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 002168 
 
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 JOECK 
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT:  CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC):  WEEKLY 
WRAP-UP FOR 27 AUGUST 2004 
 
This is CWC-97-04. 
 
----------- 
2005 BUDGET 
----------- 
 
¶1.  (U)  The Technical Secretariat has distributed an 
information paper (transmitted to AC/CB) providing responses 
to questions raised by delegations during the July budget 
consultations.  Budget co-facilitators Gordon Eckersley 
(Australia) and Ian Mundell (Canada) have announced that they 
intend to resume budget consultations on September 7, hold 
three days of consultations that week, and inquire about the 
possibility of continuing budget discussions for two days 
during the week of September 13.  Although industry 
consultations have been scheduled for that week, Eckersley 
and Mundell will inquire whether industry consultations could 
be compressed into three days to leave more time for 
discussion of the budget.  The facilitators also emphasized 
that they would be open to follow-on questions from 
delegations for immediate transmission to the TS prior to the 
September 7 resumption of budget talks.  In an August 26 
discussion, Eckersley highlighted the fact that he and 
Mundell plan to discuss the TS proposal to convert all of the 
security guards to fixed term contracts. 
 
¶2.  (U) Del also met with Rick Martin, Head of the TS Budget 
and Finance Branch (BFB), on August 26.  Martin said that at 
this point he personally has not had a lot of inquiries from 
delegations about RBB-specific issues, such as performance 
indicators (although that could be because the budget 
consultations might be the preferred forum for raising those 
kind of matters).  He anticipates many more questions from 
delegations in the coming weeks about staff costs and, in 
particular, salary increase calculations.  He made clear he 
was open to a discussion on current practices for determining 
salary increases. 
 
¶3.  (U)  Finally, an informal sounding of delegates' views of 
the DG's proposed 4.8% budget increase for 2005, at a German 
reception on August 26, indicated that most delegations 
continue to wait for instructions from capitals on the budget 
increase.  None of the delegates queried had yet adopted a 
firm position on the proposed increase. 
 
---------------------------------- 
STATUS OF RABTA CONVERSION REQUEST 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) On August 27, the Libyan delegation presented the 
conversion request for the former CW production facility at 
Rabta, to the Technical Secretariat (TS).  As the delegation 
had been informed beforehand, the version delivered to the TS 
incorporated all the changes to the text provided to the 
Libyans by Washington via the delegation.  Delegation has 
requested a copy of the updated electronic version of the 
documents, as presented to the TS on Friday, and anticipates 
receiving it on or about August 31. 
 
¶5.  (U) Delegation has been informed by the TS that its 
initial evaluation of the documents revealed certain 
organizational and textual errors, which it intends to notify 
the Libyan delegation of on or about September 1.  The TS 
intends to continue its evaluation of the document with an 
eye to further refining it.  Delegation has notified the TS 
that Del anticipate having our next set of inputs to the 
Libyans by NLT September 3, and that Del believe all other 
parties, including the TS, must do likewise to ensure the 
paper can be updated and "finalized" by September 10, in time 
for the upcoming EC session.  Delegation notes that while the 
substantive OPCW office responsible for evaluating this 
document is fully sensitize to this timeline, historically 
the Policy Making Organs office has been responsible for 
delaying the distribution of such documents.  Delegation 
therefore intends to monitor this process closely to ensure 
the document does become hung up "at the editors." 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Delegation believes that finalization and 
distribution of the Director-General's paper evaluating the 
Libyans' proposed technical change is imminent.  Delegation 
has worked closely with the TS Legal Advisor to facilitate 
evaluation of the document by Washington and the 
incorporation of U.S. comments and suggestions in the 
document.  Having just received and evaluated the most recent 
copy of the document, delegation is satisfied that all 
Washington comments have been incorporated, though minor 
editing mistakes will be identified to the TS for final 
correction. 
 
¶7.  (U) Delegation is in the process of determining 
availability of Italian, British, and Libyan experts to 
attend a set of meetings in The Hague the week of September 
20, to scrub the Libyan documents a final time and to produce 
fodder for a Corrigendum, if one is needed.  UK has indicated 
it supports the initiative and Del will determine Libya and 
Italy's status in the next 24 hours. 
 
------------------------ 
MARQUARDT RECORDS REVIEW 
------------------------ 
 
¶8. (U) Delegation has been informally told by the TS that the 
review of destruction records at the Washington POE for the 
facility at Marquardt went extremely well.  No indications of 
problems were indicated in their preliminary internal 
reporting.  Delegation believes this will remain the case, as 
the TS viewed this largely as a "fig leaf" by which we could 
finally remove this issue from our list of outstanding 
problems. 
 
-------- 
PBA FIRS 
-------- 
 
¶9.  (U) Per guidance, delegation delivered the relevant 
talking points to the TS regarding unacceptable changes being 
made by the TS to the Final Inspection Reports for Pine Bluff 
Arsenal production facility destruction inspections. 
Immediate if informal feedback from the TS is that they will 
likely cease and desist pushing on the subject of enumerating 
ranges of quantities of items of equipment designated by the 
U.S. as "various." 
 
-------------------------------- 
AMCIT REPRESENTATION AT THE OPCW 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (U)  Del continues to be actively engaged with personnel 
in the Human Resources office regarding Amcit representation 
in the OPCW, an issue which Ambassador Javits has raised with 
the Director-General.  In early August, Del met with HR 
director Eva Murray and others from the TS Human Resources 
and Recruitment offices to discuss both hiring practices 
within the TS and the status of Amcit applications. 
 
¶11.  (U)  During those discussions, HR reviewed the hiring 
process, noting that the process typically involved 
applications received by TS, from which "short lists" of 
qualified candidates drawn up for proposal to a review board. 
 The review board is comprised of representatives from the 
office holding the open slot, the incumbent (if available), 
staff rep from human resources and a representative from the 
DG's office.  HR noted how the factor of "geographic 
distribution" is part of the consideration of filling posts 
and that this delays the hiring process and has an impact on 
the applicant pool. 
 
¶12.  (U)  HR staff noted that U.S. representation at the OPCW 
might be aided by U.S. proposal of "national candidates," a 
practice common with other States Parties.  To obtain a 
better picture of the overall status of Amcit applications, 
we were provided an opportunity to review submitted 
applications for open positions.  From this review, Del 
requested copies of Amcit applications for review by 
Washington.  Del also requested breakdowns of percentage 
representation of SP staff at the OPCW, with specifics 
regarding senior management slots vs. general slots. 
Finally, Del have spoken with several TS Amcit staff who have 
experienced the hiring practices at the OPCW, in particular, 
two Amcit staff in the legal office were not hired despite 
having very impressive resumes and qualifications. 
 
--------------- 
IT ISSUES - VIS 
--------------- 
 
¶13.  (U)  Greg Linden, Chief/Information Services Branch 
(ISB), presented a status report on the Verification 
Information System Enhancement Project (VIS) to the 
Director-General and Deputy DG on August 18 (faxed and sent 
by DHL back to AC/CB).  A wide range of views among the VIS 
Project Management Board members (DDG, Chief/Verification 
Division, Acting Chief/Inspectorate, Chief/Office of 
Confidentiality and Security, and Chief/ISB) led the DG to 
 
SIPDIS 
decide to put the VIS contract temporarily on hold while the 
Project Management Board takes stock of the situation and 
decides the best way forward. 
 
¶14.  (U)  As a significant element of this effort, the DG 
recommended that the OPCW accept the U.S. offer of a 
cost-free IT expert and contracting officer who will play a 
key role in the project assessment effort.  (Note: the DG's 
letter accepting that offer was FAXed to Washington on August 
¶20.  Delegation has received Washington's reply and a letter 
from Ambassador Javits to the DG will be delivered on 
September 1.)  Although the U.S. Voluntary Contribution of 
$570,000 has been expended, funding for the follow-on VIS 
project should be available from the current TS FY04 budget. 
 
¶15.  (U)  Linden reported that, in his view, VIS has suffered 
from lack of full-time TS personnel, disagreements among 
Project Management Board members, and the contractor's 
inability to cope with the expanding scope of the contract. 
Linden intends to redress these issues by assigning three or 
four ISB staff to VIS full-time.  The U.S. offer to provide a 
cost-free Project Manager/Contracting Officer is greatly 
appreciated and will significantly enhance the VIS effort. 
Linden questioned whether Sitar, Inc., can handle the VIS as 
now envisaged and is open to involvement of other companies 
if needed.  Finally, Linden characterized the DDG as a good 
manager with no previous experience in IT development 
efforts, which has contributed to the infighting. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
IT ISSUES - IPB REQUEST FOR COST-FREE IT EXPERT 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶16.  (U)  The TS Implementation Support Branch (IPB) provided 
the delegation its proposal for a cost-free U.S. IT expert 
(faxed back to AC/CB).  IPB is proposing to house an IT 
expert for a full year (2005) to work on three tasks: update 
and put on-line InfoPack number 1, develop and update an 
interactive on-line and CD-ROM based version of InfoPack 
number 2, and populate the newly developed National 
Implementation Profiles database.  Del noted the importance 
the U.S. places on SPs' national implementation effort and 
that commencing this important implementation support effort 
in January could have a negative impact on SPs' efforts to 
implement by CSP-10.  Del asked whether some of the work 
could start earlier, say around CSP-9.  Sergei   Kisselev of 
IPB said that yes, perhaps some work could start in November. 
 (Note: Chief/IPB told us that the same request also had been 
made to a number of other delegations.  When told that the 
proposed work program did not seem to require someone 
full-time for a year, she 
replied that more tasks would be considered and assigned over 
time). 
 
¶17.  (U)  Del asked whether Chief/ISB Greg Linden was aware 
of the proposal and if so, whether he supported the 
initiative.  Kisselev said that no, ICB had yet to advise 
Linden of the effort, but that the IT expert would work 
closely with ISB.  Because the OPCW website is maintained by 
Peter Kaiser, Chief/Office of Public Affairs, the expert 
actually would need to work closely with the OPA personnel 
who designed and now maintain the website.  Del asked both 
Kaiser and Linden whether they were aware of the ICB's 
request and both replied they were not aware of that request 
to the U.S.  Furthermore, Linden noted that, per an ICB 
request, ISB developed a beta version of the National 
Authorities chat room that is now being tested in Public 
Affairs.  Linden's concern is not ICB's request for 
programming, it is the availability of knowledgeable ICB 
moderators to ensure acceptable content and to make sure 
questions posted to the site are answered quickly. 
 
¶18.  (U)  To ensure that all affected TS offices fully 
support the ICB request to the U.S., Del are arranging a 
meeting with representatives of those offices the week of 
September 6.  In separate discussions, we will also make the 
point that similar official TS requests should be made by 
senior TS officials who can ensure that any such request is 
made only after being fully vetted within the TS. 
 
------------------- 
OCPF SITE SELECTION 
------------------- 
 
¶19.  (U)  Facilitator Johan Verboom (Netherlands) held an 
informal discussion with U.S. Del rep, Arya Sandeep/India, 
and Theo Juurlink/TS on August 26, proposing that the next 
consultation, to be held sometime during the industry 
intersessional (exact date TBD), begin the process of 
breaking down the Swiss/U.S. methodology into its three 
components and allowing delegations to debate each element 
individually.  To start off, Juurlink will present the TS 
proposal for distribution of its information points, breaking 
down the A14 methodology into its component factors and 
introduce several possible new factors (late/incomplete 
declarations, site relevance -- high:batch & 
multi-purpose/intermediate:in the middle/low:dedicated and 
continuous process, etc).  Juurlink intends to incorporate 
delegations recommendations into an auditable, 
nondiscriminatory, and repeatable TS methodology.   If time 
allows, the facilitator will initiate debate on the first 
element in the Swiss/U.S. paper -- probability proportional 
to size of the SPs' OCPF industry.  Sandeep noted that India 
prefers the current practice of equally weighting SPs, and 
that India could not support the Swiss/U.S. alternative. 
 
¶20.  (U)  The facilitator proposes beginning debate in 
mid-October on the third piece -- SPs' nomination points. 
Verboom plans to keep the discussion limited to the Indian, 
Swiss, TS, and U.S. delegations.  Sandeep noted Delhi's 
concern regarding potential for politicization and collusion, 
and proposed (on a personal basis) that instead, SPs could 
nominate a class of facilities against which the TS could 
spread their points.  This could mimic the A14 factors, 
making it easier for the TS to process.  Sandeep also noted 
India's dislike of equal weights for each of the three 
factors.  Del replied that other suggestions are welcome. 
 
---------------------- 
TS TRANSFER MONITORING 
 
SIPDIS 
---------------------- 
 
¶21.  (U)  Del continues working with Radoslav Deyanov of the 
TS Declarations Branch to support TS efforts to publish a 
 
SIPDIS 
comprehensive paper on transfers monitoring.  Del understands 
the paper is in the DG's office for review and is unchanged 
from the redline version provided to AC/CB in mid-August. 
Once the DG has signed off on release of the paper, Deyanov 
plans to approach select delegations with the text to solicit 
feedback.  Deyanov anticipates DG release of paper by late 
Sept 3. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
LATE SUBMISSIONS OF ART. VI DECLARATIONS 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶22.  (U)  Del continues coordination with Leo Espinoza, 
Sandor Laza and Carlos Trentadue of the Declarations Branch 
to complete a paper on late submissions of Art. VI 
declarations in preparation for industry consultations in 
November.  Anticipated facilitator (Williams, U.S.) has a 
paper in draft form and is awaiting additional information 
from the TS regarding late submissions impact on the 
selection process to identify operational concerns to spur SP 
interest.  Options for consideration proposed in the paper 
include recommending unclassified TS reporting on SPs and 
relevant plant site numbers prior to EC sessions, reporting 
directly to the EC instead of during destruction informals, 
increasing the chances for selection of plant sites submitted 
late and emphasizing the need for nil/null declarations as 
affirmative responses to complete status picture. 
 
¶23.   (U)  While the proposed mechanism for resolution will 
depend upon SP input during consultations, options include 
standard draft decision language, EC report language or, 
following the lead of transfer discrepancies, requesting the 
TS to issue a paper/guidelines concerning TS actions for SPs 
 
SIPDIS 
to consider.  Once data is received from the declarations 
branch, the draft paper will be provided to AC/CB for review 
targeted for the end of next week, then to WEOG for 
coordination and bilateral discussions in mid-Sept.  Based 
upon discussions with WEOG countries, by early Oct., the 
target is to distribute the facilitator's paper to State 
Parties for consideration well in advance of November 
consultations.  This should provide sufficient time for 
States Parties to consider the subject and consult with the 
facilitator prior to consultations so that a quick resolution 
recommending TS action can be sought prior to the November 
round of consultations. 
 
¶24.  (U)  Ito sends. 
RUSSEL