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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002409 
 
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 SEPTEMBER 17, 2004 
 
This is CWC-110-04. 
 
--------------------- 
DATA AUTOMATION (VIS) 
--------------------- 
 
¶1.  (U)  At the request of DG Pfirter, Glen Johnson, Office 
Director of VC/VO, assessed the Technical Secretariat 
accomplishments on the Verification Information System (VIS) 
Enhancement project over the past year and recommended how 
best to move the project forward.  Johnson determined that 
significant progress has been made, but much remains to be 
done.  A Relational Data Base Management System prototype is 
in-house and will be ready to test after the completion of 
some interface programming work.  Johnson recommended that 
the best way to move the project forward would be to hire two 
database programmers for in-house work and not renew the 
contract with Sitar, Inc.  He also recommended that the DG 
establish a full-time project leader from the Verification 
Division, who would be supported by two full-time programmers 
from Information Services Branch (ISB), one officer from the 
Office of Security and Confidentiality (OCS), and two 
officers from Verification Division.  The DG, upon receipt of 
the recommendations, immediately named Ruth Mohlenkamp 
(Germany) as project leader. 
 
--------------------------------- 
REQUEST FOR A COST-FREE IT EXPERT 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U)  Del reps and visiting expert Glen Johnson met with 
Magda Bauta and Anand Dhavle (Implementation Support Branch 
(ISP)), Peter Kaiser (Public Affairs), and Greg Linden (ISB) 
to review Bauta's requests for a cost-free U.S. expert.  Del 
reps noted that such as expert is not cost-free to U.S., and 
that the U.S. needed specific project details in order to 
match expertise with the job requirements. 
 
¶3.  (U)  All participants reviewed the expert's proposed job 
elements. 
 
-- First, the individual would mount the updated training 
materials from the Infopack1 CD-ROM onto the OPCW website. 
Kaiser noted that these materials were already available and 
that an IT expert was not needed to merely do an update. 
 
-- Second, the expert would mount the materials on the 
Infopack2 CD-ROM onto OPCW Website.  Kaiser noted that a 
better way to proceed at far less expense would be to hire a 
vendor that specializes in development of IT-based training; 
this was not a computer programming effort.  Johnson strongly 
seconded this suggestion, estimating that it would cost about 
$50,000 to do web-based training using both infopacks in a 
matter of weeks. 
 
-- Third, Bauta proposed that the IT expert complete the 
programming of and then populate the National Implementation 
Profile System (NIPS) Database.  Linden responded that the 
NIPS programming is completed and only minor tweaking remains 
to be done; database population is not a job for an IT 
expert.  Bauta replied that the latter could be done by two 
interns working in her section. 
 
-- Fourth, Bauta wants the joint U.S./Romanian training under 
development mounted on the OPCW website (again, this could be 
done from Washington). 
 
¶4.  (U)  Finally, del reps discussed Bauta's request for a 
National Authority Chat Room.  Kaiser noted that a chat room 
is already up and running on a trial basis.  The issue is not 
the technology; it is the critical necessity to have a 
moderator who will be available to check content for 
questionable material or inaccuracies.  Bauta noted that she 
did not have the resources to support this.  Linden 
recommended sending prospective users a survey to determine 
topics that would be of most interest, to restricting the 
task to just one or two threads. 
 
¶5.  (U)  Participants agreed that the proposed effort would 
be better supported by using the remaining 25,000 euros 
remaining in the FY04 ISP budget to hire a vendor to develop 
an interactive web-based training materials.  Del reps agreed 
to explore possible funding streams for the remaining circa 
$25,000 probably needed to fund the effort. 
 
--------------------------- 
REPORTS OF SYRIAN USE OF CW 
--------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (U)  There was extensive discussion among delegations of 
the September 15 article in the German periodical "Die Welt" 
alleging that western intelligence services have determined 
that Syria tested CW on civilians in the Darfur region of 
Sudan in June.  DG Pfirter subsequently wrote to the 
Ambassadors of Sudan and Syria, highlighting the press items 
and requesting a response. 
 
------------------------------ 
COUNTERTERRORISM WORKING GROUP 
------------------------------ 
 
¶7.  (U)  Counterterrorism Working Group (CTWG) facilitator 
Sophie Moal-Makame (France) held a consultation 20 September 
to review TS outreach efforts and to consider how the OPCW 
can best support global CT efforts.  The facilitator briefly 
reviewed OPCW and UN CT initiatives before asking the DG for 
opening remarks and Special Advisor Khodakov to review TS 
outreach efforts.  Khodakov has initiated discussions with 
Europol, NATO's WMD center, OSCE, Interpol, 
InterParliamentary Union, South and SE European cooperation 
units, and the CIS CT center.  Possible areas for cooperation 
were identified as information exchanges, relevant workshops, 
training, exercises, and various assistance programs.  Future 
TS outreach efforts will include the African Union, the EU, 
 
SIPDIS 
international customs agencies, etc. (Note: Iran warned the 
TS against reaching out to the Australia Group).  The 
 
SIPDIS 
facilitator gave the floor to the UK, which gave a brief 
presentation on two of its CW terrorist exercises. 
 
¶8.  (U)  Finally the facilitator asked for delegations' 
suggestions on their views of possible areas for future 
CT-related efforts.  South Africa sees no reason for further 
meetings.  Other delegations were unanimous:  the mandate of 
the OPCW cannot be extended, universality and full effective 
implementation are the most significant contributions SPs can 
make to the CT campaign; the OPCW must adhere to its core 
objective and purpose.  The Netherlands suggested that SPs 
could work with chemical industry to alert them to the threat 
and advise it on ways to secure dangerous chemicals.  The 
Netherlands also recommended that the CTWG might begin 
discussions of export controls and importance of transparency 
in transfers of dangerous chemicals. 
 
----------- 
2005 BUDGET 
----------- 
 
¶9.  (U)  The third day of budget discussions took place on 
September 15. The topic was objectives of the organization 
for 2005. At the outset of the meeting, the Australian 
co-facilitator, Gordon Eckersley, highlighted the fact that 
the core objectives should not be viewed as a document 
"carved in stone" and that it may change and evolve in the 
future. In a subsequent conversation, the Canadian 
co-facilitator, Ian Mundell, said that he and Eckersley 
planned to propose language to delegations in early October 
that would be incorporated in the decision document and 
reflect the fact that the budget objectives are not 
permanent, and may be changed in the future.  (Note: we 
subsequently recommended to the facilitators that they should 
circulate some draft language on that point soon. They agreed 
to consider our suggestion but said that they also felt that 
it would be better to finish the next two weeks of 
discussions before floating the language.) 
 
¶10.  (U)  Most of the discussion involved suggestions by 
certain delegations (Iran and to a lesser degree Brazil) to 
make minor changes in the language of the Core, Supporting, 
and Operational Objectives. Several delegations, including 
Switzerland, Canada and the UK, pushed back and opposed the 
changes. In the end, it did not appear that any of the 
proposed changes got any traction amongst other delegations 
and at this point it appears unlikely that there will be any 
changes to the objectives this year. 
 
¶11.  (U)  Iran first proposed that "capacities" be replaced 
with "facilities" in Core Objective #1 and that the word 
"including" should be deleted from Core Objective #2. The 
Iranians noted that the word "facilities" is used throughout 
the convention and so for consistencies sake should be used 
in the Core Objectives as well. Brazil endorsed Iran's 
suggestion that the word "including" should be deleted from 
Core Objective #2 and also suggested that new and better 
indicators should be found for Core Objective #4. 
 
¶12.  (U)  Canada and the UK argued for the retention of 
"including" in Core Objective #2 but noted that they would be 
willing to consider expanding the language in Core Objectives 
#3 and 4, provided that the discussions not become a 
"drafting exercise." 
 
¶13.  (U)  Italy suggested that the distinction between Core 
Objective and Supporting Objective should be eliminated. At 
that point, the Iranians suggested that perhaps the word 
"objective" itself was not appropriate. The Swiss opined that 
the use of the word "objective" was essential to the RBB 
process. 
 
¶14.  (U)  Iran then proposed that the word "national" be 
deleted from Supporting Objective #6. The Swiss and Canadians 
replied that the word "national" provided the necessary 
amount of specificity to the objective. 
 
¶15.  (U)  In the end, little was accomplished during the 
discussion, although it did provide certain delegations with 
the requisite amount of venting before moving on to 
discussions on consultancy services and GTA needs on the 
21st; request for new staff positions on the 22nd; and 
Article VI discussions on the 23rd.  On September 28th budget 
discussions on Article IV and V inspections are scheduled 
followed by additional budget discussions on the 28th and 
29th for any remaining budget items to be discussed before 
moving onto a final consultation on September 30th on the 
overall budget request. 
 
¶16.  (U)  The co-facilitators are also attempting to schedule 
a Geneva Group meeting on September 24 to discuss: 
verification related planning assumptions impacting on the 
2005 budget; overall budget appropriation for 2005; and any 
other business. This meeting will hopefully give us a sense 
of where the Japanese and Germans are on the requested budget 
increase.  Informally the Germans have told us that they 
believe that Berlin may be willing to accept a 4.2 percent 
increase.  The Germans believe that the Japanese are also 
looking at a 4.0 to 4.2 percent increase but that neither 
have received firm instructions from capitals.  The Germans 
also mentioned on September 20 that they would like to seek 
further clarifications from the TS on the authorized number 
of fixed-term positions (the Germans believe that it should 
remain at 507 even if twenty security guards are made 
fixed-term employees) and on the methodology for computing 
salary increases. 
 
¶17.  (U) Ito sends. 
SOBEL