VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1383/01 1711513
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 201513Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6070
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 001383 
 
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 16 
 
 
This is CWC-51-06. 
 
------------------------------------- 
U.S. EXTENSION REQUEST DRAFT DECISION 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶1. (U) Del reps met with French, German and UK delegations on 
June 15 to deliver talking points, proposed draft decision 
text, and suggested site visit parameters.  Del reps met 
initially with UK rep to express concern over the UK 
insistence upon visits to capitals (in the context of site 
visit parameters), and inclusion of specific parameters in 
decision language.  UK rep indicated concerns would be passed 
to capital, and that he was unsure as to how flexible London 
would be.  (Del comment:  As in past interactions with the UK 
on the subject of CW destruction, it seems likely the local 
UK position may be more hard-line than London's; this will be 
critical to assess prior to EC-46, given the role the UK may 
play in proposing final terms for site visits.) 
 
¶2. (U) All three delegations were generally supportive of the 
proposed text, and appreciative of the U.S. approach in 
favorably considering site visits.  Although official 
feedback has not been received from capitals, several initial 
concerns were expressed.  First, France and Germany expressed 
concern that any reference to the detailed plan, even if 
based on analogous text from other previously approved 
decisions, could be problematic, as it might give delegations 
grounds to continue questioning the "legality" of the U.S. 
extension request.  Germany then joined the UK in insisting 
that visits to capitals would be a critical element of any 
site visits, in order to interact with senior officials in 
the chemical demilitarization program, adding that now that 
the U.S. had opted for full transparency, "the burden of 
proof was on us." 
 
¶3.  (U) U.S. del noted that Washington regularly sends senior 
level representatives to Executive Council sessions, and 
reminded other delegations that the general purpose of the 
visits would be to familiarize delegations with, and give 
them an appreciation for, the vast scope and complexity of CW 
destruction.  U.S. rep also pointed out that a political 
message could be more appropriately and effectively delivered 
in the form of a bilateral demarche in Washington. 
Delegations agreed that a compromise might be to include a 
program overview briefing at one of the sites, but insisted 
this be clearly articulated in the visit parameters. 
 
¶4. (U) Several other delegations have inquired about the 
status of the U.S. draft decision.  At a lunch with the 
Austrian and Finnish delegations (in their roles as outgoing 
and incoming EU presidents), del rep explained the U.S. 
intent to table a draft decision prior to EC-46, and spoke to 
some of the basic elements delegations might expect to see in 
the draft text.  Del rep also assured delegations that the 
U.S. was favorably considering site visits, and asked for 
their understanding and support in accepting U.S. proposed 
parameters.  Austria and Finland seemed reassured and 
encouraged by the U.S. approach.  Switzerland, Canada and the 
Netherlands have also inquired; del rep has also briefly 
covered basic elements of the decision text with them, and 
expressed the U.S. desire to share draft text with WEOG 
colleagues as soon as possible. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
RUSSIAN EXTENSION REQUEST DRAFT DECISION 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) U.S. reps met with the Russian delegation on June 15 
to discuss general plans for submission of draft decision 
texts, and consideration of the UK site visit proposal. 
Russian del said their decision text is quite basic, and is 
currently under review in Moscow, but that they do intend to 
table the decision for EC-46.  U.S. reps explained that while 
the text was still under review in Washington, the U.S. also 
planned to submit draft decision language prior to EC-46 and, 
as with other delegations, provided a general overview of the 
decision elements and expressed the hope that a draft text 
could be shared prior to the EC. 
 
 
¶6. (U) U.S. rep inquired as to whether Moscow had given any 
further thought to site visits, and how their del saw this 
concept being addressed during the upcoming EC.  Russian del 
rep Smirnovsky replied that it might be best addressed in 
report language, but nothing more formal.  U.S. noted that 
this might not be possible, given the precedent set by 
previous decision documents, and recommended Russia be 
prepared to consider specific parameters for site visits 
during EC-46; Russian del did not seem to believe Moscow 
would be favorably inclined to incorporate site visits in a 
decision text.  Smirnovsky also spoke at length about the 
effects of including "superfluous" language in decision texts 
that simply restates Convention provisions, and implied 
Moscow's legal opinion is that this can actually weaken a 
decision.  Finally, Russian del noted that if Moscow receives 
the U.S. draft decision too late, it will not have adequate 
time for translation and review, and may not be in a position 
to approve the document. 
 
 
--- 
VIR 
--- 
 
¶7. (U) U.S. del contacted Policy Review Branch head Per Runn 
for an update on the status of the 2005 VIR, consultations on 
which are long overdue.  Runn noted with some exasperation 
that the document has been with the editors for over five 
weeks now, the end effect of which will be that the VIR will 
not be available for consideration prior to EC-46.  Although 
consultations can still be held in the inter-sessional 
period, this also means that the VIR will first be discussed 
as an agenda item during the November EC, shortly before the 
data for the 2006 VIR is compiled.  Del intends to raise the 
unusually late distribution of this document during the EC 
Chair's preparatory meeting for EC-46. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
MEETING WITH INDIAN AMBASSADOR AND DELEGATION 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (U) On June 9 Ambassador Javits and delegation members met 
with Indian Ambassador Ponappa, and Riva Das and Arya Sandeep 
of the Indian delegation to discuss a number of issues.  The 
following is a summary of the outcome: 
 
¶9. (U) Financial rules: Del informed the Indian delegation 
that Iran had agreed to removal of the word "all" (i.e., "all 
States Parties") from the procurement language.  (Iran and 
India were the last opponents to this change.)  Das noted 
that they were favorably inclined toward this idea but were 
waiting for formal instructions from New Delhi.  (Note: Das 
has subsequently indicated that India could accept this 
proposal.) 
 
¶10. (U) Confidentiality: Del reminded the Indian delegation 
of the challenges this facilitation has experienced in 
getting resolution on the idea of outreach efforts to 
National Authorities (during regional/subregional meetings, 
for example).  This type of training is valuable, 
particularly for new States Parties.  Some SPs have 
instructions to have a decision, while others prefer report 
language.  The facilitator (Sanders, U.S.) intends to meet 
with a small group (India, others) to try to resolve this. 
 
¶11. (U) Das indicated that they have more of a concern with 
declassification of documents.  The U.S. indicated that the 
current, weaker language allows those SPs who choose to mark 
individual parts of submitted data.  This is also the 
preference of the TS, as it allows them to use unclassified 
data elements in other reports, documents, etc.  Given the 
flexibility, it is not clear that this will fully resolve the 
issue for the TS.  Das again indicated that they are awaiting 
formal instructions from New Delhi.  Sanders also indicated 
that the report language on this issue will reflect India's 
latest comments. 
 
¶12.  (U) Staff regulations: Del reminded the Indian 
 
delegation that this issue revolves around item #2 - whether 
the DG should be given limited reclassification authority. 
This would not be carte blanche authority.  The U.S. supports 
this limited authority, as is done at most other 
international organizations. 
 
¶13. (U) When asked about their concerns, the Indian 
delegation felt that the Executive Council should have a say 
in these matters.  Although they agree in principle to this 
action, they feel that the classifications of positions are 
what the SPs thought they should be and, as such, the EC 
should be involved in the decision for transparency sake. 
Amb. Javits agreed that the related information should be 
provided to the EC in a timely manner, but too much detail 
could become too political.  The DG should be given 
flexibility, as long as it does not directly affect a budget 
line. 
 
¶14. (U) There was discussion about options for EC 
involvement: maybe upgraded positions should go to the EC, 
but not downgraded; maybe more than one step raises 
transparency concerns.  The Indian delegation stated that 
even downgraded positions could be a concern.  They then 
mentioned that they knew of some particular cases where 
positions were upgraded or downgraded more than one level, 
and in some cases a person was in the position when the 
downgrade (for example) occurred. 
 
¶15. (U) The Indian delegation asked why the U.S. thought this 
authority, which the DG originally had, was taken away.  The 
thought was that this was done during the tenure of the 
previous DG and, perhaps, because of abuse.  The U.S. noted 
that, if there is any concern about the DG overstepping his 
limits, there are plenty of checks and balances to take care 
of this. 
 
¶16.  (U) Antiterrorism:  The U.S. asked the Indian delegation 
their thoughts on how this should proceed.  The stated their 
concern is that giving too much to the facilitation would bog 
down their work.  They also have a particular concern about 
the TS contacts with NATO.  They want to see the work 
continue in line with the CSP-8 decision.  They also see that 
the OPCW's capability to truly respond to chemical terrorist 
attack does not yet exist. 
 
¶17. (U) When asked whether they would like to see approval 
granted before contacts are made or if there was a more 
general concern, the Indian delegation was concerned about 
where the TS goes and why.  This would not be to micromanage 
the process.  However, the TS needs to give more information 
about the outcome of their visits, trips, contacts, etc.  As 
an example, in the Ukrainian exercise, the fact that the host 
was a NATO-related organization came out much later, which 
raised questions of transparency.  They would like to see the 
TS get past generalities, reporting what happened, how it 
 
SIPDIS 
contributed to national competencies, and the next steps. 
 
¶18. (U) When asked our thoughts, the U.S. delegation said our 
first concern was who would take Sophie Moal-Makame's 
(France) place as facilitator.  The U.S. also said we should 
focus on practicalities - what we want the TS to do.  We 
could ask the TS to give us more information on their 
activities and what they need to develop their capabilities. 
The U.S. still feels that the biggest contribution to this 
issue is having everyone fully implement the treaty. 
 
¶19. (U) Biomedical sampling: There was general agreement that 
the problems on this issue at the last EC were purely 
procedural.  India pointed out that the content of the 
February 2006 report were better than (and, thus, superceded) 
that of the March 2005 report.  That was their rationale for 
just wanting to "receive" the DG's Note.  The Indian 
delegation has no concerns with the OPCW developing 
biomedical capabilities.  In fact, Indian laboratories are 
interested in being part of this capability.  Again, these 
issues were procedural, not substantive. 
 
¶20.  (U) Article VII: Amb. Javits stated that it is not our 
intent to force the TS, the EC, or SPs to do something (i.e., 
 
outreach) they are not willing to do.  When asked for their 
thoughts, the Indian delegation said they felt that the TS is 
the best option for future progress.  The EC, including its 
chair, may need to be more spontaneous, based on their level 
of comfort, their capability, etc. 
 
¶21. (U) When asked their thoughts on encouragement and 
suggestions, the Indian delegation said they did not have 
thoughts yet.  Das felt that a critical data point is whether 
the SP in need of assistance actually wants the help.  The 
group agreed that it would be helpful to ask the facilitation 
to dive more into the details of these SPs situations to 
ensure that efforts are correctly focused. 
 
¶22. (U) Indian CW destruction facility: The Indian delegation 
indicated that there was light at the end of the tunnel for 
the facility agreement.  Their experts from capital met with 
the TS during EC-45, and they are now awaiting a revised 
draft from the TS.  Their last round activity destroyed more 
than they expected.  They will resume activities on July 15. 
They also mentioned that there does not seem to be an 
across-the-board consistency with the standards laid out in 
facility agreements. 
 
¶23.  (U) Review Conference (raised by the Indian delegation): 
When asked about the U.S. perception of the activity in this 
area, the U.S. delegation said that procedural aspects are 
being put into place.  Details may be laid out as late as 
summer 2007.  One exception is the SAB.  The SAB needs time 
to do its preparatory work, and perhaps the fall of 2006 
would be a good time to meet to give clear direction to the 
SAB. 
 
¶24. (U) Amb. Ponappa expressed concern with the last RevCon, 
stating that too much of the preparation was done too late. 
Amb. Javits's opinion was that too many SPs came into the 
process too late and could not catch up, and the process was 
allowed to be sidetracked.  The "mini-Bureau" should be able 
to deal with that sort of problem, although their focus will 
management issues (managing the process) rather than 
substantive ones. 
 
¶25. (U) Amb. Ponappa also expressed concern about some 
"consensus decisions" from the last EC being allowed to be 
reopened.  Amb. Javits suggested that a balance was needed to 
avoid discouraging dissenters.  Ponappa emphasized the need 
to respect issues that have been gaveled in, so they not be 
reopened. 
 
¶26.  (U) U.S. extension request (raised by the Indian 
delegation): When asked about where things stand, the U.S. 
delegation said that work was ongoing in Washington on draft 
decision language.  Ponappa asked whether this would be 
available by the next EC, and the U.S. noted that Washington 
is now engaged on all aspects of the decision document text. 
The U.S. emphasized that if there is a feeling amongst 
delegations that if it is warranted, we could return to 
technical discussions and make our technical experts 
available again.  When Ponappa asked about the legality and 
procedural way forward, Amb. Javits suggested that these 
discussions wait until the status of the U.S. destruction 
program as 2012 approaches becomes much clearer.  He asked 
for patience, not for us, but for the situation. 
 
¶27. (U) Africa office (raised by the Indian delegation): 
There was general expression of support for the new 
facilitator (Rugeles, Colombia).  There was also consensus 
that there is a need for clarity on what the Africans really 
need, which they have had a hard time expressing. 
 
¶28.  (U) DG Note on agreements (raised by the Indian 
delegation): Amb. Javits said he felt that the DG has been 
transparent, while acknowledging that significant issues need 
to come back to the EC.  Ponappa gave the example of the 
agreement with the African Union and the exchange of 
confidential information that resulted. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
------------------------ 
UNIVERSALITY POC MEETING 
 
 
------------------------ 
 
¶29.  (U) The new facilitator for universality (Said Moussi, 
Algeria) convened his first Points of Contact meeting on June 
¶13.  Most of the External Relations Division (ERD) attended 
as well as the delegations from the U.S., Russia, Mexico, 
China, Iran, and Japan.  The meeting was largely a briefing 
by the TS on its recent activities in the sphere of 
universality and its initial planning for the Middle East 
regional meeting scheduled to take place in Rome from October 
25-27. 
 
¶30.  (U) Since the last POC meeting on March 9, the TS has 
visited the DRC, CAR, and Bahamas as part of its universality 
efforts.  Liu Zhixian, the Director of ERD attended a 
workshop for Portugese-speaking countries in Lisbon on June 8 
and met with representatives from Angola and Guinea Bissau. 
Liu reported that Angola expressed interest in a Technical 
Assistance Visit.  Liu also said that a representative from 
ERD would be going to London very shortly to meet with 
representatives from Barbados to discuss its progress. 
 
¶31.  (U) Liu said that the DG had drafted letters to the 
non-SPs in the Middle East asking them to send high-level 
representation from their capital to the Rome conference and 
that letters to other SP's in the region and other countries 
would go out in the next few days.  Liu said the formal 
announcement of the meeting in Rome would be released before 
the next Universality consultation scheduled for June 21. 
 
¶32.  (U) Liu urged all SPs to engage with non-SPs in the 
region and encourage them to send high-level government 
representatives.  Liu pledged that the TS would organize a 
meeting with the Italians and other interested delegations to 
plan the meeting and make it a success.  He said the agenda 
would be similar to previous agendas for this region, but 
that the TS was very open to ideas from SPs.  Del rep 
suggested that ERD should keep interested delegates apprised 
of planning for the conference and share the notional agenda 
as soon as it is prepared. Del rep has also raised the issue 
privately with the DG's office. 
 
¶33.  (U) In other universality related developments: Algeria 
has offered to host a conference from November 20-22 for 
African SPs but presumably non-SPs will be invited as well. 
The DG wrote a letter to the PM and FM of Barbados urging 
them to ratify and sign the CWC.  This was transmitted 
through the Deputy Perm Rep of the Barbados mission in NY who 
suggested the letter be sent.  The DG also wrote a letter to 
the FM of Burma urging Burma to attend an upcoming workshop 
in Nepal.  In the Comoros, the legislation necessary to 
ratify the CWC is on the agenda for the June parliamentary 
session.  Liu said he believed that it was likely that the 
Bahamas, the Comoros, the DRC, and the CAR would ratify this 
year. 
 
¶34.  (U) Japan asked if international and regional 
organizations would be invited to Rome.  Japan also suggested 
that perhaps some of the non-SPs invited to the meeting in 
Rome should be invited to a national authority meeting 
scheduled for the fall in Jakarta.  Japan thought this was 
good idea as "Indonesia is a Muslim country too."  Malik 
Ellahi of ERD said that no decision on IOs or regional 
organizations had been made yet for Rome.  He pushed back on 
inviting non-SPs from the Middle East to the NA meeting in 
Rome saying it was better to focus our universality efforts 
on Rome and pointing out that it could be insulting to Arab 
countries to be invited to Indonesia simply because they were 
all Muslim countries. 
 
¶35.  (U) China said it was checking with Beijing to see if 
high-level officials would be able to attend the meeting in 
Rome. 
 
------------------------- 
EXTERNAL AUDITOR'S REPORT 
------------------------- 
 
¶36.  (U) Chiho Komuro (Japan) chaired her last consultation 
 
on the Report of the External Auditor for the Year Ending 31 
December 2005 (EC-45/DG.9, C-11/DG.3, dated May 10, 2006). 
The Head of the Budget and Finance Branch, Rick Martin, 
represented the TS at the meeting.  Much of the consultation 
focused on the Smartstream system. 
 
¶37.  (U) Del rep asked if the information presented in 
Statement IV on page 48 of the report was also available for 
the years from 2001-2004. Martin said that the information 
could be found in all of the previous External Auditor 
reports in Statement IV.  Germany asked why there was an 
increase in unliquidated obligations as indicated in 
paragraph 25 of the report and what steps the TS has taken to 
address the problem of late payments by SPs.  Martin said the 
primary reason for the increase in unliquidated obligations 
was that beginning in 2005 the TS counted any obligation that 
had not been paid by December 31 as an unliquidated 
obligation.  In previous years the TS had kept its books open 
for a month or two beyond the end of the year which lead to 
lower figures for unliquidated obligations.  In order to 
encourage SPs to pay on time or at least as soon as possible, 
the DG makes constant references to the problems created by 
late payments in all of his speeches to EC's and the CSP, 
according to Martin.  In addition, BFB sends out at least 
three reminder letters a year to SPs that have not paid.  The 
TS is also working with SPs to create a repayment mechanism 
 
SIPDIS 
for SPs that are in arrears. 
 
¶38.  (U) Iran said it could not understand how it was 
possible to have such large surpluses and unliquidated 
obligations at the same time.  Martin explained that there 
was not really a link between the two, and that it was more 
of a bookkeeping issue.  Italy suggested that the TS keep its 
books open until March in order to reduce the number of 
unliquidated obligations (sic).  Martin explained that it 
made much more sense to have it coincide with the budgetary 
year that was a calendar year. 
 
¶39.  (U) Del rep noted the importance of creating an 
effective mechanism to monitor the TSs performance in meeting 
its RBB objectives as outlined in paragraph 33 of the report 
and in refining RBB performance indicators.  Germany, Italy, 
and Japan supported the U.S.  Martin said the TS hoped to 
have such a mechanism in place in 2006 and promised to work 
with delegations to continue to refine RBB indicators in the 
budget. 
 
¶40.  (U) Del rep asked about the status of the TS plan to 
seek a new travel agent as outlined in paragraph 53.  Martin 
said the procurement process has begun to seek a new travel 
service provider and that Administration was also looking at 
purchasing an automated travel system to track travel 
requests, payments, etc. 
 
¶41.  (U) Iran asked about the two incidences of computers 
having been procured with waivers of bids as outlined in 
paragraphs 38-41.  Ron Nelson, the Director of 
Administration, and Bento Da Silva, the Head of the 
Information Services Branch (ISB), joined the consultation 
and explained that there was no competitive bidding for the 
two major computer purchases outlined because a majority of 
the TS workstations were Dell computers and the TS believed 
that it was important to try and standardize its computer 
inventory. 
 
¶42.  (U) Several delegations asked for an update on the 
Smartstream system.  Da Silva replied that all of the modules 
of Smartstream that were originally planned to be implemented 
have been implemented.  He said the TS would review the 
procurement module to see if it should be implemented.  He 
said that ISB had conducted a customer survey for Smartstream 
that revealed that most users believed the system needed to 
be more user-friendly and that users should receive 
additional training.  Da Silva said that the current version 
is installed on each workstation and then linked together. 
Smartstream would soon be releasing a web-based update of the 
software that should low-cost and more user friendly.  Da 
Silva said there was also a need to change the IT culture in 
the TS; many users continue to use Excel and other programs 
 
that are not linked together and this defeats the purpose of 
Smartstream. 
 
¶43.  (U) Germany asked if there was a single project manager 
for Smartstream and if Da Silva had any thoughts on the OIO 
investigation of Smartstream.  Da Silva confirmed that there 
was a project manager for Smartstream.  On the OIO report, Da 
Silva said that the only OIO recommendation he was familiar 
with since he became the Head of ISB was the recommendation 
to formalize and tighten up the procedures for changing data 
in the Smartstream database.  This has been completed. 
 
¶44.  (U) France asked if it would be possible to receive 
quarterly briefings, as is done with VIS, on the progress 
being made on Smartstream implementation.  France noted that 
delegations were concerned about the large amounts of money 
that have already been spent on Smartstream.  Germany 
supported France's request.  Rather skillfully, Da Silva said 
that Smartstream really belonged to the users now and much as 
the users had taken charge of VIS, the users should take 
charge of Smartstream.  What he really seemed to be saying 
was that somebody else could brief delegates every three 
months on Smartstream.  Germany and France both asked that 
their concerns be reflected in report language. 
 
¶45.  (U) Italy asked that language critical of the External 
Auditor's recommendations on tenure as outlined on page 65 
and 66 be included in report language.  France and Germany 
suggested that this issue could better be dealt with in the 
Facilitators oral report particularly as this could muddy the 
waters with the DG's upcoming report on tenure. 
 
¶46.  (U) Javits sends. 
ARNALL