VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1273/01 1581504
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 071504Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5942
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 001273 
 
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 JUNE 2 
 
This is CWC-47-06. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶1. (U) A WEOG meeting was held on May 29, despite it being a 
U.S. holiday.  As the focus was the Article VII experience 
from EC-45, Betsy Sanders attended.  Facilitator Amb. Maartin 
Lak (Netherlands) was furious about the failure of the report 
language during the EC and implied that it was the fault of 
the U.S.  Many delegations were concerned about the NAM 
making its voice heard in informal, as well as formal, 
consultations.  It was widely intimated by delegations that 
there is now a strong linkage between Article VII and U.S. CW 
destruction, with several insisting that the U.S. change its 
Article VII tactics because they see us in a vulnerable 
position. 
 
¶2. (U) Amb. Javits and other members of the delegation met 
with Lak later in the week.  Lak's anger had subsided and the 
meeting was very constructive.  The delegation stressed what 
could be learned to improve the managing the process for 
EC-46 -- early draft report language, ensuring that all 
delegations have the same text to work from, etc.  Lak stated 
that the June 8 facilitation would be centered on the next 
Technical Secretariat draft progress report, with the June 15 
and 29 meetings devoted to report language.  A few days 
later, Lak provided the del with an advance copy of his 
talking points for the June 8 meeting.  These points include: 
starting afresh, a report on his participation in the NAs 
meeting in Mexico City, TS draft report, EC-46, and next 
steps.  He states that he sees the outcome of EC-46 being an 
outline of States Parties needs, identifying where it appears 
that progress is not being made, where we are confident 
actions are maintaining forward progress, and special cases 
where a special attitude may be necessary. 
 
------------------- 
RE-EXAMINING TENURE 
------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Del rep met with former Senior Planning Officer Ralf 
Trapp on May 31.  Trapp has been commissioned by the Director 
General to do a study of the tenure policy and its 
implementation.  He returned to the OPCW last week to give 
the DG a rough draft of his report on tenure implementation 
and to seek feedback on his draft from department heads 
within the TS.  Trapp implied that his report will advocate 
some flexibility in the implementation of tenure for certain 
selected positions and said he was concerned about the 
potential erosion of technical skills in the TS in the near 
future if some modifications to tenure were not considered. 
One TS staff member who had seen the rough draft told del rep 
that the document was very critical of the TS's tenure 
implementation efforts to date.  Trapp said he will provide 
the final report to the DG by the end of June and the DG 
would then consider releasing it as is as a DG note, or 
possibly rewriting parts of it and releasing it in some other 
form. 
 
--------------------------------- 
SEARCH FOR A NEW WEOG COORDINATOR 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) WEOG coordinator Ruth Flint (Switzerland) told del 
rep last week that she had been named Ambassador to an 
unnamed country and will be leaving at the end of July.  She 
plans on running the WEOG meetings through EC-46.  Several 
WEOG delegations have informally mentioned Spanish delegate 
Tomas Lopez Vilarino as a possible successor to Flint.  It is 
not yet clear if Vilarino is interested in the position. 
 
------------------- 
OCPF SITE SELECTION 
------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) On May 30, the facilitator for OCPF site selection 
called a meeting of a small number of delegations - U.S., 
 
Germany, Japan, France (UK was not able to attend) - to 
discussion a possible new way to make SP proposals 
(nominations) that might be more acceptable to those 
delegations that consider geographical proposals unacceptable 
because of supposed political implications.  The paper from 
the meeting (which has been forwarded to ISN/CB and TCD) is 
based on a proposal some time ago from Pakistan that would 
see SPs making nominations from a list of all OCPF plant 
sites.  The goal of this concept would be to decrease the 
complexity of the facilitator's proposal and minimize the 
concerns surrounding collusion. 
 
--------------- 
FINANCIAL RULES 
--------------- 
 
¶6.  (U) A short consultation was held on June 1.  The 
Facilitator (Rick Snelsire, U.S.) had met with interested 
delegations (Iran, India, France, Germany) prior to the 
meeting to see if they reach an agreement on the three 
outstanding issues related to the draft financial rules.  Two 
of the three issues were resolved and the only outstanding 
issue is the procurement related amendments supported by 
India and Iran.  Germany and France agreed to accept the 
original amendments proposed by India and Iran provided the 
word "all" was deleted from the amended language.  India and 
Iran agreed to check with their capitals to see if this would 
be acceptable. 
 
¶7.  (U) The only other topic discussed at the consultation 
was a housekeeping item brought up by the TS in regards to 
the terminology, to change "budget section" to "budget 
sub-programme," which would be consistent with the financial 
regulations.  As if to illustrate why the change in 
terminology was needed, Iran and India both questioned how 
this would affect the current operation of the budget section 
and asked if it was being eliminated.  The facilitator 
indicated he would schedule the next consultation after he 
had a response from the above delegations on the proposed 
amended text. 
 
--------- 
ARTICLE X 
--------- 
 
¶8. (U) Consultations on May 28 were a re-hash of the meeting 
held on May 12, which was a briefing on Joint Assistance 
Exercise 2005 in L'viv, Ukraine.  Iran still seems annoyed 
NATO was involved in the exercise. India, Pakistan and Iran 
wanted to know the benefits of the exercise versus the cost. 
All three wanted more "details" of what the exercise was 
like: what happened, where, when, why and how -- but did not 
show up at the May 12 meeting where all was explained by 
various participants, including the French representative. 
Those three were also concerned why there were only two 
States Parties on the evaluation team. U.S. del rep brought 
up the notes the TS sent inviting observers and questioned 
whether a similar note had been sent for evaluators. The TS 
said no, but Italy responded that it had been discussed in 
planning meetings and SPs were well aware they could request 
adding evaluators from their country to the exercise. Canada 
suggested it would be a good idea to have similar exercises 
in other regions of the world. France said they will have the 
presentation made by their participant available to 
delegations soon. The next meeting, on June 8, will discuss 
other Article X issues. 
 
¶9. (U) Javits sends. 
ARNALL