VZCZCXYZ0009
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0977/01 1221511
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 021511Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5583
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 000977 
 
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 
WEEK ENDING APRIL 28 
 
This is CWC-37-06. 
 
---------------------- 
U.S. EXTENSION REQUEST 
---------------------- 
 
¶1. (U) Feedback has been fairly limited on the U.S. 100% 
extension request.  In WEOG, delegations have generally been 
very supportive of U.S. transparency, and grateful for the 
presence of DASA Ormond to answer initial program questions. 
A notable exception was Norway, who (claiming she was 
speaking on instructions from Oslo) expressed great 
disappointment in U.S. delays and concern about the opening 
this might create for "mischief makers," even going so far as 
to suggest that WEOG might not necessarily speak with one 
voice on this issue. 
 
¶2.  (U) GRULAC reaction is not yet clear, but will likely 
center on Article VII implications.  If initial South African 
comments are any indication, the Africa Group reaction may be 
more emotional.  Ambassador Mkhize expressed shock, 
disappointment and concern that a large and powerful nation 
like the U.S. is unable to meet its fundamental treaty 
obligations.  In the Asia Group, del has heard informal 
feedback that the U.S. extension request was met with delight 
by Iran.  India has also made comments regarding "double 
standards," and will likely be quick to link destruction and 
Article VII obligations. 
 
¶3.  (U) The Eastern European Group has also been quite 
supportive of U.S. efforts and transparency.  Russia has 
desisted in its line of "legality" questioning, and has 
turned to inquiring about U.S. plans to table a draft 
decision instead.  Russian del stated Moscow had not 
initially intended to table a draft decision for their 
extension at the May EC, but seemed to believe U.S. plans 
might be influential. 
 
¶4.  (U) One common (and potentially damaging) theme that has 
arisen is the perceived message that the U.S. has already 
closed out certain courses of action as inappropriate.   This 
is based primarily on U.S. categorization of calls for 
amendments as "premature," without offering any alternative 
approaches.  (Del comment:  Recommend focusing responses on 
the responsibility of all member states to contribute to a 
consensus decision when the time is right, and avoiding 
categorical dismissal of any specific solutions to the 2012 
problem.  End comment.)  Finally, several delegations (China, 
Algeria) have already noted that, given the inevitable 
linkage that will be made between CW destruction and Article 
VII obligations, the U.S. needs to temper its approach to 
Article VII implementation and compliance. 
 
------------------ 
EXTENSION REQUESTS 
------------------ 
 
¶5. (U) Russia submitted its "Amended Detailed Plan for 
Destruction" (considered by Moscow to be the only submission 
required by the CWC prior to April 29, in light of its 
previous request to extend "in principle" its 100% 
destruction deadline to April 29, 2012).  A copy of the 
original submission, in Russian, has been provided to 
Washington, and the Technical Secretariat anticipates 
distributing a translated version before May 5.  Japan and 
China also submitted their joint extension request, details 
of which will be included in the EC-45 scenesetter. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶6.  (U) At the request of several delegations, no 
consultation was held this week.  Del rep was contacted by 
Amb. Lak regarding the desire to gather those that have 
participated in Technical Assistance Visits to share 
progress, particularly that of the visited States Parties 
since the TAVs.  He was finding that only the U.S. delegation 
had such staff on hand.  He is now looking at holding such a 
 
meeting next week to hopefully have experts in from capitals 
who may have participated in TAVs.  All of this seems to 
indicate the significant level of effort by the U.S. in this 
area when compared with other SPs.  The next meeting on May 2 
will be to start working on report language. 
 
¶7.  (U) At a representational event during the week, del rep 
was approached by the Argentinean delegate who in a somewhat 
exercised state, said that she was very concerned about USG 
efforts to kill regional workshops to promote TAVs.  She said 
that this had been a major topic of conversation at that 
week's GRULAC meeting.  Del rep assured her that we did not 
advocate an "either -- or" approach concerning TAVs and were 
not opposed to regional meetings, but simply wanted to be 
assured by the TS that adequate resources would be available 
for TAVs.  She seemed to be reassured by this.  Amb. Javits 
has made this clear to the Ambassador of Uruguay, and del 
reps will be reiterating this point with other GRULAC 
delegations. This "concern" in GRULAC may be the result of 
the efforts by some in the TS who are resistant to TAVs 
spreading the word that the USG favors the elimination of all 
regional workshops in favor of TAVs. 
 
¶8.  (U) At the same rep event, the Algerian delegate told del 
rep that while he found the U.S. extension request 
presentation very credible and compelling, it highlighted the 
need for us to soften our tone a bit on Article VII to avoid 
looking hypocritical.  According to the Algerian, we now need 
to show a bit more carrot and less stick in our statements. 
The message from the Algerians seemed clearly to be "push 
your message but moderate your tone a bit." 
 
----------------- 
LATE DECLARATIONS 
----------------- 
 
¶9.  (U) The TS released its regular report on the latest 
round of industry declarations on April 25 (S/567/2006, dated 
25 April 2006).  It shows that many SPs did a much better job 
of getting their declarations in on time, but there is 
significant work yet to do.  It also shows that two SPs 
submitted nil declarations, which has been a trend over the 
last couple of cycles.  With this in hand, del rep has 
prepared the first facilitator's paper for the late 
declarations consultation, which included a concept paper on 
nil declarations (based on previously interagency-cleared 
language), and sent it to the TS for distribution.  This will 
be used as the basis for the kick-off meeting on Wednesday, 
May 3. 
 
-------------------- 
CHALLENGE INSPECTION 
-------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) Challenge inspection consultations were held on April 
27, facilitated by Kang Yong (PRC).  At the previous session, 
delegations seemed to agree that tackling the "unresolved 
issues" might be a productive approach to future 
consultations.  In keeping with this sentiment, Kang 
circulated a draft decision (C-IV/DEC/CRP.17, dated June 25, 
1999) on the timing of notifications, and opened the session 
by explaining that he did not necessarily expect consensus on 
this particular text, but believed it would be a good basis 
for discussion. 
 
¶11. (U) Per Runn, head of Policy Review Branch, offered TS 
thoughts on the issue, highlighting the fact that initial 
discussions took place in the absence of Inspectorate 
experience, which has increased significantly over the years. 
 Runn explained the TS perspective of wanting to receive the 
specific location as soon as possible from the Requesting 
State Party, and also implied (despite earlier 
conversations), that practical interpretation of the CWC 
might actually give rise to a "split notification" scenario 
(transmission of the Challenge Inspection Request to the 
Inspected State Party, followed by later notification of the 
location).  Finally, Runn expressed TS concern over language 
in the decision that seemed to create a conflict with 
guidelines set out in Article IX and Part X of the 
 
Verification Annex. 
 
¶12. (U) General discussions centered on likely practical 
scenarios following a CI Request.  Most delegations agreed 
that an Inspected SP would be aware almost immediately of any 
request, whether through its position on the Executive 
Council, requests for clarification or other political 
indicators, or simply rapid spreading of the information 
throughout the fairly small OPCW community.  Del rep pointed 
to the consistent message in Article IX and Part X that the 
Director General would execute his duties under the CI in an 
expeditious manner, and inquired as to what delegations 
thought might have been the real issue the decision had been 
drafted to clarify or resolve. 
 
¶13.  (U) Norway and the Netherlands also spoke in support of 
the idea that in practical terms, the element of surprise 
would be difficult to retain, and suggested that a CI 
exercise involving the EC might be useful.  Germany finally 
proposed dropping the draft decision instead including in 
report language at an upcoming EC a recommendation to drop 
"timing of notifications" from the list of unresolved issues. 
 The proposal was widely supported by delegations, with the 
notable exception of Iran. 
 
¶14. (U) The only delegation who spoke out in favor of the 
decision was Iran, who seemed quite intent upon reaching 
consensus on this particular topic, and removing it from the 
list of unresolved issues.  Iran was later the only 
delegation to express support for the concept of adjusting 
notification timelines for public holidays, working hours, 
etc.  Iran's remarks seemed, in general, to be meant to imply 
that additional language or guidelines are necessary before 
the CI can be considered a viable tool under the CWC.  Del 
rep, supported by the UK and Italy, spoke out against this 
concept and expressed the view that the CI, while complex, is 
adequately outlined by provisions in the CWC. 
 
¶15. (U) In conclusion, Kang reviewed points discussed, but 
did not elaborate on a way forward for this particular issue, 
or consultations in general.  In sidebar discussions 
following the meeting, the UK was particularly concerned that 
Iran not be given this decision, in light of its 
obstructionist role in almost all current consultations. 
Canada noted that any decision would be purely political; in 
its view, the decision is clearly unnecessary, and would only 
be useful as political leverage with Iran. 
 
--------- 
ARTICLE X 
--------- 
 
¶16. (U) The TS Article X Software Developer, Frans Meijer, 
presented the database to delegations on April 28.  The 
meeting was widely attended by delegations across all 
regional groups.  The database is clear and concise, easy to 
read and easy to navigate.   A facet of the database 
delegations found interesting is when clicking into the 
offers of assistance window, there is the option to see a PDF 
of the original offer document.  When he showed courses that 
have been offered by the TS over past years, he pointed out 
that with a little development the TS could put out on the 
website information for upcoming courses, with registration 
applications and applicants could get their approval/denial 
via email.  The database has an interesting section where a 
user can search for articles and books on specific topics, 
and the user can get copies of the articles, but not books 
(copyright issues). 
 
¶17. (U) The developer noted the TS needs details from SPs on 
other information to be included in the database.  They were 
given suggestions, such as from Iran, that even though there 
is only one bilateral agreement, this information should be 
included in the database.  The developer tried to explain he 
could not set up an accurate format without more agreements 
to work from, however, delegations got him to concede the 
format is a relatively easy thing to change.  Iran was 
obviously working from a political point of view as it has 
the only bilateral agreement, but other delegations including 
 
 
the UK and Italy agreed it should be added.  Iran and Austria 
asked about putting in a section on protection equipment on 
the market and their manufacturers.  France reminded them 
that paragraph 5 is very generic, that its information to be 
provided by SPs.  Iran wanted a search function with the 
adaptability of Yahoo or Google, however the TS and other 
delegations noted that this was impossible given the 
organization's budget. 
 
¶18. (U) Italy was concerned that in the current form the 
general overview page shows who has completed their National 
Program and Offers of Assistance questionnaires and when. 
France pointed out that it is just information and there is 
no attempt to make it into an analytical document.  Japan 
said after the sarin gas attack in Tokyo, it created a list 
of toxins and medications.  They suggested adding a similar 
section in the datebase.  (Comment: Del rep believes this 
idea fits the parameters of an Assistance and Protection 
Database and would welcome comments from Washington.) 
 
¶19. (U) John Makhubalo Director of International Cooperation 
and Assistance, laid out information the TS needs from SPs in 
order to get the database out.  First, decide what 
information needs to go into the database.  Second, decide 
who will have what kind of access.  He suggested the public 
could have access to general assistance and protection 
information and SPs and National Authorities have everything 
else. 
 
¶20. (U) Emma Gordon (UK) mentioned prior to the meeting that 
Frans Meijer told her that he would be leaving soon, but she 
was unaware if it was his choice or that of the TS 
Previously, the TS had indicated his contract ran through the 
end of the year.  During discussions, Makhubalo said the TS 
is attempting to fill a P-4 position in ABP who would be in 
charge of the database.  Del rep will attempt to gain clarity 
on this.  After the presentation, the UK said it believed 
their original decision language on the database is still 
valid.  However, del rep noted that SPs  cannot ask the TS to 
adhere to a deadline they cannot meet without information 
they need from SPs (information to be included and who will 
have access to the database). 
 
¶21. (U) There is a possibility of consultations on May 12, 
with the topic to be a briefing on the Joint Assistance 
Exercise 2005. 
 
--------------- 
REPAYMENT PLANS 
--------------- 
 
¶22.  (U) Consultations on Repayment Plans for States Party to 
regularize their arrears were held on April 26.  The 
facilitator Jae-woong Lee (ROK) distributed a new proposal 
(faxed to ISN/CB on April 28) in an attempt to get 
delegations to focus on the mechanisms to be incorporated 
into possible repayment plans.  All delegations, with the 
exception of Italy, were supportive of the document as a 
basis for discussion and for possible decision language.  The 
Italian delegation asked again why SPs that were in arrears 
but had not yet lost their voting rights were not addressed 
in the co-facilitator's proposal.  Lee explained that at the 
last consultation there had been a general consensus that any 
repayment plan would only address SPs that had lost their 
voting rights. 
 
¶23.  (U) Delegations then reviewed paragraphs A through J of 
the facilitators' proposal.  In paragraph A, both the U.S. 
and Japan suggested that some reference to the CSP having the 
final authority to approve repayment plans should be included 
in the language.  The German delegation suggested that the 
language in paragraph A be modified so that the reference to 
restoring voting rights be moved to the second part of the 
paragraph, and the first part of the paragraph refer to the 
submission of the repayment plans themselves.  The Germans 
were keen to emphasize, once again, that there should be a 
two-step process in which the repayment plans are approved 
first and then the issue of restoring voting rights would be 
addressed. 
 
 
¶24.  (U) The Germans also suggested that the references to 
repayment plans being "mandatory" for the restoration of 
voting rights be deleted, as there may be cases in which the 
CSP wishes to restore voting rights independent of a 
repayment plan as laid out already in the CWC.  Japan, Italy, 
Iran, and China supported the German suggestion.  The 
facilitator said he would redraft paragraph A to address 
delegation's concerns. 
 
¶25.  (U) Australia and Ireland suggested deleting paragraph B 
as it would micromanage the TS.  They also suggested that the 
reference to submitting a detailed description of the 
conditions/reasons that caused the arrears to accumulate be 
moved to an appropriate part of either paragraph A or H. 
 
¶26.  (U) Del rep supported the retention of paragraph C. 
Japan and Italy suggested that the word "negotiating" be 
changed as it was too strong.  Australia suggested that the 
paragraph could possibly deleted as it was too process 
oriented and would result in micromanagement of the TS by SPs. 
 
¶27.  (U) Del rep and China suggested the deletion of 
paragraph D. No one opposed.  There were no substantive 
comments on paragraph E. 
 
¶28.  (U) On paragraph F, Iran suggested that the payments be 
spread evenly over the payment period.  Iran also questioned 
making an exception to financial regulation 5.6C that would 
allow the first payment to be credited towards an SPs current 
year assessment.  France strongly supported paragraph F and 
questioned whether or not SPs would have an incentive to pay 
if their first payment was not credited towards the current 
year's assessment.  Japan, the U.S. and Germany supported the 
French view. 
 
¶29.  (U) The facilitator noted that he would redraft 
paragraphs G and H to bring them in line with his redrafting 
of paragraph A. 
 
¶30.  (U) Iran and Italy opposed paragraph I.  The U.S. 
suggested that the CSP approval of a given repayment plan 
could outline what would happen (i.e. loss of voting rights) 
if an SP fell behind on its repayment plan.  Australia 
supported the U.S.  China suggested that the CSP make a 
decision if an SP were to become delinquent on its repayment 
plan. 
 
¶31.  (U) The U.S. Iran, China, Germany, and Italy were 
opposed to paragraph J.  The facilitator agreed to drop the 
paragraph.  The next consultation on repayment plans will be 
held after the May EC, at which the facilitator will present 
his redrafted proposal based on dels comments. 
 
¶32. (U) Javits sends. 
ARNALL