VZCZCXYZ0012
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0717/01 0941447
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 041447Z APR 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5283
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000717 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR DICASAGRANDE 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR THE 
PERIOD MARCH 20-31 
 
This is CWC-28-06. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶1.  (U) New facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) held a 
March 30 consultation, the first of a series of Article VII 
consultations.  Lak announced that Special Advisor Krzysztof 
Paturej would be the new Article VII "go to" person, 
replacing the now departed Ralf Trapp.  Lak, in company with 
Legal Advisor Santiago Onate and head of ICA John Makhubalo, 
then presented a draft work program (e-mailed to ISN/CB) and 
invited comment.  Major elements included 1) introduction of 
a "Points of Contact" concept analogous to that from the 
Universality Action Plan and 2) prioritization of outreach 
efforts to countries that have yet to establish National 
Authorities and/or pass implementing legislation.  Iran 
supported by India opposed outreach efforts not specifically 
included in the CSP-10 decision, opposing in prinipal the 
idea of POCs, prioritizing outreach effrts, or weekly 
consultations on Article VII.  (Nte: Iran opened its 
intervention, noting that OPC has other 2006 priorities, 
emphasizing the issus of CW destruction and full 
implementation of Aticle XI; an early warning sign of 
potential futre linkages.)  The next consultation will be 
Thusday, April 6. 
 
¶2.  (U) The TS reported that sinc the November CSP, it has 
attempted to meet with representatives of states that have 
yet to estabish a National Authority.  With those 
representaives with which the TS has successfully contacted, 
the message is that CWC implementation is low on heir 
capitals' priorities list, but the ambassadrs agreed to 
intercede in their capitals to attept to increase awareness 
regarding the importanc (and priority) of CWC 
implementation.  Despite its best efforts, the TS was unable 
to contact Afghanistan, Bhutan, Haiti, Mauritania, 
Micronesia, Nauru, Samoa, Timor Leste, and Tuvalu, primarily 
because these states do not have representatives in The Hague 
or nearby capitals. 
 
¶3.  (U) Onate announced that Yemen notified the TS on March 
29 that it had established a National Authority, leaving 25 
States Parties without a NA.  Interventions from a number of 
delegations announced that Afghanistan, Madagascar, Samoa, 
and Tanzania have included in their implementing egislation 
the establishment of National Authoriies.  In these 
instances it will be important tomonitor legislative 
progress to ensure passage an establishment of National 
Authorities by EC-47 November 2006).  Finally, Onate 
informed delegatons that no states have submitted 
implementationplans as required by the CSP follow-on 
decision. 
 
¶4.  (U) China suggested that, similarly to what s now done 
for Universality, the TS should consier press releases for 
each state that establishe its National Authority and/or 
completes its legslative efforts.  This could reward 
proactive sttes while pressuring (a bit) those states that 
hae yet to communicate their implementation status.  This 
idea received wide support, although Italy noted that the 
press releases probably would not reach the states in most 
need of communication.  Tunisia, supported by numerous 
delegations, asked the TS for its Article VII-related 
activities schedule, so that individual outreach efforts did 
not conflict with TS efforts.  The TS responded that the 
overall activities list had been provided to delegations some 
time ago (this was news to those of us in the room), but 
indicated, when pressured, that it would provide delegations 
the specifics of the Article VII efforts.  Mexico, supported 
by Iran and the U.S., stressed the importance of setting 
priorities (e.g. establishment of National Authorities 
first), so that SPs and the TS can tailor their approaches to 
achieve our objectives. 
 
¶5.  (U) Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, and the U.S. 
stressed the importance of Technical Assistance Visits (TAVs) 
in capitals, and asked the TS if it had the resources to 
respond to countries that requested such assistance.  Onate 
responded that no, the TS Article VII-related budget fell by 
over 30 percent compared to last year, due to restructuring 
of or lack of 2006 voluntary contributions.  Instead, it 
planned to hold TAVs on the margins of the planned regional 
and sub-regional meetings of National Authorities.  Delegates 
opposed this, noting that the most effective outreach 
occurred in capitals, where all relevant agencies could 
participate in drafting efforts and discussions of 
establishment and functioning of National Authorities. 
Several delegations stressed that the plan must be considered 
with respect to which states requested TAVs.  Delegations -- 
including Iran and India -- again noted the importance of 
tailoring approaches, emphasizing that they are better done 
in capital.  (Makhubalo noted privately to del rep that he 
will be hosting a Tuesday, April 4 meeting of current and 
former donor states and invited del rep to attend.) 
 
¶6.  (U) A number of delegations noted the importance of 
prioritizing outreach efforts.  Germany stated that other 
states are more relevant than the small Pacific island 
states, and several delegations supported a more 
regionally-based outreach effort.  New Zealand discussed the 
difficulties of initiating outreach efforts with the Pacific 
Island Forum states.  They might be represented at the UN in 
New York, but Niue and Cook's Islands are not UN members.  In 
any event, the UN representatives would not be the 
appropriate persons with which to speak.  Many are 
represented in Auckland, and the New Zealand High 
Commissioner has raised CWC implementation with them, but New 
Zealand has a number of bilateral issues to address with 
them, so this venue has limited impact.  Italy was the sole 
delegation that opposed distinguishing between new states and 
those who have been members for a long time. 
 
--------------- 
CONFIDENTIALITY 
 
SIPDIS 
--------------- 
 
¶7.  (U) Facilitator Betsy Sanders (U.S.) held a March 27 
consultation to consider the draft annex to the declarations 
handbook, the draft decision, and the TS response to an 
Italian request for information on classification of facility 
agreements (FAs).  Luis Cavalheiro (Brazil/TS) presented the 
results of the TS study of how facility agreements have been 
classified by SPs since EIF, in response to an Italian 
request.  In spite of the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality 
recommending that these be classified Protected, in reality 
72 percent have been unclassified.  The remaining FAs are 
mostly highly protected (in a private remark, the Iranian del 
rep said that the latter category probably include the FAs 
for the Single Small Scale Schedule 1 facilities).  Italy, 
supported by Norway, requested that the example be attached 
to the annex; Iran opposed this. 
 
¶8.  (U) Delegations agreed that the draft Confidentiality 
annex is now acceptable, and after approval of EC-45 report 
language, the TS may distribute it to NAs as a supplement to 
the declaration handbook.  Delegations also are agreed on the 
TS "outreach and training" elements.  What remains to be 
 
SIPDIS 
decided is procedural: whether delegations document these 
elements via EC decision or EC report language.  Iran and 
India strongly prefer using EC report language; Norway, 
France, and Japan prefer a decision that would puts in proper 
context the discussion over the past year.  Rob Simpson, head 
of the Office of Security and Confidentiality, noted a 
decision would back up OCS concerns and enhance the 
likelihood that necessary actions would be taken.  A number 
of delegations indicated their flexibility, although they had 
a slight preference for the decision route (Italy, Canada, 
Norway, France, and Romania).  The next consultation is 
tentatively set for the first week of May. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
CLINGENDAEL INSTITUTE -- ISSUES FOR THE SECOND REVCON 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶9.  (U) The facilitator, Peter van Ham (Director Global 
Governance Research Programme, Clingendael Institute) 
moderated the discussion, noting first that Chatham House 
rules apply.  To stimulate debate, Ham opened with three 
statements:  First, it is clear that Russia and the U.S. will 
not make 2012, and invited discussion of the implications. 
Second, in the non-proliferation and counter-terrorism (CT) 
arenas, are there still concerns regarding accuracy of 
declarations, or CWC compliance concerns regarding activities 
in Russia, Iran, and Sudan?  What is the impact of PSI?  Does 
PSI have any mandate that includes CW agents and precursors? 
Finally, where is the OPCW going?  Will delegations prepare 
for the RevCon by following issues or will they fall back to 
an article-by-article review? 
 
¶10.  (U) Attendees agreed that CW destruction is key. 
Delegations noted strong concerns regarding the credibility 
of the Convention if all possessors were not able to destroy 
their CW stocks by the 2012 deadline.  Several expressed 
views that the CWC will remain relevant after 2012, but SPs 
will have to consider carefully how to maintain its 
credibility.  Two attendees noted that full, complete and 
nondiscriminatory implementation remains essential.  Two 
attendees noted the need for balance created a parallel 
between the necessity to pressure SPs to implement Article 
VII and the need to push possessors to complete CW 
destruction by 2012. 
 
¶11.  (U) One delegate summarized OPCW CT initiatives since 
¶2001.  A number of attendees expressed the view that CT is 
not a primary OPCW role, but the action plans on Article VII 
implementation and Universality are significant contributors 
because they include criminalization of states' citizens' 
activities.  In addition, delegations have exchanged 
information regarding national CT activities, creating an 
information bridge.  Expeditious destruction of CW stockpiles 
also is a key contributor.  Industry's safe handling of 
hazardous chemicals also contributes to the CT effort. 
Finally, a view was expressed that in the longer-term, it 
will be necessity to consider the need and how best to 
declare and/or license research laboratories. 
 
¶12.  (U) Attendees considered how best to prepare for the 
April 2008 Review Conference.  First, attendees noted that 
the RevCon was not an amendment conference, as suggested by 
the Clingendael experts.  Non-lethal weapons are covered by 
the Article 2 all purpose criterion, although there is a 
special exemption for Riot Control Agents.  When raised by 
the Clingendael experts, attendees noted that one significant 
issue to consider is how chemical developments should be used 
to update OPCW activities, i.e., how to include new 
generations of CW agents.  Attendees noted that this was a 
long-standing issue, not expected to be resolved any time 
soon.  Attendees also noted that in conjunction with the 
Scientific Advisory Board, delegations probably would 
recommend the RevCon consider how best to proceed.  Finally, 
one delegation noted the importance of resisting the 
temptation to deviate from OPCW's object and purpose. 
 
--------------- 
REPAYMENT PLANS 
--------------- 
 
¶13.  (U) The new facilitators (Florian Antohi of Romania and 
Jae-woong Lee of South Korea) held their first consultations 
on options for regularizing member states' arrears of annual 
contributions on March 31.  Approximately eighteen 
delegations attended, though surprisingly only two GRULAC 
delegations (Brazil and Peru) attended.  The TS distributed 
an eight-page supporting information paper on the issue and 
the facilitators distributed a non-paper on a mechanism for 
SPs to regularize the payment of their dues to the OPCW. 
Both papers were sent back to ISN/CB.  The facilitators had 
hoped to hear brief general comments on both papers, and then 
continue through the issues to be considered that had they 
raised in Part III of their paper. The remainder of the 
consultation, however, was spent with delegations giving 
their general views on repayment plans rather than addressing 
the facilitator's non-paper. 
 
¶14.  (U) The Director General also attended and began the 
meeting by stating that the TS was committed to helping SPs 
in arrears regularize their payments to enable them to become 
SPs in good standing.  He noted that many other international 
organizations had established payment plans. 
 
¶15.  (U) The U.S. thanked the DG and budget chief Rick Martin 
for attending the consultation and pledged U.S. support for 
working towards a solution to the arrears problem.  France 
too pledged its support and added that it would be important 
to find a mechanism by which some or all of scheduled 
payments received through repayment plans could be applied 
towards the current year's assessment.  Japan supported the 
consultations, but said that Tokyo would need to see a strong 
monitoring system built into any repayment plan as well as a 
net increase in overall collection rates. 
 
¶16.  (U) Germany noted that it had previously supported the 
creation of a repayment mechanism, though it did not yet have 
current guidance from Berlin.  The Germans urged that the 
issue not be made too complicated and that simple guidelines 
be approved in relatively short order. 
 
¶17.  (U) Italy, rather unhelpfully, said that the long-term 
arrears problem was negligible in terms of its overall impact 
on OPCW budget and that attention should also be focused on 
SPs that have not yet lost their voting rights but are late 
in making their payments.  Spain was supportive of the 
consultations and reminded delegations that creating a 
mechanism to address countries in arrears would not absolve 
SPs of their responsibility to pay on time.  Austria was also 
supportive, but urged that the process be kept simple. 
 
¶18.  (U) Russia was supportive of the idea of addressing a 
repayment mechanism, provided that there be no part of the 
mechanism that would allow for debts being written off and in 
no way would alter SPs obligations to pay their assessed 
contributions. 
 
¶19.  (U) The U.S. said that it would have to be clear that 
any State that engaged in a repayment plan with the TS was 
getting a "one-time" chance, and that if that SP did not meet 
its obligations under the approved repayment plan, there 
would be no second chance.  The U.S. also noted that it would 
have liked to have seen more delegations at the consultation 
representing the regional groups most seriously affected. 
 
¶20.  (U) The UK said they were also generally supportive of 
creating a repayment mechanism but expressed some concern 
about an automatic linkage between entering into a repayment 
plan and regaining voting rights.  Canada noted that it had 
no guidance yet and expressed disappointment at the 
attendance at the consultation. 
 
¶21.  (U) Japan asked if the Financial Rules would need to be 
amended if a new repayment mechanism would allow the TS to 
credit an SPs current year assessment rather than its oldest 
debts as is currently done.  Martin said that this would have 
to be done if that were to be how the mechanism were to work. 
 
¶22.  (U) Italy chimed in again and said that any plan would 
have to address SPs that had not yet lost their voting rights 
but were behind on their payments.  The U.S. responded that 
any plan under consideration would have to be kept relatively 
simple and focus on SPs that have long-term outstanding 
debts.  The U.S. also suggested that in terms of process, the 
EC should develop guidelines but that it should be the TS, or 
more specifically the DG, who makes a recommendation to the 
EC and CSP on any repayment plan.  The plans should not be 
negotiated in the EC. 
 
¶23.  (U) Canada urged that any plan should be simple and 
involve an SP pledging to pay its current year's assessment 
and then a set percentage of its outstanding bill, i.e., 20 
percent over five years.  Any guidelines for repayment plans 
should be so simple as to minimize the need for extensive 
negotiations with the TS, according to Canada. 
 
¶24.  (U) The facilitators announced that the next 
consultation will be in early-May when they hope to go 
through their non-paper in a systematic fashion. 
 
--------- 
ARTICLE X 
--------- 
 
¶25. (U) Article X consultations were held on March 30, where 
the facilitator Hans Schramml (Austria) introduced the new 
Head of the Assistance and Protection Branch, Gennadi Lutay. 
Lutay gave delegates information on activities held in the 
first quarter of 2006, including a course in Spain for Latin 
American countries and others held in Colombia and 
Montevideo.  He reported that during these courses, Article X 
submissions and their due dates were covered.  He gave 
information on the Triplex Exercise being held in Finland, 
September 2-8, 2006, reporting that there would be a limited 
OPCW team participating.  John Makhubalo attended the meeting 
and reported that Paragraph 4 and 7 questionnaires are 
available on the OPCW website and that the TS has been 
proactive sending reminders to SPs reminding them of their 
obligations to complete the information.  He also reiterated 
Lutay's comment about distributing information during 
Assistance and Protection courses.  He requested SPs look at 
their regional groups to see where they could provide 
encouragement to those who haven't yet completed the 
questionnaires.  (NOTE:  It seems the TS is working along the 
lines of the talking points the U.S. delivered at the last 
meeting. END NOTE.) 
 
¶26. (U) Schramml opened consultations to delegations.  India 
requested more information on Triplex and the reason for OPCW 
participation.  The TS informed them of the scenario and that 
it is a valuable training tool for the ACAT team. 
¶27. (U) UK Paper - Paragraph 4 
The revised UK non-paper was distributed.  Delegations noted 
they will use this as a guideline for future discussions. 
The U.S. suggested revisions for Paragraph 4 to state the 
specific number of submissions and a change of wording from 
"in a timely fashion" to "without delay."  Delegations seemed 
fine with the first suggestion, but believe the use of 
"without delay" is a contradiction of the 120-day deadline. 
Overall, delegations feel this topic should be tabled until 
after the April 30 deadline for submissions in order to gauge 
the response rate at that time. 
 
¶28. (U) UK Paper - Paragraph 5 
Delegations had concerns over the words "to finish setting up 
the databank" as they feel the database is a living document 
and will never be finished.  The TS responded in the 
affirmative; the UK noted this reference is to the physical 
set up of the databank, not the inclusion of information. 
Schramml noted that the Netherlands has made a voluntary 
contribution to the database for the current year that pays 
for one person, who is currently at work populating the 
database.  He did note that further voluntary contributions 
were necessary to continue this work past the current year. 
Italy wanted clarification on what is included in the 
databank and a discussion of the criteria for information to 
be included.  Delegations asked the TS to report on the 
current status of the database, in particular wanting to know 
if the proposed deadline was achievable. 
 
¶29. (U) UK Paper - Qualified Experts 
France noted that the role of Qualified Experts is not 
defined and that the UK paper can be used to start that 
process.  Italy requested a distinction should be made 
between experts on Article X and Article XI; they should not 
be in one document.  Also, further discussion should be made 
on the Protection Network; they feel Qualified Experts and 
Protection Network should be separated.  India and France 
concurred and the UK took the point.  Canada suggested 
changing "make recommendations to the Council" to "make 
proposals to the Council." 
 
¶30. (U) Canada Paper - APB Activities 
Canada submitted its paper (sent by e-mail on the 
unclassified system on April 3).  There was no discussion, 
 
SIPDIS 
but Canada noted they are primarily interested in "timely and 
detailed reports on these programme activities, including 
information on the nature and purpose of each activity, the 
OPCW financial and personnel resource commitments involved, 
and the number of SPs and/or individuals which would benefit." 
 
¶31. (U) Article X and XI Implementation Report 
The U.S. asked about the status of the report on Article X 
and XI Implementation.  Makhubalo noted that they have 
finished compiling the material and understand SPs want to 
comment.  They want to postpone putting it out until the July 
EC to give SPs time to comment.  Iran noted its belief that 
an earlier discussion, which recommended two separate 
reports, the TS acknowledged this, but noted that the report 
is in three parts, Article X, Article XI and Implementation 
Support.  If the report were split, they asked where 
delegations would want Implementation Support to go.  Iran 
replied that it should go to Article VII; the TS said they 
could do that.  There was no further discussion on this topic. 
 
¶32. (U) Schramml noted the next consultations would held on 
April 11 and would focus on the Databank, its criteria, 
access and the UK language.  The second topic would be the 
Canadian paper.  He further noted that on April 28, the TS 
would give a briefing on Joint Assistance Exercise 2005. 
 
¶33.  (U) Javits sends. 
ARNALL