VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0503/01 1621250
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 101250Z JUN 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1602
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
RHMFIUU/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000503 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR, 
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP> 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS) 
NSC FOR FLY 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP UP FOR WEEK ENDING JUNE 6, 2008 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 455 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 472 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 480 
     ¶D. THE HAGUE 482 
 
This is CWC-29-08 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) During the weeks of May 27 and June 2, no 
official OPCW meetings took place.  The Western 
European and Others Group (WEOG) met twice and was 
briefed by the new head of public affairs for the 
Technical Secretariat (TS).  The Dutch government 
hosted a visit to a DuPont plant site on May 29.  The 
FBI Assistant Director for Weapons of Mass 
Destruction and the FBI Chief of the WMD 
Countermeasures Unit visited OPCW on June 5 to 
discuss possible collaboration on future conferences. 
CEFIC President Van Sloten gave a presentation on the 
future of the chemical industry on June 5. 
 
¶2. (U) Ambassador Javits hosted the ambassadors of 
the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council 
for a post-Review Conference discussion on June 6. 
Delreps also met with TS officials to discuss visas 
to the U.S., personnel and recruiting issues, and the 
U.S. industry Schedule 1 facility agreement.  At a 
lunch hosted by the Article XI facilitator, Delrep 
and other delegations discussed ways to move forward 
on assistance programs.  Last, but not least, the 
Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial Matters 
(ABAF) met the week of June 2.  U.S. ABAF member Rios 
briefed Amb. Javits at the end of the week.  Details 
on all of these events follow. 
 
------------- 
WEOG MEETINGS 
------------- 
 
¶3. (U) On May 27, the new head of public affairs for 
the Technical Secretariat, Michael Luhan (U.S.), 
presented an outline of his plans to the WEOG.  Under 
a new OPCW policy, press releases will only be issued 
when there are major news developments or events (10- 
12 a year rather than the previous hundreds).  He has 
created a second category of &OPCW news8 for 
delegations and national authorities, including 
reports of the DG,s travel. These will not go to the 
press and would likely number about 10 per month. 
For the Review Conference, he began updating the 
media contacts lists and focusing on outreach to 
critical media outlets.  His unit is also working on 
revamping the public website and expects to unveil it 
in August.  The new system will be automated to 
upload information onto the site, freeing staff time 
to develop and solicit good input.  Another project 
is to turn the OPCW reception area into a public 
information space, including racks with OPCW 
publications and a plasma screen with information on 
meetings and events. 
 
¶4. (U) Luhan is actively expanding OPCW,s networking 
to NGOs, industry and other key players.  One of the 
tools for this is a structured questionnaire to 
industry.  He will also be developing a three-year 
strategic plan, including media benchmarks and 
opportunities (destruction of CW stockpiles in two 
states in the next two years, accession of new States 
Parties, DG,s visits, etc.), and networking with 
policy institutes, NGOs and industry.  He admitted 
that the PR and media budget is miniscule (65,000 
euro) but he is hoping to develop projects for which 
voluntary contributions could be earmarked.  Reaction 
from WEOG members was positive, including for 
voluntary contributions for outreach. 
 
¶5. (U) Following Luhan,s presentation, German 
delegate Ruth Surkau briefed the group on the first 
EC bureau meeting (May 22), noting that the new EC 
chair, Ambassador Oksana Tomova (Slovakia), made 
clear that she intends to actively consult the 
regional groups and expects her vice chairs to report 
back to their groups.  Algeria will retain the 
industry cluster of issues; Germany will take over 
the CW cluster of issues formerly held by WEOG Vice 
Chair Ireland; Costa Rica will assume the budget and 
administration cluster from outgoing Vice Chair 
Chile; and Iran will take the legal cluster from 
Russia. 
 
¶6. (U) Amb. Javits nominated Amb. Werner Burkhart 
(Germany), who was not present at the meeting, to be 
the WEOG representative to the Russian-hosted visit 
to the Shchuch,ye destruction facility, seconded by 
UK and France.  Other WEOG members had no objections 
but asked for more time to consider the matter, as it 
was the first they had heard nominations were due; 
WEOG coordinator subsequently forwarded the WEOG 
invitation letter of May 13 from the new EC 
Chairperson to all members under a silence procedure. 
Delrep announced that the U.S. participant for the 
Shchuch,ye visit would be Dr. Robert Mikulak. 
 
¶7. (U) At the June 3 WEOG meeting, coordinator Annie 
Mari (France) announced that all WEOG delegations had 
agreed that Ruth Surkau (Germany) would take over 
WEOG coordination this summer, at a date to be 
determined.  Mari also reported that she had 
consulted with the coordinators of other regional 
groups and with the Costa Rican ambassador (Vice 
Chair for Administrative Matters) and had received no 
objections to Martin Strub (Switzerland) facilitating 
the upcoming budget consultations. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Discussion once again turned to a review of 
the RevCon.  Italy stated that we need a plan to go 
forward on the industry issues, which ones require 
consultations and which might be better resolved 
among interested parties and the TS.  Germany noted 
that for OCPFs, the studies the TS had undertaken 
will be important for discussion.  UK rep suggested 
that for the site selection methodology, it might be 
premature to go into consultations, without working 
out a WEOG position first.  Several delegations spoke 
to their hope to resolve the issue of transfer 
discrepancies during EC-53 before the departure of 
the Japanese co-facilitator.  All agreed with the 
suggestion to invite the TS (Bill Kane) to brief the 
WEOG on TS activities concerning industry at the next 
meeting. 
 
¶9. (U) On EC-53 matters, Delrep informed the group 
that the U.S. Schedule 1 facility agreement will be 
delayed now until EC-54.  UK rep noted that there 
would be a corrigendum coming out on their document 
on a converted site, which will be a precedent as the 
first to pass the 10-year deadline.  Germany 
suggested that the EC might request improved 
reporting for the Article X and Article XI annual 
reports; currently the reports just list projects 
with no evaluation.  Netherlands Amb. Lak agreed, 
noting that the language in the Review Conference 
report on assessment would be helpful for that 
purpose.  UK rep suggested phrasing it in positive 
terms, &welcoming future assessment,8 which would 
also be a useful precedent for the budget. 
 
¶10. (U) Coordinator Mari, who is also the chair for 
the Open Ended Working Group on Terrorism, informed 
WEOG that she is arranging a meeting on Article X 
with the UN Office for the Coordination of 
Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA).  OCHA is willing to 
meet on Article X but did not want the meeting to be 
associated with terrorism, emphasizing assistance 
instead.  Mari also announced the next OEWG meeting 
for July 10 focusing on EU coordination on terrorism, 
with presentations by Spain and France. 
 
--------------------------- 
REVIEW CONFERENCE FOLLOW-UP 
--------------------------- 
 
¶11. (U) Daniel Feakes, a research fellow with the 
Harvard Sussex Program, was in The Hague during the 
week of May 27.  He met with a number of TS officials 
and participating delegations, including Amb. Lyn 
Parker (Chair, Open-Ended Working Group on 
preparations for the RevCon).  Delrep met with Feakes 
as his request to briefly discuss the &increased 
partnership with industry8 mentioned in the U.S. 
RevCon statement.  Delrep shared generally the ideas 
raised during the April 9 dinner with industry 
representatives hosted by Amb Javits (e.g., 
industry,s active promotion of the CWC in the early 
days, the challenges that industry faces with the 
public in being associated with a chemical weapons 
treaty, industry,s important role in the associate 
program and internships, etc.).  Feakes also asked 
for general impressions about the RevCon, as well as 
what he had from others about the counter-productive 
role Iran played during the RevCon.  Delrep was 
careful to focus on the challenges of the process 
rather than assigning full blame to one delegation. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
DUTCH-HOSTED VISIT TO DU PONT PLANT SITE 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (U) On May 29, the Dutch National Authority 
hosted a visit for delegations and TS staff to a Du 
Pont plant site in Dordrecht.  Amb Javits and Delrep 
participated in this event.  This site is declared 
and has been inspected under the Schedule 2 and OCPF 
regimes.  This was the second time in the past three 
years that the Dutch National Authority has chosen a 
site whose parent is a U.S. company. 
 
¶13. (U) Of interest was the fact that the Dutch 
National Authority chose a fluoropolymer plant site 
(i.e., Teflon and related products).  This comes on 
the heels of the RevCon, which resurrected the 
ongoing discussion regarding concentration thresholds 
for Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals.  (PFIB, a Schedule 2A 
chemical, is produced as an unwanted and unavoidable 
waste product in the production of these materials.) 
 
¶14. (U) Also of interest was the method this site 
uses for handling the PFIB waste that is generated. 
Although they thermal treat this waste, as is the 
pattern for nearly all such plants throughout the 
world, they incorporate some technology to capture 
certain chemicals resulting from the break-down of 
PFIB.  For example, this site captures aqueous HF 
(hydrofluoric acid) and sells it to another company 
for use as a raw material in the production of 
toothpaste. 
 
¶15. (SBU) In discussions with Bill Kane (TS, Industry 
Verification) during the site visit, he said that 
this type of thermal treatment was typical of most 
such plant sites, although the capture of resulting 
chemicals was somewhat unique.  He said that the case 
of concern often referred to by the UK delegation of 
sites that drum up PFIB waste and send it off site 
for destruction is very rare and may be unique to one 
site in the UK itself. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
INDUSTRY SCHEDULE 1 FACILITY AGREEMENT 
-------------------------------------- 
¶16. (U) Discussions continue regarding the facility 
agreement for the single industrial Schedule 1 
facility that falls under the verification regime. 
One last-minute issue has arisen regarding health and 
safety practices, and this issue will require further 
review by Commerce experts and then TS health and 
safety staff.  It now seems unlikely that this 
facility agreement can be considered for approval 
during the June meeting of the Executive Council (EC- 
53).  In that case, the TS will prepare the final 
document with an EC-54 number and distribute it as 
soon as possible (preferable before or during EC-53), 
so that capitals will have sufficient time to review 
it and recommend approval during EC-54. 
 
--------------------------- 
OFFICIAL VISAS FOR TS STAFF 
--------------------------- 
 
¶17. (U) On May 27, Delreps met with Milijana Danevska 
(Head, Protocol and Visa Branch) and Serban Coman- 
Enescu (Senior Protocol Officer) to follow-up on 
previous meetings about official visas to the U.S. 
for TS staff and inspectors.  Danevska expressed her 
thanks that two-year multiple-entry visas were now 
being issued for official travel, in accordance with 
CWC requirements.  Delreps discussed the regulatory 
need for travelers using UN laissez-passers to have a 
letter from the UN,s Transportation Division 
authorizing travel.  Danevska stated that the OPCW 
would like to remove this unnecessary administrative 
burden, especially as the OPCW is an independent 
organization and the OPCW,s use of UN laissez-passers 
is governed through its cooperation agreement with 
the UN.  Delreps agreed to stay in touch and to 
explore the possibility of the U.S. making an 
exception for the OPCW visa processing, eliminating 
the need for the extra step of a UN letter. 
 
------------------------- 
HR AND RECRUITMENT ISSUES 
------------------------- 
 
¶18. (U) On May 29, Delrep met with Ali Asghar (Head, 
Human Resources) to discuss recruiting and other 
administrative issues.  Asghar noted that the number 
of U.S. citizens working at the TS now stands at 33 
(25 in Professional positions and eight in General 
Services positions); this represents an increase of 
seven (six Professional and one GS) since the 
beginning of the year and makes the U.S. the country 
with the largest share of Professional staff 
positions in the TS. 
 
¶19. (U) Asghar said that the TS,s e-recruitment 
system is due to be launched in June, well ahead of 
the originally-expected December launch date.  The 
system is based on the one currently used by the WHO 
and will allow applicants to fully track their 
applications through the entire recruitment process. 
 
-------------------- 
ARTICLE XI LUNCHEON 
-------------------- 
 
¶20. (U) Li Hong (China), the facilitator for Article 
XI issues, hosted a lunch on June 4 to discuss the 
way forward on developing concrete measures, as 
directed by the CSP and RevCon.  Delegates from the 
Netherlands, South Africa, Cuba, Japan, Germany, 
France, and the U.S. attended, as well as a senior TS 
officer from the International Cooperation and 
Assistance (ICA) division.  Discussion was wide- 
ranging, with Dutch Amb. Lak emphasizing that we need 
to put ideology aside and focus on pragmatic efforts. 
U.S. Delrep noted the role of industry in this effort 
and described Amb. Javits, dinner for industry 
representatives during the RevCon.  Cuban rep noted 
that the ideology will remain part of the dialogue 
but agreed that the facilitations should focus on the 
pragmatic.  He suggested that the group needs a tool 
to develop new programs and ideas and proposed a 
workshop, carefully planned and designed to develop 
new programs.  In the discussion following, several 
delegates liked the idea of a series of regional 
workshops leading up to a larger meeting in The 
Hague, possibly added to the agendas of the regional 
meetings of the National Authorities.  EU reps 
thought that funding for such workshops could be 
easily sought through voluntary funding. 
 
¶21. (U) Li then ran through the various ICA programs 
and his assessment of their success.  The Associate 
Program is the most successful, he felt, but the 
Intern Program has few opportunities.  OPCW rep 
stated that the interns at present find their own 
sponsors and that 100 percent of the requests have 
been satisfied.  Other delegation representatives 
noted that perhaps there could be ways to help 
broaden information and help match interns with 
sponsoring organizations.  Li said that China would 
like to expand the areas of the Research Program to 
work in areas such as soil and water safety.  Others 
in the group agreed that the Research Program could 
be more targeted to needs of industry in developing 
countries. 
 
¶22. (U) Facilitator Li is scheduling the next 
consultation on Article XI for June 20 and said he 
hoped the discussion could build on the ideas 
discussed at this lunch. 
 
 
------------------------------------ 
OPCW VISIT BY FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶23. (U) On June 5, Delreps, in conjunction with the 
FBI Legal Attache at the embassy (Timothy Wallach), 
hosted Dr. Vahid Majidi (Assistant Director, FBI,s 
WMD Directorate) and Jeff Muller (FBI Chief of WMD 
Countermeasures Unit) for a series of meetings with 
the OPCW Technical Secretariat (TS).  These meetings 
included: (1) a meeting with Gary Mallard and visit 
to the OPCW Laboratory and Equipment Store, to better 
understand the TS analytical capabilities deployment 
capabilities in response to cases of use of chemical 
weapons; (2) a meeting with Deputy Director-General 
John Freeman; (3) a meeting with Krzyzstof Paturej 
regarding the work of the Executive Council,s Open- 
Ended Working Group on Terrorism; and (4) a meeting 
with Malik Ellahi regarding TS efforts in 
coordinating with States Parties and other 
international organizations, particularly in showing 
how national implementation efforts under the CWC 
meet the requirements of UN measures like UNSCR 1540. 
Dr. Majidi is pursuing the option of using The Hague 
as a venue for future international conferences on 
counter-terrorism efforts. 
 
¶24. (SBU) Krzyzstof Paturej presented to the FBI 
delegation a concept for the first of a potential 
series of tabletop exercises centered on prevention 
of and response to a terrorist attack at a chemical 
plant site, and he solicited the assistance of the 
FBI in organizing, staffing and funding such an 
exercise.  Paturej is considering a plant site in 
Poland as a possible venue for such an exercise; 
however, in later discussions with FBI visitors, they 
told Delrep that they would prefer a Hague-based 
exercise for the first attempt, which could then be 
expanded regionally based on the success of the 
undertaking.  This type of concept is consistent with 
FBI initiatives in the counter-terrorism arena, but 
it will need to be studied closely in order to keep 
it on topic and of relevance and value.  If there are 
any costs outside of FBI and its partners (e.g., 
Interpol), consideration would have to be given to 
where such Qnding would come from (e.g., whether 
U.S. voluntary contributions might be considered). 
 
¶25. (SBU) During the meeting with Malik Ellahi, a 
number of similar training and outreach 
opportunities, including a proposal regarding CWC 
national implementation as a tool in meeting State 
Party obligations under UNSCR 1540.  Given the 
numerous political landmines that seem to exist in 
this arena, Ellahi will be adept in helping the FBI 
organize venues with partners like OPCW and Interpol 
to address these issues. 
 
¶26. (U) In Del,s briefing with the FBI team, Delrep 
requested that they contact ISN Director Mikulak 
after their return to Washington to coordinate any 
future projects. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
CEFIC PRESENTATION ON CWC IMPLEMENTATION IN INDUSTRY 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶27. (U) On June 5, Delrep participated in a 
presentation by Rene van Sloten (President, CEFIC, 
the European chemical council) on the topic &Eleven 
Years of CWC Implementation: Moving Forward with the 
Chemical Industry.8  In that presentation, Van Sloten 
touched on a number of different topics regarding 
industry implementation of the CWC - Responsible 
Care, balanced trade controls, world chemicals 
sales, change in share of world chemicals exports, 
migration of Western industry production to emerging 
countries, market trends, globalization and 
consequences, specific industry contributions to the 
CWC (both pre-entry into force and more recently), 
and extending industry compliance.  After completion 
of his presentation, Van Sloten asked a series of 
open-ended questions or statements meant to stimulate 
discussion:  the focus of the CWC post-destruction; 
industry verification as a confidence-building 
measure only; a possible role for the OPCW in wider 
chemical management support; and whether industry (as 
&a stakeholder with a capital S8) could play a larger 
day-to-day role with the OPCW. 
 
¶28. (U) This presentation, along with the repeated 
raising by CEFIC of the shift of industry from West 
to East appeared to offend several delegations, 
particularly from within the developing world. 
Algeria made a strange intervention implying that 
some companies were using the CWC as an excuse to re- 
negotiate (read, raise) prices, and that a more open 
dialogue with industry was needed to establish 
complete trust.  The Netherlands asked about 
discussions within CEFIC regarding ways to reach out 
to developing countries/industries (e.g., training) 
as a tool in helping to meet Article XI goals, 
including the use of existing venues such as the 
annual meeting of National Authorities or new venues 
(Del Comment:  see section on Article XI above). 
 
¶29. (U) A TS inspector asked how CEFIC might play a 
role in assessing developments in science and 
technology, particularly within the OCPF industries. 
Italy emphasized that, even though the priorities of 
the OPCW are very focused, that they are part and 
parcel of industry,s priorities, particularly the 
desire to create a level playing field globally. 
Germany asked about CEFIC,s thoughts on improving 
industries, interactions with the OPCW.  Cuba stated 
that the discussion clearly indicated the need to 
focus on the full implementation of Article XI and 
industry,s role in these efforts.  South Africa 
stressed the necessary caution that comes from 
Western companies importing their views on 
implementation along with the plant sites built in 
 
developing countries. 
 
¶30. (U) Van Sloten responded by pointing out that the 
cost of trade controls are more administrative than 
real; a level playing field can be achieved by all 
States Parties fully implementing the CWC; that 
implementation is easily balanced against 
environmental and other such impacts; no company 
looks to a State Party,s lack of implementation as an 
opportunity for easy development there; that the OPCW 
cannot do capacity-building - only industry can; and 
the fact that the expansion of industry into new 
parts of the world means that the developing world 
often has superior technology than the historically 
established industries.  He also suggested areas 
where industry can do more (e.g., helping the TS in 
its recruiting efforts of capable inspectors from 
within industry) and that perhaps industry be given a 
more formal role in the plenary sessions of future 
meetings.  Also, as CEFIC has done many times in the 
past, he made several passing references to disparity 
within the global industry in mixture rules. 
 
------------ 
P-5 MEETING 
------------ 
 
¶31. (SBU) On June 6, Amb. Javits hosted the 
Ambassadors from the Permanent five members of the UN 
Security Council in the series of periodic meetings 
of this group.  The agenda included the traditional 
topic of universality and a discussion of the Review 
Conference.  It was the first P-5 meeting for new 
Chinese Ambassador Zhang Jun and possibly the last 
for Russian Ambassador Kirill Gevorgian, who will be 
leaving this summer.  Ambassadors Lyn Parker (UK) and 
Jean Gaussot (France) and staff from all five 
missions also attended.  There was little news on 
universality, noting that Guinea Bissau has now 
joined the Convention and Lebanon may finally be able 
to accede under the new president.  The Chinese 
Ambassador stated that there are &other priorities8 
for Burma and North Korea.  Amb. Gevorgian reported 
that the new chairperson of the Executive Council, 
Amb. Tomova of Slovakia, is working on an initiative 
to host a seminar in Slovakia, but he thought she did 
not yet have the support of her government.  Amb. 
Gaussot noted that France had considered hosting a 
meeting for the Middle East but had not thought the 
timing right just yet. 
 
¶32. (SBU) All five ambassadors expressed satisfaction 
with the outcome of the Review Conference, if not 
with the &painful process8 as the Russian ambassador 
described it.  Several noted disappointment that 
UNSCR 1540 had not been cited in the final report. 
France noted the great number of decisions in the 
text to be implemented, while the UK pointed to the 
opportunity in the year ahead -- with a &purposeful 
and efficient8 EC Chairperson and a well-run 
Technical Secretariat -- to make some real progress. 
Amb. Javits noted the importance of leaving a record 
for the next Review Conference, something that had 
not been done for the first.  He also cited the need 
for prioritization of the recommended actions and 
capturing lessons learned from the Conference for 
better future planning.  Amb. Parker emphasized that 
the actual &review8 takes place in the preparations 
leading up to the Conference and not during the 
Conference itself, a reality that some delegations -- 
notably the NAM -- did not participate in as fully as 
they should. 
 
¶33. (SBU) Amb. Parker described the NGO/academic 
community as &shocked8 that so many states see 
destruction as the sole agenda of the OPCW and fail 
to recognize the importance of non-proliferation as 
ongoing and of relevance to them.  Both Amb. Parker 
and Amb. Javits stated that destruction will 
undoubtedly continue after 2012, citing Iraq and 
other new states parties as being unable to complete 
destruction by the deadline, but that those states 
must still be encouraged to join the convention and 
commit to a reasonable timeline for destruction. 
Amb. Gevorgian then intervened to reiterate the 
strong position of the Russian Government that &going 
beyond the limits of the Convention8 (i.e. failure to 
meet the final deadline) will be a breach of 
international law. This &principled8 position would 
not be modified in the future, he said. 
 
¶34. (SBU)  As to lessons learned from the Conference, 
Amb. Gevorgian stated that &politically and 
practically, we have put ourselves in an untenable 
position8 with the two competing documents that were 
introduced to the Second RevCon.  The NAM in 
principle does not produce documents, and he 
pointedly noted that the NAM had also &spoken in the 
name of China.8  Although the RevCon was successful 
in working out a satisfactory final document, he 
continued, the precedent of the dueling documents 
will haunt future sessions of the policy making 
bodies.  Amb. Parker replied that the NAM comments 
came in several different versions throughout the 
working group process, always late.  The NAM paper at 
the RevCon was a &maximalist document8 with much new 
material, and a lot of questions put down as markers, 
not representative of agreed positions by all the NAM 
member states.  The Cuban ambassador, he said, was 
consequently quite clear that he could not negotiate 
utilizing the NAM text and that it was up to the 
States Parties to defend their individual interests. 
He agreed that the problem would persist in future. 
Amb. Javits raised the idea of early identification 
of facilitators during the working group process and 
beginning smaller group discussions of the 
contentious issues well before the Conference itself 
as a possible way to improve the process and develop 
trust and expertise on the issues going into the 
Conference. 
 
------------- 
ABAF DE-BRIEF 
------------- 
 
¶35. (SBU)  U.S. member of the Advisory Body on 
Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF), Mary 
Blanca Rios, met with Amb. Javits and Delreps on June 
6 to discuss issues arising from the ABAF meeting. 
The German chairman will be leaving, and Rios is one 
of the potential candidates for the chair, but the 
Iranian representative told her he would oppose the 
U.S. taking the chair.  The OPCW is proceeding with 
IPSAS (International Public Sector Accounting 
Standards) implementation, in line with the UN Common 
System; the Legal Advisor does not believe that this 
will require any action by the member states. 
However, Rios warned that the amount set aside in the 
budget for this process appears to be extremely low; 
if additional funds are required for implementation, 
it may become a political issue.  From the Internal 
Oversight report, there were two items that may 
become political -- the loss by ICA of 10,000 dollars 
cash at the Johannesburg airport, and ICA,s mis- 
administration of the EU,s Joint Action funding.  For 
the latter, ICA illegally moved money from the 
General Fund before the EU funding had even arrived, 
and did not use any of the EU funding for additional 
staff for its programs.  Consequently, ICA reimbursed 
the General Fund too late for all of the EU money to 
be used.  In the annual budget debate, Iran will 
probably use these examples to push for additional 
ICA staffing; but the EU, on the other hand, may 
stress ICA,s inability to manage even the funds it 
has. 
¶36. (U) Javits sends. 
Gallagher