use of the verification funds. 
Schultz also noted that the TS would need Washington's 
permission to use up to $350,000 of the $700,000 in the 
verification piece before the contract is renegotiated. 
 
¶4.  (U)  Linden believes that it is unlikely that there will 
be significant slippage from the timetable provided to WEOG 
delegations.  The major effort was the redesign of the 
relational database to include user requirements, and this 
effort is done.  What remains to be done is the programming 
and testing, which Linden predicts will go smoothly.  Linden 
said that all the contractor's deliverables have so far met 
TS specifications.  Linden noted that the TS has contributed 
 
SIPDIS 
nearly 1,000 man hours to the project, making it the most 
significant of a number of TS IT projects (which include 
Results-Based Budgeting and SmartStream accounting projects). 
 
--------------------- 
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 
--------------------- 
 
¶5.  (U)  The Sampling and Analysis meeting on May 3 went as 
anticipated.  States Parties remain divided on the 
participation of the inspected State Party (iSP) in off-site 
analysis.  In support of returning to the June text with a 
modification which would require the participation of an iSP 
representative were France, Russia, China, Iran.  In support 
of continuing deliberations based on the March proposal were 
the U.K., Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark and Brazil.  In 
line with Del's pre-consultation suggestion to the 
facilitator (Wills, Netherlands) that if no movement is 
foreseen towards either the June or March text, the 
facilitator suggested that the best possible way forward is 
to discontinue the technical-level discussions, split the 
procedures document into two-parts (e.g., those procedures 
agreed and those dealing with the iSP representative) and 
request the Executive Council (EC) to approve the "agreed" 
procedures.  This path would render resolution of the 
participation of an iSP representative to a case-by-case 
issue and would grant EC approval to codify the Technical 
Secretariat (TS) procedures. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
¶6.  (U)  This "third" option was supported by the U.S., 
followed by Switzerland, Germany, Finland, Austria, China, 
France, and the U.K.  Only the Iranian delegation indicated 
pause regarding this approach, noting that the EC is charged 
with coming up with a "comprehensive" solution and this falls 
short of that mandate.  However, the Iranian representative 
indicated Iran would provide the option to capital for 
further consideration.  The facilitator indicated it would 
take a month or two to issue the paper and would proceed on a 
basis of acceptance of this proposal.  At the May 4 WEOG 
meeting, Germany offered that the facilitator consider 
issuing the Sampling and Analysis procedures document as a 
single version with bracketed text to identify non-agreed 
text. 
 
--------------------------------- 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER VICE-CHAIRPERSON 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (U)  During the May 4 WEOG, the issue of the Industry 
Cluster Vice-Chair was discussed.  The incoming chair of the 
Industry Cluster is Amb. Vogelaar (Netherlands).  However, 
during the WEOG, the Spanish representative indicated that 
the Asian group (Pakistan) has approached Vogelaar and the 
new Bureau with a request that one of two things happen:  1) 
either that Amb. Vogelaar be assigned now to the Legal, 
Organizational and Other Issues Cluster and that Industry be 
assigned to the Asia Group (Pakistan), or that 2) when the 
WEOG takes over as the EC Chair, the Industry Cluster 
Vice-Chair position fall to the Asian Group (Pakistan). 
 
¶8.  (U)  WEOG discussion centered upon how to handle each 
scenario and surmised that 1) WEOG's preference is for Amb. 
Vogelaar to lead industry for the year until handover to the 
Asia Group upon assumption of WEOG EC Chair, 2) If Amb. 
Vogelaar were to handle another cluster, he must be 
considered only for the Legal, Organizational and Other 
Issues Cluster and 3) that WEOG would mandate, in any event, 
that any future Vice-Chair of the Industry Issues cluster 
agree to maintain the same frequency and intensity of 
meetings as have been conducted under the leadership of Amb. 
Olbrich (Germany). 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶9.  (U)  Facilitator Mark Matthews/UK discussed progress 
implementing the Action Plan for Article VII in WEOG and held 
a May 6 consultation.  Matthews noted the TS progress report, 
the links with the recently approved      UNSC Resolution 
1540, and the intentions of London and others to lobby States 
Parties who have yet to establish a National Authority.  In 
WEOG, France reported efforts reaching out to the Francophone 
community, providing them with legal copies of the Convention 
and other documents in French, and has named a POC in Paris. 
Switzerland reported efforts including demarches, and is 
targeting SPs with bad records with which it has active 
contacts  (e.g., those aided under Article X and those who 
are trading partners in its chemical industry). 
 
¶10.  (U)  Matthews called for comments on the progress 
report, but India and Iran asked for more time, as they were 
not prepared to discuss it.  Slovakia, South Africa, Norway, 
Canada, India, and France noted that the report did not give 
SPs enough information on current status to assist in 
tailoring approaches to individual SPs and asked the TS to 
provide detailed information.  Pakistan wondered whether the 
TS had sufficient resources to assist all those requesting 
 
SIPDIS 
it.  Ralf Trapp/TS informed delegations that although only a 
few SPs requested assistance after approving the Action Plan, 
many had requested assistance prior to it, and noted that the 
TS does not have the resources to help everyone.  Trapp 
 
SIPDIS 
called on SPs to assist the TS in its efforts to supplement 
full implementation of Article VII.  TS intern Scott Spence 
demonstrated the National Legislation Implementation Tool Kit 
now available in all six languages in hardcopy and posted in 
the Legal section of the OPCW website.  Spence reported that 
the TS is providing it in hardcopy to participants in the 
regional workshops, and that TS has received many requests 
from implementing States Party for multiple copies. 
¶11.  (U)  Trapp discussed a number of TS initiatives.  First, 
the TS is in the process of disseminating Notes Verbale 
tailored to each country's situation, noting that the annex 
to the progress report included information over a year old 
and acknowledging that the tables needed to be updated. 
Trapp also distributed an informal paper on measures to 
enhance coordination between TS and SPs (FAXed back to 
AC/CB).  Trapp noted that the TS plans to update progress 
prior to each EC to supplement the semiannual reports 
required by the Action Plan, and proposed to have an informal 
meeting prior to each EC similar to the destruction informals. 
 
--------------------- 
FINANCIAL REGULATIONS 
--------------------- 
 
¶12.  (U)  Peter van Brakel (Canada) chaired May 6 
consultations on proposed amendments to the Financial 
Regulations.  The primary issue of concern to the U.S. is 
Regulation 5.4, which now has proposed language stipulating a 
"due date" for Article IV/V payments.  This has become a key 
political issue that delegations have now tied to U.S. 
efforts to expand the Working Capital Fund.  The results on 
5.4 and other items under discussion were as follows. 
 
-- Regulation 5.4:  Prior to the consultations, the Del 
informed the Russian delegation that the U.S., per 
Washington's instructions, would float the idea of a 90-day 
window for repayment.  The Russians said this was fine, but 
informed us that Moscow could not accept the current 
formulation that allowed for "partial payment" of invoices. 
That would be an administrative nightmare that Moscow could 
not accept.  In the consultations, the Delegation, per 
Washington's instructions, stipulated a timeline for payment 
of Article IV/V invoices and put the 90-day period on the 
table.  Russia then stated that it could only accept language 
on a system regarding payment once there is agreement on the 
entire invoice, noting the bureaucratic headaches. 
 
-- The FRG then proposed going back to the April 23 proposed 
wording on 5.4, which is: 
 
"Contributions subject to the provisions of Articles IV and V 
of the Convention shall be due and payable in full to the 
OPCW by the State Party concerned within 30 days of the 
receipt of the invoice or within 30 days after resolution of 
any differences regarding the invoice, whichever occurs 
later." 
 
-- France then noted that the rules require the TS to 
reimburse SPs within 30 days.  Without pressing the point, 
there was an implied argument that this should be applicable 
in reverse as well.  Van Brakel stated that there was a good 
chance a number of SPs not present at the facilitation would 
not accept 90 days.  He added that this would be particularly 
difficult for some to accept as we are now back to the idea 
that possessor states will only have to pay once the entire 
invoice is agreed upon.  In a follow-on discussion after the 
facilitation, the Del impressed upon van Brakel the 
importance of the 90-day period, and he agreed to reissue the 
proposed language for 5.4 for the May 13 facilitation with 
the 90-day period in brackets. 
 
-- Regulation 2.2: The U.S. noted that Washington is still 
looking at other places where the new definition of 
"contributions" might generate unexpected consequences.  Van 
Brakel agreed to put this particular item on hold, but noted 
that this had all developed from initial discussion of 
changing Regulations 6.2 and 6.3.  The proposal to change the 
definition in 2.2 had stemmed from a desire to ensure 
consistency.  Van Brakel said he would move the proposed 
language changes regarding "arrears" and "object of 
expenditures" into Part A (amendments which appear to have 
consensus support). 
 
-- Regulation 4.13:  In line with Washington's points, there 
was agreement among delegations that this proposed amendment 
should be excluded, but that there would be reconsideration 
of whether it might be needed as a result of decisions 
regarding other regulations. 
-- Regulation 5.12: On the language "assessed contributions 
of States Parties shall be assessed ...," Del made the case 
for the alternate language proposed by Washington.  Van 
Brakel replied that reference to Article VIII, paragraph 7 
could/could be read to also deal with Article IV/V.  While 
the existing language is repetitive, the goal is to deal only 
with "assessed" contributions, so it would be best to simply 
use that word.  As Washington's guidance was that this fix is 
nonessential, there was agreement to stick with the "assessed 
contributions" language. 
 
-- On 5.2 subpara (d), there was agreement to drop the word 
"assessed." 
 
-- Regulation 5.3:  The proposed change was accepted by all 
delegations. 
 
-- Regulation 5.5:  Delegations agreed with the U.S. that the 
proposed change is not needed.  The existing text will remain 
unchanged. 
 
-- Regulation 5.7:  The proposed changes were accepted by all 
delegations present. 
 
-- Regulation 13.3:  There were no objections to the proposed 
language, so it will be moved to Part A of the facilitator's 
document. 
 
--------------- 
CONFIDENTIALITY 
 
SIPDIS 
--------------- 
 
¶13.  (U)  Facilitator Betsy Sanders/U.S. convened a May 7 
meeting to debate the draft decision Amendments to the OPCW 
Policy on Confidentiality (EC-36/DEC/CRP2).  Rob Simpson, 
Head of the Office of Confidentiality and Security (OCS), 
briefed delegations on the reasons underlying the TS proposal 
to change the Confidentiality System (C-I/DEC.13).  Basically 
there are two proposals.  One would change the phrase 
"designated security unit" to Office of Confidentiality and 
Security to reflect the DG's decision to make OCS the 
responsible unit.  The second is to eliminate the protected 
classification level and handle all classified material at 
the Highly Protected level, reflecting in the rules the 
current TS practice.  Delegations expressed serious 
reservations with the second proposal.  Germany questioned 
whether the Confidentiality Commission had the mandate and 
expertise to make these recommendations.  Simpson reminded 
Germany that, although not within its mandate, the EC had 
tasked the Commission to review and recommend changes to the 
policy. 
 
¶14.  (U)  Germany, Canada, Iran, India, The Netherlands, and 
France questioned whether the TS had sufficiently justified 
the rationale for the proposed changes and called for TS 
papers to provide background papers in support of the 
proposed changes, on the issue of over-classification, and an 
assessment of whether the proposed changes would result in 
increased over-classification of information.  Simpson noted 
that the RevCon asked the TS for a number of papers that will 
touch on these issues and will be issued in the next month or 
so which will include an assessment of document handling 
procedures at other international organizations, the issue of 
over-classification, and the issue of long-term handling of 
classified material.  Delegations agreed to delay their 
debate of the draft decision until these papers have been 
disseminated. 
 
¶15.  (U)  Ito sends. 
SOBEL