VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0609/01 2001538
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 181538Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1749
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 000609 
 
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 TWO WEEKS ENDING JULY 11, 2008 
 
REF: A. STATE 72706 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 569 
 
This is CWC-32-08 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) This report covers the two weeks following 
Executive Council 53 (EC-53), from June 30 through 
July 11.  Consideration of the draft 2009 budget 
began with preliminary consultations held on July 7 
by the new budget facilitator.  The facilitator for 
the Office of Internal Oversight (OIO) held two 
marathon consultations on July 1 and 7 in an effort 
to wrap-up the detailed examination of the OIO report 
and recommendations for 2007. 
 
¶2. (U) The Industry Cluster meeting on July 8 turned 
into a presentation by the Technical Secretariat (TS) 
on two recently-released papers on proposals to 
improve OCPF declarations.  The facilitator for 
Article XI called a meeting on July 10 to introduce 
the new Head of the International Cooperation Branch 
and to discuss a proposed workshop on enhancing 
Article XI implementation.  The European Union (EU) 
Counter-Terrorism Coordinator and a representative 
from the Spanish National Police made presentations 
at the July 10 meeting of the Open-ended Working 
Group (OEWG) on Terrorism. 
 
¶3. (U) The new coordinator for the Western European 
and Others Group (WEOG) held her inaugural meeting on 
July 1, which included a lengthy analysis and 
discussion of EC-53.  The July 8 meeting of the WEOG 
bid farewell to a number of departing colleagues and 
focused industry-related issues. 
 
-------------------- 
BUDGET CONSULTATIONS 
-------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) On July 7, Budget facilitator Martin Strub 
(Switzerland) chaired a preliminary consultation on 
the draft 2009 budget.  The Deputy Director-General 
(DDG) highlighted some of the features of the draft 
budget: maintained balance between Chapter 1 and 2 
expenses; increase in International Cooperation and 
Assistance (ICA) division funding; increase in OCPF 
inspections; improved implementation of results-based 
budgeting through introduction of key performance 
indicators.  The DDG also noted that while the draft 
budget continues the trend of zero nominal growth 
(ZNG), the TS objective while drawing up the budget 
had been to meet all of its obligations rather than 
solely focusing on maintaining ZNG. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Several WEOG delegations, Mexico, and China 
welcomed the TS's efforts to maintain ZNG.  While 
WEOG delegations were receptive to the increase in 
ICA funding, South Africa and India (two proponents 
of greater ICA funding) were restrained to the point 
of caution, both saying that they want to see how the 
increased funding will be allocated and stressing the 
need for a holistic approach to assistance. 
 
¶6. (U) France and Mexico questioned the 13% decrease 
in Verification; the DDG explained that this was due 
to moving the Equipment Store from the Verification 
Division to the Inspectorate.  In response to India's 
concern over increasing OCPF inspections before 
having a thorough discussion of site selection 
methodology, the DDG recommended focusing on reducing 
the incidence of non-inspectable sites rather than 
capping the number of inspections. 
 
¶7. (U) Delrep noted that the draft budget only 
provides funding for one meeting of the Scientific 
Advisory Board (SAB) despite previous indications 
that this would be increased to accommodate two 
meetings annually; the DDG stated that funding had 
been limited to only one meeting to "reflect the 
aggregate view" of all States Parties on the SAB. 
Delrep also asked about TS progress in implementing 
International Public Sector Accounting Standards 
(IPSAS) and whether enough resources had been 
allocated to fully implement IPSAS by 2010.  The DDG 
responded that the number of personnel in the 
Administration Division working on IPSAS had been 
increased and that the new Head of Finance Branch has 
previous experience in IPSAS implementation; he also 
noted that the TS does not foresee needing any large 
platform changes as the current systems in place will 
be sufficient for IPSAS. 
 
¶8. (U) Following on the model adopted by the budget 
co-facilitators last year, Strub distributed a 
schedule of consultations for September (sent by 
email to ISN/CB).  He aims to meet twice a week and 
to focus on a different section of the budget 
relating to OPCW divisions at each meeting.  Strub's 
plan to conclude consultations by October 1 will 
leave one week before EC-54 to finalize budget 
negotiations. 
 
¶9. (SBU) COMMENT:  Iran and Cuba were noticeably 
quiet during the meeting.  Del later learned that the 
Non-aligned Movement (NAM) has not yet met to discuss 
the budget or adopt a common position on it.  END 
COMMENT. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
OFFICE OF INTERNAL OVERSIGHT (OIO) CONSULTATIONS 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶10. (U) Facilitator Takayuki Kitagawa (Japan) 
convened more marathon consultations on the 2007 OIO 
Report (EC-53/DG.3) on July 1 and 8 in an effort to 
conclude the lengthy discourse that had erupted 
during the consultations held before and during EC- 
¶53.  As in previous consultations, the bulk of 
questions came from South Africa, India, and Iran and 
focused on the ICA division's use of EU Joint Action 
voluntary funds and the loss of cash by TS staff on 
official travel in Zambia. 
 
¶12. (SBU) As the consultations wore on, the level of 
questioning verged on micro-management.  However, the 
TS only exacerbated the situation by providing often 
contradictory or incomplete responses.  Most 
noticeably, during the final meeting on July 8, key 
TS staff were not present, and the staff that did 
attend the meeting were unprepared to competently 
answer the questions posted by delegations. 
 
¶13. (SBU) COMMENT:  While the facilitator was able to 
gain agreement on noting the 2007 OIO Report at the 
next EC, NAM delegations made it clear that they will 
continue to come back to the report.  In particular, 
they intend to use a number of the OIO findings in 
the upcoming budget negotiations to support their 
call for increased staffing and resources for ICA 
division.  Also, growing frustration among 
delegations with the TS's perceived disinterest 
during the consultation process might lead to more 
micro-management in the future.  END COMMENT. 
 
---------------- 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER 
---------------- 
 
¶14. (U) On July 8, the scheduled Industry Cluster 
consultation was replaced by a TS presentation on the 
recently-released OCPF papers (EC-53/DG.11 and EC- 
53/S/5).  With Amb. Benchaa Dani (Algeria, Industry 
Cluster Vice-Chair) noticeably absent, the Director- 
General (DG) chaired the meeting.  Steve Wade (Head, 
Declarations Branch) made a presentation on measures 
the DG will implement to enhance OCPF declarations 
(as enumerated in EC-53/DG.11).  Bill Kane (Head, 
Industry Verification Branch) followed with a 
presentation on the TS's suggestion that States 
Parties provide additional information on plant 
characteristics in OCPF declarations (EC-53/S/5). 
 
¶15. (U) In his opening remarks, the DG explained that 
he removed Sampling and Analysis from the agenda to 
focus only on the two OCPF-related papers.  A number 
of delegations indicated their desire to discuss 
Sampling and Analysis, and the DG confirmed that 
Sampling and Analysis would be addressed at the next 
Industry Cluster meeting.  (Note: The next Industry 
Cluster meeting is expected to be scheduled for 
September though a firm date has not been set.) 
 
¶16. (SBU) South Africa's comments were surprisingly 
positive, with statements that the TS's suggested 
introduction of subcategories for Standard 
International Trade Classification (SITC) codes could 
be expanded to allow for greater differentiation and 
that the proposed additional reporting would not pose 
a burden to South Africa's industry or National 
Authority.  India, meanwhile, reiterated previous 
concerns raised during the Second Review Conference 
(RevCon) that its National Authority and industry 
would be burdened by any additional reporting 
requirements.  India also expressed concerns about 
any attempt to amend SITC codes, which it noted would 
be outside of the OPCW's purview.  Wade responded 
that the TS's introduction of subcodes was limited to 
use in the context of CWC declarations and would not 
impact other uses (e.g., trade) of the 
internationally-recognized standard. 
 
¶17. (U) France and the Netherlands called for a TS 
evaluation of the projected impact of adopting the 
proposed measures, and France also requested an 
assessment of the new site selection methodology 
introduced at the beginning of 2008.  The DG 
confirmed that the TS will assess the site selection 
methodology after the end of the year but shared his 
view that the changes have been positive so far. 
 
¶18. (U) A number of delegations expressed their 
intent to implement the proposed voluntary measures 
in EC-53/DG.11 in order to reap any possible 
benefits.  Japan and China both noted the need for 
time to implement the measures, suggesting that the 
TS use the additional data only for site selection 
after 2010.  In response to Japan's question on when 
the Declarations Handbook would be updated, Wade said 
it was currently under review and should be ready by 
the Conference of States Parties (CSP) in December. 
France suggested that the TS take advantage of the 
National Authorities meeting before the CSP to 
educate national authorities on the proposed 
enhancements; the Netherlands agreed that the 
enhancements need to be user-friendly and explained 
well to national authorities and other stake-holders. 
 
¶19. (U) A number of delegations also noted the 
importance of assigning a value to the TS's proposed 
additional weighting factor "R" in the A-14 algorithm 
(EC-53/S/5).  China stressed that the value of "R" 
should be discussed publicly and assigned with States 
Parties' agreement. 
 
¶20. (U) Near the end of the meeting, Iran weighed in, 
stating a preference for an "incremental approach" 
and suggesting that it would be premature to adopt 
any new measures before assessing the impact of 
already-introduced OCPF-related changes. 
------------------------ 
ARTICLE XI CONSULTATIONS 
------------------------ 
 
¶21. (U) On July 10, Article XI facilitator Li Hong 
(China) held a meeting to discuss the Cuban proposal 
circulated on June 20 (ref A) and other new working 
papers on Article XI.  Zeljko Jerkic (new ICA Special 
Coordinator) introduced the new Head of the 
International Cooperation Branch (ICB), Kumaresh 
Misra.  Misra, who most recently was a Joint 
Secretary in the Indian Ministry of Chemicals and 
Fertilizers, has extensive experience in the Indian 
federal government, in addition to having worked in 
the private sector and at the UN Industrial 
Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna, and 
having taught at Boston University.  He said he plans 
to focus on expanding ICA's outreach to chemical 
industry. 
 
¶22. (U) In response to previous requests, the TS 
distributed a table detailing the breakdown in 
funding for all of ICB's programs in 2007.  Misra 
commented that despite only spending 82% (1.1 million 
euro) of its allocated 1.3 million euro from the 
regular budget, voluntary contributions of around 
478,000 euro meant that ICB actually spent 17% more 
than originally planned on programs in 2007.  In 
response to a request from South Africa, Misra 
promised to provide a projected breakdown of ICB 
activities for 2009 in advance of the September 
budget consultations. 
 
¶23. (U) Turning to Cuba's proposal for a workshop on 
Article XI, discussion focused mostly on when to hold 
the workshop.  Many delegations supported planning it 
in conjunction with other events (such as the CSP or 
National Authorities meeting).  Cuba said that 
sufficient time would be needed to plan for an 
effective workshop; while agreeing that the CSP and 
National Authorities meeting would be good venues for 
brainstorming about the workshop, Cuba suggested that 
it be scheduled for some time in 2009.  Germany, the 
Netherlands, and Italy all agreed with Cuba's 
proposal that participation should be expanded to 
include all stake-holders. 
 
¶24. (U) Iran insisted that any workshop would be 
informal and not supersede the formal consultation 
process.  Iran stressed that the Cuban proposal 
should not detract from full implementation of 
Article XI and said that a more pressing need was for 
the TS to compile a list of States Parties' proposals 
and ideas. 
 
¶25. (U) The UK signaled its support for the Cuban 
proposal, noting that the workshop would be a good 
way to raise fresh ideas on Article XI and that it 
would be a useful forum for identifying goals and 
discussing how to achieve them.  The UK also 
announced that it would release a national paper on 
Article XI during the summer. 
 
¶26. (U) Following up on the UK's comments, India 
announced that it is finalizing a national paper with 
concrete ideas on Article XI implementation.  The 
Indian paper will propose a reorientation of ICA 
activities, to include: 
 
- outreach to stake-holders through national 
authorities; 
- increased opportunities for industry to share views 
and experiences on development, chemical safety and 
handling of hazardous materials, and compliance with 
regulations (including the EU's new REACH 
regulation); 
- creating a network of laboratories working on CWC- 
related issues and developing laboratories akin to 
Finland's VERIFIN; 
- fostering research and supporting academic work, 
including for example, replacing the use of scheduled 
chemicals with non-scheduled chemicals. 
 
---------------------------------- 
TERRORISM OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶27. (U) On July 10, French delegate Annie Mari 
chaired a meeting of the Terrorism OEWG.  The 
Director-General and Mari opened with introductory 
remarks, followed by presentations by Gilles de 
Kerchove, EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, and Pedro 
Rios Calvo, Spanish National Police Force 
representative. 
 
¶28. (U) The DG expressed the OPCW's appreciation for 
the EU's leadership role and contributions, 
particularly with regard to EU Joint Action 
assistance.  He then reviewed terrorism-related 
language from the RevCon report, noting the "very 
strong endorsement" of the OEWG's work.  Mari built 
on the DG's review of the RevCon report and also 
reminded the group of previous experts who have 
spoken to the OEWG.  She recommended that in order to 
build on synergies between counter-terrorism and 
assistance and protection, the OPCW should pursue 
another large-scale exercise similar to Joint 
Assistex 2005 in Ukraine, and called upon States 
Parties to provide suggested dates and locations. 
Mari also noted that the TS could continue to work on 
capacity building for assistance and protection in 
the context of public events, as outlined in the 
RevCon report.  Finally, she suggested that the topic 
of "Responsible Care" could be further explored with 
organizations such as the European Chemical Industry 
Council (CEFIC). 
 
¶29. (U) De Kerchove provided an interesting and 
fairly detailed overview of current EU counter- 
terrorism efforts, and noted the fact that much of 
the policy is still being developed.  He explained 
that his role as coordinator is to:  ensure that the 
EU counter-terrorism strategy adopted in 2005 is 
implemented in a timely manner; to ensure that the 
European Commission, Council and Parliament work 
together smoothly in this area; and, to ensure that 
counter-terrorism remains high on the EU's foreign 
policy agenda. 
 
¶30. (U) De Kerchove was quite frank about the 
difficulties in coordinating counter-terrorism 
policies among the EU member states, particularly in 
such sensitive areas as data collection.  He 
suggested that the EU must often take a more 
supportive, rather than directive, role in working 
with members on counter-terrorism.  He went on to 
explain that, following the Madrid attacks, the EU 
developed more of a common strategy in this area, and 
"rebalanced" its approach to one of four pillars: 
pursue, prevent, protect and respond. 
 
¶31. (U) De Kerchove highlighted several areas of 
cooperation and developing discussions within the EU, 
including the effort to expand the definition of 
terrorism to incorporate public provocation (e.g., 
internet sites designed to encourage/incite terrorist 
activities); replacement of a number of complicated 
extradition laws with the European arrest warrant; 
and, the interconnection of European databases on 
information from DNA to mobile phone records.  He 
also pointed out that the Schengen free movement area 
has meant that increased attention must now be paid 
to the area's external borders.  On the protection of 
critical infrastructure, he noted that the EU has 
chosen first to focus on energy and transport 
infrastructure as the most critical. 
 
¶32. (U) De Kerchove stated that the evaluation of the 
threat of chemical terrorism was difficult.  He did 
note, however, that since 2004 the EU has had a pool 
of experts from intelligence, emergency response, 
police, and other areas sharing information and 
assessing the various aspects of chemical, 
biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats. 
Looking to the future, an EU CBRN task force was 
formed several months ago, with the goal of preparing 
a policy package by 2009.  The group is to start its 
analysis of the chemical piece in October, and de 
Kerchove suggested that it might be very useful for 
the OPCW to participate in discussions.  Citing the 
work of an EU special committee on explosives in 
evaluating the aspects of better common security 
practices, oversight of suspicious transactions, and 
research and development in detection, de Kerchove 
suggested that a similar group might be formed to 
study chemical precursor security. 
 
¶33. (U) In terms of OPCW contributions to countering 
chemical terrorism, de Kerchove noted that the most 
important contributions would be universal adherence 
to the Convention, effective national implementation 
(calling for capacity building in this area), an 
enhanced verification regime, and an effective 
dialogue with industry. 
 
¶34. (U) Spanish National Police representative Pedro 
Rios Calvo then briefed the OEWG on his unit's 
efforts in detecting, investigating, and responding 
to CBRN incidents.  Calvo noted that his unit also is 
charged with gathering evidence for the judicial 
system.  In order to respond to any incident within 
one hour, CBRN specialists are spread across Spain, 
the Canary Islands, and North Africa.  The unit 
engages in technical operations, training, research 
and development, and international cooperation. 
Spanish authorities work with counterparts in South 
and Central America to provide training in CBRN 
detection and response.  Spain also partners with 
France, Germany, and Portugal in a system that 
provides early warning to all member states of any 
loss of or incident involving sensitive items or 
substances.  Mari noted that the Spanish National 
Police Force's efforts in capacity building and early 
warning might provide an opportunity for cooperation 
with the OPCW. 
 
¶35. (U) During the question and answer session 
following the presentation, delegations had a number 
of questions for the EU counter-terrorism 
coordinator.  Several questions dealt with the 
criminalization of acts of chemical terrorism; de 
Kerchove responded by reiterating the EU's broad 
definition of terrorism and noting that serious 
crimes such as these could be punishable by severe 
sanctions.  U.S. Del and Germany both asked what 
future cooperation the EU foresaw in areas of common 
interest with the OPCW.  De Kerchove returned to his 
earlier statement that implementation, expertise, and 
dialogue with the private sector would be most 
effective, but also noted that this area required 
further exploration, set to occur when the CBRN task 
force convenes later this year.  He reiterated his 
invitation to the OPCW to participate in these 
discussions.  Implying inappropriate expansion beyond 
the mandate of the OEWG, India called for more 
information on the TS's work in counter-terrorism. 
The DG noted that the report of the Organization for 
2007 contained detailed information, and that the TS 
would follow the RevCon's mandate for the remainder 
of its work in 2008. 
 
---- 
WEOG 
---- 
 
¶36. (U) On July 1, Ruth Surkau (Germany) chaired her 
first WEOG meeting after assuming the role of WEOG 
coordinator from Annie Mari (France).  She reported 
on her contacts with other regional group 
coordinators, noting that Brazil is the new GRULAC 
coordinator and that Estonia will take over as 
Eastern European coordinator.  Most of the discussion 
focused on delegations' review of EC-53, in addition 
to some discussion on the upcoming budget and 
industry meetings. 
 
¶37. (SBU) There was general agreement that EC-53 had 
been surprisingly successful and that Amb. Tomova had 
done extremely well as the new chair.  A number of 
delegations also commented on Mexico's statement 
about voting and the abuse of consensus, indicating 
its importance in provoking discussion.  Most 
delegations also commented on Iran's role, including 
its general lack of NAM support and its less 
combative -- even quiescent -- manner.  Germany 
reported that as the Asian Group's representative on 
the Executive Council's Bureau, Iran was consumed 
with defending its national interests rather than 
attempting to speak on behalf of the Asian Group. 
The UK noted that the Iranian delegation had appeared 
to be particularly disorganized during the EC. 
 
¶38. (SBU) Amb. Javits raised the issue of the 
increase in OCPF inspections in the draft 2009 budget 
and said that he had not heard much reaction to the 
proposal.  He noted that WEOG will need to be open to 
engaging in renewed consultations on site selection 
to order to gain support for having additional 
inspections.  Amb. Javits also suggested that, with 
its new engagement in the OPCW, Brazil might make a 
good facilitator on OCPF site selection. 
 
¶39. (SBU) On July 8, WEOG met to discuss the industry 
consultations and review the initial budget 
consultation.  WEOG Coordinator Ruth Surkau (Germany) 
opened the meeting with a round of farewells to 
departing colleagues, including thanks and 
recognition to departing Delrep Larry Denyer for all 
of his work on industry issues.  (NOTE:  In his 
farewell remarks, Amb. Maarten Lak (Netherlands) 
shared his view that in recent years the EU has 
become equally as important as WEOG in the OPCW.  END 
NOTE.) 
 
¶40. (SBU) Most of the morning's discussions focused 
on the upcoming industry meetings.  Several 
delegations noted their dissatisfaction with the DG's 
last minute decision to cancel the planned discussion 
on Sampling and Analysis and that the meeting had 
been scheduled on a day when Amb. Dani (Algeria, 
Industry Cluster Vice-Chair) was unable to attend. 
Martin Strub (Switzerland) noted that the discussion 
on Sampling and Analysis would not take place until 
after the topic was introduced in the budget 
consultations, which he felt would likely further 
complicate the already contentious issue of 
inspection numbers and allocations. 
 
¶41. (SBU) Drawing on guidance (ref B), Delrep noted 
that while the U.S. welcomed the initiatives proposed 
by the TS, there were some doubts as to how the 
proposal on the introduction of a new weighting 
factor could be implemented.  This led to questions 
regarding the effectiveness of a system in which not 
all States Parties were providing the same 
information.  Delrep also noted that the issue of 
timeliness needed to be separated from the content of 
declarations.  Germany expressed its concern that 
additional reporting elements could actually result 
in an increase in the number of incorrect 
declarations, and also questioned how this might 
actually reduce the number of declarable sites.  The 
UK offered support for the DG's gradual introduction 
of new elements, suggesting that his approach was 
probably meant to allay the concerns of many 
delegations that he was overstepping his bounds on 
issues related to OCPF inspections.  Amb. Lak 
suggested that WEOG delegations think tactically 
about the timing of various elements of the OCPF 
discussions. 
 
¶42. (SBU) Strub spoke briefly about his first budget 
meeting July 7, noting in particular that the NAM and 
Iran had remained silent, and that he fully expected 
comments from India and China as the process moved 
forward.  The group also discussed the previous day's 
OIO consultations.  There was general agreement that 
the TS had come to the meeting poorly prepared, and 
that its inability to answer questions only served to 
raise suspicions, particularly among NAM delegations. 
 
¶43. (SBU) COMMENT: Surkau's assumption of the WEOG 
coordinator role on July 1 has already led to a 
marked improvement in the tone and focus of WEOG 
meetings.  Surkau is efficient, organized, and 
detailed in her preparation and already reaching out 
to her fellow regional group coordinators.  END 
COMMENT. 
 
¶44. (U) Granger sends. 
Gallagher