VZCZCXYZ0009
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #2253/01 2911011
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 181011Z OCT 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7128
INFO RUEAIIA/CIAQSHDC 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 002253 
 
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 OCTOBER 13 
 
 
This is CWC-93-06. 
 
-------------------------- 
CW DESTRUCTION DISCUSSIONS 
-------------------------- 
 
¶1.  (U) Del reps met with South African delegate Marthinus 
van Schalkwyk on Oct. 13 to discuss the perceived need among 
delegations for an open discussion of the U.S. and Russian 
extension requests.  Van Schalkwyk confirmed that although 
delegations have not voiced specific concerns, some have 
approached the chair to inquire whether anything is "being 
done" with the U.S. and Russian extension requests prior to 
EC-47.  Del reps explained U.S. concerns that this not be 
seen as a drafting exercise, and Washington's position that 
any such meeting involve both the U.S. and Russia.  Van 
Schalkwyk seemed receptive to U.S. input, and said he 
understood the benefits of a meeting to discuss extension 
requests being convened by Ambassador Mkhize as the EC Chair, 
or her designated representative, as opposed to one of the 
possessor states. 
 
¶2. (U) Van Schalkwyk recommended couching the meeting as an 
"exchange of views," and seemed open to facilitating, 
contingent on the approval of his Ambassador and Ambassador 
Petri (Vice Chair of the CW Cluster).  He will work with 
Ambassador Mkhize in approaching the Russian delegation prior 
to actually scheduling a meeting, with the understanding that 
time is of the essence, if the objective of the meeting is to 
prevent complaints that there has been no substantive 
discussion of CW destruction in the run-up to EC-47. 
 
-------------------- 
BUDGET CONSULTATIONS 
-------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Budget consultations were held on October 10.  The 
meeting was a continued attempt by the co-facilitators to 
have delegations flag problem areas in the budget so that 
they could develop an effective roadmap for the remainder of 
consultations.  Delegations continued to review the budget 
program by program. 
 
¶4.  (U) On International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA), 
Iran, Malaysia, and Algeria all noted that they supported the 
NAM position especially an increase in ICA funding.  No 
delegations raised any issues regarding the Secretariat for 
the Policy-Making Organs (PMO). 
 
¶5.  (U) Concerning the core objectives, Iran again called for 
the elimination of the third column of performance 
indicators.  Del rep advocated retaining the third column of 
performance indicators saying that they constituted a key 
part of the implementation and refinement of the RBB process. 
 Austria favored keeping the third column but asked that the 
performance indicators be more positive in nature.  Canada 
also advocated retaining the third column but noted that the 
contents of the third column were not as sacrosanct as the 
first two columns as they were not negotiated text.  Italy 
called for keeping the third column. 
 
¶6.  (U) Iran asked for continued discussions of the Medium 
Term Plan.  Italy, the UK, and Australia pushed back noting 
that the plan had already been discussed at a previous budget 
consultation and was not, in any event, negotiated text but 
merely a document that the EC will note at its next session. 
 
¶7.  (U) Budget consultations were held on October 12 to 
discuss the proposed increase in 2007 OCPF inspections. 
Director of the Verification Division, Horst Reeps, was 
present to provide technical assistance to the discussion. 
The Technical Secretariat distributed a supporting paper, 
"Resourcing of Inspection Programs for 2007" to provide 
additional information on the resource implications of CW and 
industry programs planned for 2007.  Reeps began the 
consultation noting that by the end of 2006 only about 8% of 
OCPFs will have been inspected, while on average schedule 1 
facilities will have been inspected six times and schedule 2 
facilities inspected nearly three times respectively. 
 
 
¶8.  (U) On the notion of risk presented by schedule 2 
facilities, Reeps stated that schedule 2 facilities could 
potentially be divided into 3 categories: those which produce 
(high risk), those which process (lower risk), and those 
which consume (low risk) schedule 2 chemicals.  Reeps briefly 
commented on the sampling and analysis technique that is 
being applied to schedule 2 facilities, noting that the 
technique allows for enhanced verification of the activities 
conducted at the facilities. 
 
¶9.  (U) South Africa asked for clarification regarding the 
5,000 inspector days allotted for the preparation of 
challenge inspections.  The TS explained that the 5,000 
inspector days refer to all training programs, not just those 
related to challenge inspections. South Africa asked the TS 
to clarify this in the final budget document.  Austria, 
India, Switzerland, and the U.S. supported the South African 
proposal. 
 
¶10.  (U) Mexico presented its own statistics concerning the 
proportional change in inspections among schedule 1, 2 and 3 
facilities and OCPFs since 2003, expressing concern with the 
proposed decrease in CW inspector days especially considering 
the slow pace of destruction. Mexico also commented that an 
agreement should be reached on the method of OCPF site 
selection before OCPF inspections are increased.  Mexico said 
that almost half of OCPF facilities would be exempt from 
inspection because of a provision in the Verification Annex 
that stipulates no more than 20 facilities can be inspected 
within an SP in a given year.  Iran supported Mexico's 
comment stating that it was not practical to expect that all 
OCPFs be inspected.  The TS explained that the there would be 
little effect on the cap since OCPFs are distributed among 73 
SPs. 
 
¶11.  (U) South Africa said that they were not opposed to the 
increase in OCPF inspections, but would like further 
information on exactly how the budget accounts for such an 
increase. South Africa asked whether the budget allocated for 
the increase through efficiency gains, reorganizing inspector 
days, or increasing in the total budget.  Australia commented 
that increasing OCPF inspections should be budgeted by 
reorganizing the inspector days.  Australia also stated that 
chemical nonproliferation is just as important as destruction 
efforts, therefore, improvements in productivity should occur 
within Article VI as well as Article IV, and V. 
 
¶12.  (U) India repeated that they were opposed to the 
reduction in schedule 1 and 2 inspections and that the budget 
consultations were not the appropriate forum to discuss a 
change in the allocation of Article VI inspections. India 
requested further information from the TS on Sampling and 
Analysis.   Iran agreed that schedule 1, 2 and 3 facilities 
pose a greater risk and therefore should be inspected with 
the same frequency as in previous years. 
 
¶13.  (U) Switzerland was very supportive of the budget 
proposal and was especially pleased with the increase in OCPF 
inspections.  Switzerland noted that the 2007 budget is less 
than the 2006 budget and represented "negative" nominal 
growth instead of zero nominal growth, and proposed 
allocating the surplus towards a greater increase in OCPF 
inspections. The Netherlands stated that they were prepared 
to support the Swiss proposal. 
 
----------------- 
VIR CONSULTATIONS 
----------------- 
 
¶14. (U) On October 11, EC Chair Mkhize (South Africa) chaired 
informal consultations on the 2005 VIR.  Per Runn (Policy 
Review Branch) opened the consultations by apologizing for 
the late distribution and subsequent scheduling of 
consultations for the 2005 VIR, and assured delegations this 
was due to exceptional circumstances and would not happen 
next year.  Mkhize then opened the session for general 
comments.  Germany offered a suggestion for the TS to develop 
a list of issues, stemming from VIR consultations and written 
 
comments provided by States Party, requiring the EC's 
attention.   Runn pointed out that this is the responsibility 
of delegations, who are welcome to bring issues to the 
attention of the Policy Making Organs.  U.S. del rep offered 
comments commending the TS for a generally accurate and 
well-formatted document.  Del rep expressed appreciation for 
Runn's assurance of a more timely publication next year, and 
recommended the TS consider clarifying further in next year's 
VIR the actual process of issuance of the VIR, receipt of SP 
comments, compilation of comments, issuance of a corrigendum, 
consultations, and response to SP comments. 
 
¶15. (U) Mkhize then led delegations through a 
section-by-section review of the VIR.  Most delegations 
remained silent, several because detailed written comments 
had already been provided to the TS for distribution.  The 
FRG, however, used this opportunity to address all of 
Berlin's detailed questions and/or concerns, resulting in 
what was essentially a dialogue between Germany and the TS. 
Most of Germany's questions were relatively minor and 
technical in nature.  One, on criteria used to determine 
frequency of inspection for converted CWPFs, generated an 
answer to a similar U.S. question.  (For reasons of 
classification, TS response will be provided separately.) 
The UK made several interventions focused on OCPF 
inspections, noting that (in paragraph 7.12) because 11 SPs 
contain 80% of the OCPFs, it is likely that the additional 
inspections in the 2007 budget will fall on industrial versus 
developing nations.  The UK also highlighted in paragraph 
7.44 the 10 OCPF inspections in 2005 that were "wasted" on 
facilities for which updated declarations should have been 
submitted. 
 
¶16.  (U) In paragraph 7.19, Iran noted with concern a 
Schedule 2 transfer in violation of the Convention, and 
stated that until further information was provided, it would 
consider this an open issue.  Iran also pointed out that 
there is great benefit to raising questions and concerns in 
the consultations, as opposed to submitting them in written 
form.  Runn replied that it is the prerogative of delegations 
to decide how to most appropriately raise their concerns, and 
that a benefit of written submission is the ability to more 
accurately track responses. 
 
¶17. (U) At the conclusion of consultations, Italy suggested a 
follow-up meeting to discuss the VIR supplement, but received 
no support from other delegations.  The TS did distribute the 
2005 VIR Corrigendum, the compendium of SPs comments, and 
specific written responses to SP comments, all of which will 
be provided to Washington.  Del will continue to seek 
clarification on issues of concern in the 2005 VIR, through 
bilateral consultations with delegations and the TS. 
 
--------------- 
REPAYMENT PLANS 
--------------- 
 
¶18.  (U) Consultations were held on October 9 to discuss the 
consideration of creating a mechanism for SPs in arrears to 
enter into repayment plans with the OPCW.  Delegations worked 
from the text dated September 6, 2006.  The main focus of the 
consultation was OP 10, which concerns what would happen were 
a SP not meet its obligations under a repayment plan. 
Several delegations, including the U.S. expressed the concern 
that a SP could enter into a repayment plan then in a 
separate decision by the CSP be granted their voting rights 
and afterwards make no payment only to lose their voting 
rights at the next CSP.  This would, in effect, allow an SP 
to merely enter into a repayment plan to regain their voting 
rights and then have the right to vote for a year with no 
consequences for non-payment. 
 
¶19.  (U) Iran asked that the word "proposal" be replaced with 
the word "plan."  The U.S. expressed concern that the 
language on reporting mechanisms in OP 12 again reinforced 
the idea that a full year would be need to withdraw voting 
rights were a SP not to fulfill its obligations under a 
repayment plan.  South Africa suggested that voting rights be 
granted year-by-year as at the UN and a committee on 
 
contributions be established to review payment performance at 
the end of the year.  No delegation supported this proposal. 
 
¶20.  (U) The facilitator agreed to note the concerns of 
delegations, formulate another draft, and circulate it 
amongst delegations.  The draft dated October 9, 2006 has 
since been circulated and can be found on the external 
server. It will be discussed at the next consultation on 
October 18. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
MEETING WITH LEGAL ADVISOR ON SCHEDULE 2A/2A* 
LOW CONCENTRATION DRAFT DECISION 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶21. (U) The facilitator on the issue of low concentration 
limits for Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals (Steve Wade, UK) chaired 
an informal meeting with the TS Legal Advisor (Amb Onate) to 
discuss the legal opinion on the facilitator's draft decision 
text.  Also in attendance were Ken Penman (TS, DEB) and 
representatives from China, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, and 
the U.S.  Oate walked through the opinion (originally 
distributed 15 June 2006) to demonstrate that the draft 
decision is in conformance with the CWC text, in that it 
allows the Conference to decide that certain conditions 
constitute a "risk to the object and purpose of the 
Convention" and override the primary exception that 
declarations "are generally not required" for low 
concentration mixtures (VA, Part VII, paragraph 5). 
 
¶22. (U) Del rep pointed out that the legal opinion indicated 
that the draft decision under consideration pointed to 
particular conditions that clear the "risk" hurdle: "(1) when 
the Schedule 2A chemical contained in the mixture exceeds 
(30) percent, and (2) when the Schedule 2A chemical contained 
in the mixture produced, processed or consumed (annually) at 
the plant site exceeds the verification threshold..."  Del 
rep went on to point out that the draft decision, in fact, 
goes beyond what is presented in the legal opinion, by 
including those situations where the concentration is below 
30 percent and the quantity is above the verification 
threshold.  Onate quickly pointed out that perhaps the "and" 
should be replaced with "and/or." 
 
¶23. (U) Many of the delegations expressed comfort with the 
legal opinion.  Japan said that their concerns were 
technical, pointing out that they feel concentrations below 
30 percent do not cause a "risk".  There was a general 
discussion on next steps, additional data that might help in 
reaching a conclusion, etc.  Given the long history of this 
item, del rep reminded delegations that the current text was 
meant to be a compromise between those who want very low 
concentrations and those who do not believe they are 
justified and encouraged them to work with their capitals so 
that the next meeting will result in a decision to move 
forward the draft decision or admit defeat and send this back 
to the EC.  The facilitator agreed that this should be the 
goal. 
 
¶24. (U) The facilitator distributed a write-up of the meeting 
to the participating delegations.  He originally planned to 
then distribute it to other delegations.  He has since 
changed his mind and will not distribute it widely.  As the 
meeting was intended to be informal, so as to allow a free 
exchange of views, he is afraid that giving a wider 
distribution to the meeting notes would give the meeting an 
unintended formality and negatively affect such meetings in 
the future.  However, del rep has distributed these notes to 
Washington for consideration. 
 
¶25.  (U) Ito sends. 
BLAKEMAN