VZCZCXYZ0004
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #2342/01 3051114
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 011114Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7265
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 002342 
 
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 27 
 
This is CWC-99-06. 
 
----------------------------- 
EXTENSION REQUEST DISCUSSIONS 
----------------------------- 
 
¶1. (U) Del rep continued meeting with interested delegations 
on the subject of the U.S. extension request.  A meeting with 
the Indian delegation was positive.  The Indians expressed 
support for U.S. transparency, and an understanding for 
difficulties the U.S. has encountered in its destruction 
program, noting several times that as a fellow possessor, 
India had no intention of causing trouble on the U.S. 
extension request.  Indian reps asked detailed questions 
about the U.S. and Russian programs, and noted their concern 
over Russia's proposal to conduct visits to the destruction 
facilities of all possessor states. 
 
¶2. (U) Del reps also met with Shahrokh Shakerian, the Iranian 
delegate.  Shakerian was surprisingly frank about his 
specific concerns regarding the U.S. extension request, most 
notably the "legality" issues stemming from references in the 
U.S. draft decision to the national paper projecting 
destruction operations beyond 2012.  Shakerian noted the 
Russians had been "clever" in development of their detailed 
plan that conveniently ended exactly on April 29, 2012, and 
that no one would fault either the U.S. or Russia if, closer 
to 2012, it became clear they would not meet the final 
deadline. 
 
¶3.  (U) He also expressed support for the concept of site 
visits, but indicated a desire to reach agreement on 
specifics of the mandate, activities, and reporting of a 
visiting delegation before any visit could occur (although it 
could be acceptable to agree the principle up front and come 
to agreement on specifics later).  Finally, he noted concern 
at the Russian attitude that their extension request was 
really only a formality, and stated that concluding CSP-11 
without having reached consensus on the draft decisions of 
the two major possessors would be the worst outcome for the 
credibility of the Convention.  (Del comment:  This seems to 
indicate a desire to conclude, rather than extend, 
discussions on the draft decisions, which could be useful in 
final negotiations on the U.S. decision text and approach to 
site visits.  End comment.) 
 
------ 
BUDGET 
------ 
 
¶4. (U) Budget consultations were held on October 26 to 
discuss all outstanding concerns with the 2007 budget. 
Co-facilitator, Walter Lion (Belgium) asked again for those 
countries with concerns on the 2007 ICA funding level to 
present concrete proposals or ideas for enhancement.  South 
Africa said that there would be little value in going over 
the ICA issue in depth again for the purposes of this 
meeting.  South Africa stated that the Technical Secretariat 
had told him bilaterally that they were willing to look again 
for any areas in the ICA division that could benefit from 
increased funding in order to prepare an alternative 
proposal.  Mexico supported South Africa stating that the TS 
is in the best position to decide where increased funding 
should be allocated.  India also supported the South African 
comment, and requested feedback from the TS on details of 
programs, for example, the Associate Program.  India would 
like to know how many applications were received, and how 
many of those applications were not accepted because of a 
lack in funding.  Italy asked how any increase in ICA would 
affect the overall budget, stressing that any changes to be 
budget must be cost neutral. 
 
¶5. (U) The co-facilitator stated that because delegations are 
requesting further explanations, he would ask the TS prepare 
an explanatory note on the ICA division, its programs and its 
funding level.  The TS stated that he was unaware of any 
ongoing work within the TS to prepare an alternative 
proposal.  He also noted that most divisions of the budget 
were reduced for the 2007 program because of efficiency 
 
gains, and comparatively, the ICA division received a 
significant increase.  In the debate on who should be 
responsible for preparing an alternative proposal, India 
stated that because this is a TS prepared budget, it would be 
most reasonable for the TS to decide where and how an 
increase would be beneficial. 
 
¶6. (U) South Africa interjected that they are simply asking 
for the TS to show which areas of the ICA division could 
benefit from an increase in funding, and following a review 
of the TS proposal, SPs could open negotiations in this area. 
 Del rep pushed back strongly and said that it was up to 
delegations that sought an increase in ICA funding to make a 
proposal.  Del rep also noted that maintaining a balance 
between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funding was important for the 
U.S. and therefore any real increase in ICA funding could 
necessitate a further increase in OCPF inspections in order 
to maintain the balance between Chapter 1 and 2.  Del rep 
expressed concern that some ICA funding and EU funding for 
ICA was not spent last year. 
 
¶7. (U) Australia noted that during the last consultations 
John Makhubalo, Director of the ICA division, provided this 
information that some delegations are requesting very 
clearly, and it would be inappropriate for the TS to present 
a counter-proposal to its own proposal.  Australia urged 
those delegations with concerns to reach out bilaterally to 
Makhubalo for further information so that they can prepare an 
alternative proposal, but this needed to be done rather 
quickly as they hoped to reach an agreement on the budget at 
EC-47.  Australia also stated that any increase in the budget 
must be cost neutral.  Italy and Germany supported 
Australia's comment and both stated that the balance between 
Chapter 1 and 2 funding must be maintained. 
 
¶8. (U) Switzerland again asked the TS to clarify why the 2007 
budget is under zero nominal growth (ZNG).  In response, the 
TS stated that the intent was never to produce a budget under 
 
SIPDIS 
ZNG, they prepared the budget to achieve the core objectives 
for 2007, and due to savings from efficiency gains, it just 
happened to come under ZNG. The TS said that he would see if 
Makhubalo could be present at the next consultation, but 
flatly stated that an informational paper prepared by the TS 
is unlikely to satisfy delegations requests.  However, if SPs 
felt an explanatory note was necessary, they would prepare 
one and provide it to SPs early next week.   South Africa 
suggested that the TS internally coordinate the paper so that 
all views are incorporated. 
 
¶9. (U) The UK stated that they did not think that an 
information paper was necessary, but if one was going to be 
prepared, their delegation would like to see information of 
the appropriation of all voluntary contributions, to include 
EU funding.  (Note: To the UK's surprise, at the last 
consultations, the TS stated that the 2006 UK contribution to 
the Associate Program had been re-allocated to another 
program since the Associate Program was fully funded.) 
 
¶10. (U) On discussions related to the draft decision, China 
was the first delegation to intervene by noting that none of 
their concerns had been incorporated into the text.  India 
and Mexico both supported the comments made by China that 
none of their concerns were addressed in the annex of the 
report.  The U.S. and Germany both provided general support 
for the draft decision. While Iran admitted that he had not 
yet sent to draft decision to Tehran, he personally thought 
it was premature to discuss the annex since some issues had 
not yet been resolved.   Mexico asked for the reasons why the 
table on the last page had been changed from the table in the 
original budget, specifically on Libya inspections and the 
decrease in CWSF inspections.  The TS stated that the TS is 
required by Council decision to draft decision text prior to 
an EC, and thus far the annex just incorporates very basic 
remarks by SPs, and all discussions on issues that were still 
open have not been included.  The co-facilitator stated that 
it was obvious that the draft decision needed to be "beefed 
up" and he would schedule a plenary meeting on November 3 for 
final discussions on the budget. 
 
--------------- 
REPAYMENT PLANS 
--------------- 
 
¶11. (U) Informal consultations were held on October 26 to 
review the revised draft decision document (dated 20 October 
2006) on creating a repayment mechanism for those SPs in 
arrears.  At the start of the meeting, there was a general 
debate on whether to remove or retain all references to 
voting rights.  Italy intervened stating that by removing 
references to voting rights, SPs in arrears would have low 
incentive for entering into a payment plan. Most delegations 
agreed, and discussions proceeded with the voting right text. 
 Iran stated that they would be able to retain OP 3(C) so 
long as PP5 was retained, and suggested that OP 3 read, 
"Provide an outline of the reasons for the existing arrears 
and the request for a multi-year payment plan, if they 
consider it appropriate.  The UK suggested "as appropriate" 
instead of "if they consider it appropriate" and consensus 
was reached.  On OP 5 Japan requested that "review" be 
changed to "consider." No delegations objected to this 
proposal. 
 
¶12. (U) All delegations agreed to de-bracket OP 5(b). 
Regarding OP 9, Iran and China both stated that the language 
is confusing, and noted that it reads as if the multi-year 
payment plan is a precondition for the restoration of voting 
rights.  Iran proposed replacing OP9 with the text of PP5 to 
read, "Agree Further, that the existence and status of 
implementation of an agreed multi-year payment plan might be 
among the factors that the Convention could take into account 
in deciding, under Article VIII, paragraph 8 of the 
Convention, whether to permit a State Party that is in 
arrears to vote" and then remove PP5. All delegations 
supported the Iranian proposal and agreed to move OP 9 to 
follow OP 5 
 
¶13. (U) After some discussion on the meaning of "if 
applicable," delegations agreed to keep OP 10 (b, ii) to 
read, "Article VIII, paragraph 8, of the Convention shall 
again apply, in those cases where the restoration of voting 
rights was based upon the existence of a multi-year payment 
plan, without prejudice to the right of any State Party to 
request the restoration of its voting rights." 
 
¶14. (U) All delegations offered their general support for the 
revised draft, while noting that it still needs to be sent to 
capitals for final approval.   The TS stated that the final 
draft decision would be placed on the external server.  Del 
will forward a copy as soon as it is available. 
 
-------------------------------- 
EC-47 PREPARATIONS AND EC REPORT 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶15.  (U) Informal consultations were held on October 25 to 
discuss the annotated provisional agenda for EC-47 and the 
draft report of the EC on its activities (EC-47/CRP.1, dated 
31 August 2006).  Vice Chairman Alexander Petri (FRG), who 
chaired the session due to the absence of EC Chairperson 
Mkhize (South Africa), began by stating that this meeting 
should not address substance.  He asked delegations to 
comment only on items of procedural concern (items not ready 
for discussion, or which delegations would need to request 
deferral, etc.).  Petri proposed doing a 
paragraph-by-paragraph review of each document, beginning 
with the EC-47 agenda. 
 
¶16.  (U) Iran was the first delegation to intervene, on the 
U.S. and Russian extension requests, specifically asking that 
the language that had been included at EC-46 (at Iranian 
insistence) on those extension requests be included in the 
provisional annotated agenda.  Iran then asked for further 
information regarding the UK proposal on site visits.  Petri 
responded to the Iranian proposal by stating that this 
decision is of substantive discussion, and this meeting was 
simply to acknowledge the agenda as the procedural basis for 
discussions at EC-47.  Iran then backed down. 
 
 
¶17.  (U) Italy asked for TS for clarification regarding OP 
5.18, which states that the "Council is requested to note the 
comments and views received on the 2005 Verification 
Implementation Report."  Italy asked if this was standard 
text for EC agendas.  Iran said that they would like to see 
the language revised from "note" to "receive" in the text. 
Amb. Khodakov replied that the language is this agenda is 
identical to that of prior agendas, and language regarding 
"to receive" versus "to note" is should be decided within the 
EC, not in this forum.  Regarding agenda item six, India 
asked the TS if the EC-45 paper would be topic for 
discussion, and the TS responded that discussions with SPs 
have not been conclusive, therefore, the paper has not yet 
been prepared. 
 
¶18. (U) Regarding the draft report of the EC on its 
activities in the period from 2 July 2005- 7 July 2006, Iran 
was again the first delegation to intervene, focusing on para 
1.10 about Iraqi participation at EC-44.  Iran asked for the 
text to better reflect the decision at that EC that this 
occurrence "does not set the precedent for future cases." 
Then on paras 2.16 and 2.17 (the U.S. and Russian extension 
requests), Iran again asked that the language that had been 
added at Iranian insistence be included in this document. 
 
¶19. (U) Turkey asked that OP 2.71 be revised to reflect the 
gravity and importance of the anti-terrorism efforts of the 
OPCW and proposed changing the language to read, "The Council 
at its Forty-Fifth session received and considered a Note by 
the Director-General on the OPCW's contribution to global 
efforts to fight terrorism."  Khodakov responded to Turkey's 
proposal by noting that it would be inappropriate to reflect 
this language in the agenda, as it is a decision that must be 
made by SPs. 
 
¶20. (U) Iran asked for clarification regarding item five, 
"Matters Requiring Consideration or Action by CSP-11," noting 
that it is an incomplete list.  Khodakov reminded delegations 
that this report only covers activities up to July 7, 2006, 
and stated that it would be possible to add a footnote 
reflecting this in the report. 
 
¶21. (U) Iran then asked that language be inserted into para 
1.8 of the Annex "encouraging SPs to fulfill their 
obligations under Article XI, 2(c) and 2(e)."  Khodakov noted 
that the specific text was the CSP decision language and that 
the EC is in no position to modify the text.  Iran then said 
that, procedurally, it had made a proposal and that no 
delegation had objected, so it should be accepted.  Delegates 
from Italy and Austria made some general comments.  Australia 
then flatly said that it objected to the Iranian proposal, 
stating that "cherry-picking" items which a certain 
delegation deems of higher importance, is not appropriate for 
this report or productive for this meeting. 
 
¶22. (U) Italy suggested removing the annex of this report, 
which Khodakov said it would consider.  Khodakov then posed 
as an alternative simply adding the CSP-10 final report, 
excluding the budget.  Iran stated that because their 
comments in this consultation were not going to be 
incorporated, they will refuse to "note" this draft report 
during EC-47, and only agree to "receive" the report.  Petri 
ended the meeting by stating that this item was deferred for 
later consideration. 
 
¶23.  (U) Javits sends. 
ARNALL