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 001720 
 
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): STATUS REPORT 
ON 2004 PRIORITIES 
 
REF: A. STATE 28009 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 1695 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 1697 
 
This is CWC-86-04. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  (U) The successful completion of the 37th Executive 
Council session (Ref B) marks the appropriate time to assess 
the status of U.S. priorities for the first half of 2004 (Ref 
A).  There has been substantial progress on results-based 
budgeting, more effective intersessional work and EC 
sessions, and optimization of verification.  We have also 
moved forward on Article VII, universality, promoting 
compliance, and addressing the entire range of Article VI 
issues.  In the case of information technology, and the 
Verification Information System (VIS) Enhancement Project in 
particular, progress had been made but there is still much 
work to be done (Ref C).  End Summary. 
 
----------------------- 
RESULTS-BASED BUDGETING 
----------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) The Technical Secretariat has submitted the draft 
2005 budget in an RBB format, which fully lives up to the 
expectation that implementation of RBB will be a "work in 
progress."  While noting the shortcomings of this initial 
effort at use of RBB, the Advisory Body on Administrative and 
Financial Matters (ABAF) did not reject the draft budget 
format.  The two budget facilitators (Ian Mundell of Canada 
and Gordon Eckersley of Australia) recently began two weeks 
of consultations on the proposed budget (septel).  The goal 
of the two-week exercise is to have delegations provide all 
their questions on all aspects of the budget to the TS so 
that answers can be ready for States Parties after the summer 
break. 
 
¶3.  (U) While a number of delegations -- India in particular 
-- have used the facilitations to raise endless questions 
about RBB, proposed objectives and performance indicators, 
there has been no formal challenge to implementation of RBB 
for the 2005 budget.  So far, efforts to turn the budget 
consultations into a drafting exercise on objectives and 
indicators have been fought off by the facilitators as well 
as the U.S. and other delegations.  Mundell indicated to us 
that the facilitators will make a strong pitch for language 
in the introduction or preamble to the budget which will 
emphasize that refinement of the RBB objectives and 
indicators will be a continuous process, and those set out in 
the 2005 budget will be revised in coming years. 
 
¶4.  (U) We strongly support Mundell's proposal and will be 
working with the facilitators to find suitable language.  We 
are, however, under no illusion that this will end efforts to 
turn the budget discussions into a drafting exercise.  While 
a certain amount of such discussion is worthwhile to ensure 
that delegations feel they have had a chance to provide their 
inputs into the draft budget, we will work with the 
facilitators and other delegations to ensure that this is 
kept to an acceptable minimum.  In sum, substantial progress 
has been made toward adoption of a 2005 budget in an RBB 
format, and the odds on adoption of such a budget later this 
year look favorable at this time. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
EFFECTIVE INTERSESSIONAL WORK PERIODS AND COUNCIL SESSIONS 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶5.  (U) Washington had been concerned about the long 
intersessional periods before and after EC-36 (March 23-26). 
Ultimately, EC-36 and EC-37 were exceedingly productive and 
decisions were reached on a number of key issues.  Some of 
that is the result of much better preparation by the TS in 
ensuring that documents, particularly a draft annotated 
agenda, are distributed for delegations well in advance of 
the Council meetings.  Another key component was much more 
extensive coordination with the Chairman during the Council 
sessions, informing him which issues were ready for decision, 
and which required more time for consultation. 
 
¶6.  (U) In addition, the new Chairman, Amb. Jose Antonio 
Arrospide Del Busto of Peru, proved at EC-37 that he intends 
to run Council meetings in a brisk, workmanlike manner. 
Sylwin Gizowski, the Director of the Secretariat of the 
Policy-Making Organs, has indicated that the Chairman fully 
supports efforts to continue improving procedures, and we 
will be working closely with Gizowski on this matter.  One 
factor that will bear monitoring in the coming months is the 
effectiveness of the new Vice-Chairpersons.  Much of the 
credit for the successes in the first half of the year went 
to very effective facilitators.  While some Vice-Chairs were 
quite strong (such as Amb. Olbrich of Germany heading the 
industry cluster), the record was spotty.  Washington has 
emphasized that strong Vice-Chairs are needed to direct the 
work of the various clusters, and we will make every effort 
to try to steer the new Vice-Chairs to an energetic, 
well-planned agenda. 
 
¶7.    (U) Finally, we began work with the TS on IT 
improvements to ensure more effective and efficient work 
during the intersessional period.  We are coordinating with 
the TS to improve the TS external server to incorporate a 
long-term consultation calendar and posting of associated 
working facilitator and SP discussion papers for online 
access. 
 
------------------------------------- 
OPTIMIZATION OF VERIFICATION AT CWDFS 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (U) There is now general agreement between the U.S. and TS 
on a common approach to optimization of verification.  The 
visits to U.S. sites by DG Pfirter and the TS consultant 
(Diamantides/France) handling optimization have established 
that the U.S. is not blocking work in this area, but wants it 
to proceed in a constructive manner.  One complicating factor 
that made this a difficult topic was the turf battle between 
Diamantides and Verification Division chief Reeps, which has 
largely been resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. 
 
¶9.  (U) The recent presentation by Reeps to the EC on 
optimization of verification, which was fully cleared with 
the U.S., got a positive reception.  An earlier brief to the 
WEOG was equally effective, but generated a discussion on 
whether other SPs could provide an input to the process, if 
not formally "adopt" optimization efforts.  We see no reason 
for other SPs to have any formal role in optimization 
measures on which the U.S. and TS agree and believe we 
should, therefore, rebuff any future effort that might be 
made to appoint a facilitator for optimization.  Experience 
has shown, however, that an early and meaningful effort on 
the part of the TS to keep SPs informed of the optimization 
efforts being made at U.S. facilities pays big dividends in 
terms of defusing concerns over "what we're up to." 
 
-------------------- 
PROMOTING COMPLIANCE 
-------------------- 
 
¶10.  (U) The TS has been efficient in providing declarations, 
amendments, destruction and verification plans and other 
documents in a timely manner, and we have continued to 
encourage the TS on similar concrete steps to promote 
compliance.  In return, we have sought to brief appropriate 
TS personnel about our discussions with other SPs on the 
 
SIPDIS 
entire range of compliance issues.  With regard to 
preparations for conduct of a challenge inspection, the TS 
has diligently worked on the key logistical questions, and 
recognizes the importance some SPs place on this issue.  A 
good example was the extensive TS participation and the 
excellent TS presentations at the recent challenge inspection 
seminar in Vienna.  While a snafu resulting in postponement 
of a mock exercise to be hosted by Switzerland indicates 
there are still lapses by the TS, it is our impression they 
are actively engaged and making progress on this issue. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VII AND UNIVERSALITY 
--------------------------------------------- - 
¶11.  (U) On Article VII, the facilitator (Mark Matthews/U.K.) 
and the point of contact in the TS (Ralf Trapp) have made 
progress in putting meat on the bones of the action plan. 
More important, the coordination between the two, and with 
other delegations, has been excellent.  The TS issued an 
Article VII status report before EC-37 indicating little 
progress had been made since the approval of the Action Plan. 
 However, much of the information in the report was based on 
dated information.  The TS issued tailored Notes Verbale in 
early 2004, requesting status reports from relevant State 
Parties, focusing on those who previously indicated that they 
had no National Authority or had not begun the legislative 
process by late 2003.  Although not required by the Action 
Plan, the TS provided an update to EC-37 based on responses 
to the early 2004 Notes Verbale.  Again, only little progress 
was noted. 
 
¶12.  (U) The International Cooperation Branch (ICB) reported 
that it is providing tailored support programs after requests 
from 18 States Party, but resources prevent responses in 2004 
to requests from another 12 States Party.  ICB also noted 
that it had no resources for follow up after such programs 
and advised that such efforts could be a useful way for 
interested States Party to assist others who have requested 
TS help in the past.  The facilitator and TS officials held a 
 
SIPDIS 
workshop for State Parties of most concern whose missions are 
based in Brussels.  The workshop was judged to be a success, 
and it will be repeated sometime in late 2004.  The 
facilitator/TS plans a similar effort on September 1 for 
missions based in London and will include representatives 
from other OPCW delegations (including U.S. del rep, France, 
and Tunisia). 
 
¶13.  (U) After a shaky start, the effort on universality has 
been much improved in recent months.  First and foremost, the 
new facilitator (Hela Lahmar/Tunisia) has proven to be 
energetic and capable.  On the other hand, the External 
Relations Division of the TS did not start off on the right 
foot.  While conferences were held in Malta and Addis Ababa, 
the delays and complications (particularly regarding Malta) 
generated reasons for concern.  Ambassador Javits 
subsequently spoke with the DG about the need for the TS to 
become more focused in its efforts, and the last event 
sponsored by the TS (a universality event in Brussels with 
African non-States Parties) was well organized and the TS 
preparations supervised by the facilitator paid off. 
 
----------------------------------- 
STRENGTHENING THE ARTICLE VI REGIME 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶14.  (U) Work on industry issues has resulted in clearing 
away much underbrush and establishment of new tasks.  Several 
of the long-standing issues on the industry cluster list, 
including Schedule 2/3 Captive Use, Clarification Requests, 
and Facility Agreements have been closed either by EC 
decision or by EC report language.  In addition, Del 
persuaded the TS to establish and publish criteria on how to 
internally evaluate transfer discrepancies (i.e., redirecting 
the TS from the unrealistic 'material balance' effort to a 
process that focuses on resolving discrepancies from normal 
trends of reported trade).  Implementation of these criteria 
will close another open issue on the industry cluster.  This 
cleansing creates the opportunity for new work to be 
undertaken by the industry cluster. 
 
¶15.   (U) In the effort to identify and organize new 
initiatives, Del coordinated closely with the TS to enhance 
reporting regarding the status of declaration submissions and 
got the issue of late submissions of declarations onto the 
industry cluster agenda for consultations.  We are working 
with other SP, primarily in WEOG, to identify and prioritize 
new work for the cluster, which may include efforts to 
address broad problems faced by the TS and SP regarding the 
process by which declaration amendments are provided and 
nill/null declarations. 
¶16.   (U) The issue of OCPF site selection has seen some 
progress, but much work remains.  Del hosted a OCPF seminar 
in February to assist SP in understanding the math in the 
U.S.-Swiss proposal in an effort to pave the way for the 
political discussion on how best to implement the 
methodology.  The seminar was successful in facilitating a 
shift of SP from discussing the "why" to the "how" of 
implementation, although significant disagreement remains 
over how the TS will allocate its points under the system and 
how SP are to provide their input into the system. Under the 
new Dutch facilitator, work is expected to proceed by 
addressing each of the weighting factors individually to 
arrive at a consensus on how to implement the methodology. 
We have conducted several bilateral discussions with SP to 
enhance understanding in support of the seminar and 
intersessional consultations. 
 
¶17.   (U) Regarding inspection frequency, under the ongoing 
budget discussions, Del is supporting the modest increase in 
OCPF inspections and continues to work on the 'right' number. 
 We have also been active in encouraging the TS to seek 
inspection efficiencies (e.g., elimination of facility 
agreement inspection burden, reducing number of inspectors 
deployed) as a means to increase the number of inspections 
capable of being conducted, given fiscal limitations.  At 
this point, budget discussions are centered in the 10-15 
inspection increase range for the OCPF category. 
 
¶18.   (U) During discussions both bilaterally with SP and 
with the TS, we continue to defend the U.S. regulation and 
seek alternative solutions to the issue of the 90-day window 
of inspectability of OCPF sites.  Bilateral discussions with 
the French and with the TS have yet to produce a workable 
alternative solution, although both the French and the TS 
prefer to resolve this issue without wider consultations or 
alternatives that would include amending the treaty.  We 
understand efforts are underway in Washington to evaluate 
ways forward in the regulations and looks forward to further 
information that would help resolve this issue. 
 
-------------------------------- 
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶19.  (U) Work on the sampling and analysis procedures has 
ground to a halt, and this item has been moved from the 
technical into the political arena.  Although progress had 
been achieved during early-year consultations to handle the 
issue of the presence of the inspected SP representative at 
the designated laboratory separately and allow the remainder 
of the procedures to be submitted to the Council for 
adoption, subsequent consultations in June overturned that 
effort.  Several delegations, led by the Chinese, insisted 
that the procedures document be 'all or nothing.'  The 
facilitator, (Wills, Netherlands), in response to this latest 
derailment and his rapidly approaching summer retirement 
date, resigned his post and reported to the Council that no 
progress could be achieved. 
 
--------------- 
DATA AUTOMATION 
--------------- 
 
¶20.  (U)  The Verification Information System Enhancement 
(VIS) Project remains on schedule, although some TS officials 
remain concerned about the willingness of the contractor, 
Sitar, Inc, to meet TS deadlines.  Others asserted that the 
contractor is dictating the terms and timelines of the effort 
without adequate oversight.  But progress is being made.  In 
April, the contractor provided the TS a completed Relational 
Database Management System (RDBMS), although at present there 
are no completed user interfaces to make it functional.  In 
late June, the contractor also provided the TS three 
additional products for posting on the OPCW website: a 
standardized TS country code database, a standardized list of 
chemicals relevant to the CWC, and a pull-down menu of all 
the industry declaration forms included in the Declarations 
Handbook (the CTFS in TS clothing). 
¶21.  (U) Other issues remain of concern.  The contractor is 
three weeks late with a response to the TS proposal for the 
follow on effort needed to complete the project.  Although 
Greg Linden, Head of the Information Services Branch (ISB), 
is serving as the project manager, he also supervises 
numerous other IT initiatives and projects and does not have 
the time to devote to the day-to-day management of the 
contract.  ISB is below its minimal staffing level, so no one 
is able to devote daily attention to contract administration. 
 Linden and the VIS effort would greatly benefit from the 
services of a contract administrator who could oversee the 
day-to-day administrative issues, leaving Linden to oversee 
the substance of the work. 
 
¶22.  (U) TS officials have raised concerns that there has 
been inadequate security planning for the completed VIS, lack 
of planning for VIS implementation, lack of funding to 
complete the project, and lack of planning to ensure the VIS 
is endorsed by States Parties.  (Note: The DDG privately 
characterized TS critics of the project as naysayers who have 
been unwilling to make constructive suggestions on ways to 
improve the project.)  Delegation will continue to monitor 
developments closely. 
 
¶23.  (U)  Ito sends. 
SOBEL