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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 001487 
 
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 JOECK 
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP 
FOR JUNE 11, 2004 
 
This is CWC-72-04. 
 
--------------------- 
FINANCIAL REGULATIONS 
--------------------- 
 
¶1.  (U)  At the June 10 consultation chaired by facilitator 
Peter van Brakel (Canada), agreement was reached on all of 
the outstanding issues.  Most important for the U.S., there 
were no objections to the language concerning payment of 
Article IV/V invoices, as approved by Washington.  South 
Korea noted it would need instructions; Japan said the 
language is under consideration in Tokyo; India said it had 
no instructions, but would recommend to New Delhi adoption of 
the text. 
 
¶2.  (U)  This particular provision cites financial rules, and 
none of the rules have been adopted by the OPCW due to an 
inability to reach agreement on a small number of proposed 
rules.  In addition, van Brakel noted that while financial 
regulations become effective when adopted by the CSP, 
financial rules become effective when adopted by the EC. 
Russia therefore requested, and all delegations agreed, that 
the language in the draft decision should note that the 
specific financial rule involved (5.4.01) should come into 
effect when financial regulation 5.4 is amended by the CSP. 
 
¶3.  (U)  The following additional financial regulations and 
rules were amended, all in accordance with Washington 
instructions.  The draft decision document will note that 
only the financial rules specified will be adopted: 
-- Rule 7.1.01 
-- Rule 10.1.12 
-- Rule 12.2.01 
-- Regulation 2.2 
-- Regulation 5.1 
-- Regulation 5.4 
-- Regulation 5.6 
-- Regulation 6.2 
-- Regulation 6.3 
 
------------------ 
OPCW ANNUAL REPORT 
------------------ 
 
¶4.  (U)  The June 10 informal consultations on the 2003 draft 
report generated a substantial number of requested editorial 
changes.  All of the changes sought by Washington were 
accepted.  Most of the proposed edits were non-substantive, 
and the document will be re-issued with changes.  The only 
substantive request came from Russia, which sought deletion 
of a sentence in the introduction and paragraph 1.20 of the 
Verification section, arguing that the conversion of ten 
Russian CW production facilities had been completed. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  Verification Director Reeps stated that this would 
be discussed at the consultations on the Verification 
Implementation Report, adding that conversion of these ten 
facilities had to be certified and any outstanding questions 
resolved.  During the subsequent VIR consultations on June 
11, the Technical Secretariat produced a Corrigendum to the 
2003 VIR in which the text in paragraph 5.4, line 3, page 30, 
was changed from "the others had yet to be converted." to 
"the others had yet to be certified as converted or to 
complete conversion".  This Corrigendum is OPCW Highly 
Protected and has been DHLd to AC/CB. 
 
---------- 
OIO REPORT 
---------- 
 
¶6.  (U)  Facilitator Chiho Komuro (Japan) held her second 
consultation on the OIO Report on June 8.  Much of the 
commentary from delegations did not focus on the report 
itself, but on the status of TS implementation of OIO 
recommendations.  The German delegation led the questioning 
on the OIO comment that staff costs had not been correctly 
calculated.  Budget advisor Ali Asghar said the problem had 
been corrected and tried to explain how the calculations are 
made.  However, the general consensus was that the 
explanation was not fully satisfactory.  India noted the item 
in the report indicating there had been "personality clashes" 
within the budget section and asked if OIO had resolved the 
problem.  OIO Director Louati replied that it was not the 
OIO's job to resolve such conflicts, but simply to bring them 
to light.  He added that action to resolve the problem had 
been taken by the Director General. 
 
¶7.  (U)  India noted that the report indicated there was no 
link between budget planning and the Medium Term Plan. 
Canada replied that the MTP should not be linked too closely 
to the budget.  Switzerland then made the general point that 
it was important for the TS to have "serious" numbers for 
future budgets.  There was also general commentary from 
Brazil, India and South Africa on the need for the TS to 
provide timely information on the status of implementation of 
OIO recommendations.  Louati replied that the DG has asked 
OIO to report every month on the status of implementation. 
He then cautioned delegates by emphasizing that to the extent 
OIO staff are tasked with providing reports to SPs, that 
staff time is diverted from performing the actual assessments 
and evaluations. 
 
¶8.  (U)  The U.S. praised OIO for highlighting last year the 
possible problems with certification of the Rijswijk 
laboratory.  We noted that this is the type of proactive work 
that is valuable to the organization and the goal should be 
to identify and resolve looming problems, rather than find 
solutions after the fact.  Louati commented that the OIO had 
simply highlighted the fact that implementation of the tenure 
policy might generate staffing problems which could affect 
lab accreditation, adding that the Dutch accreditation body 
will conduct an in-depth assessment on accreditation in 
November.  He stressed that the Director General is working 
vigorously to address the issue of lab certification.  Italy 
made a suggestion about possible use of temporary staff to 
ensure accreditation, but Louati and the French delegation 
said that they did not believe this was a good solution. 
 
----------------------- 
ARTICLE X CONSULTATIONS 
----------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U)  During the June 7 consultations on the format for 
Article X, para 4, delegations finally made it all the way 
through the document.  There were no surprising proposals and 
delegations were well behaved.  The facilitator (Gaby Kruger 
- UK) plans to rework the draft and provide delegations with 
a revised format by the beginning of July.  She then plans to 
hold another round of consultations on the new draft in the 
fall.  There will be an anodyne report made at the upcoming 
EC letting delegations know the status.  Comments on the 
specific questions are below: 
 
-- Questions 18/19: France, Iran, Russia, India all favor a 
more general approach.  There was much consternation because 
the questions pertain to the military.  Switzerland and 
Canada in an effort to no limit information provided, 
suggested adding a third box with a "do not want to answer 
for national security reasons" connotation.  This idea was 
killed by Tunisia and Italy. 
 
-- Questions 20/21: Iran finds the questions confusing and 
wants them deleted.  Kruger and the UK delegate (Clive 
Rowland) both took stabs at explaining the questions without 
much avail. 
 
-- Question 22: Italy and Russia both called for its deletion. 
 
-- Question 23: France and Italy are concerned about the 
confidentiality of such information and believe the paragraph 
 
SIPDIS 
should be rephrased (no alternative was provided).  South 
Africa chimed in and proposed deleting all of Part C and 
replacing it with the proposal from their draft.  The 
agreement was that the facilitator would re-look at the 
language. 
 
-- Questions 24-27: No comments by delegations, 
 
¶10.  (U)  Javits sends. 
SOBEL