VZCZCXYZ0006
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0263/01 1121339
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 221339Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2776
INFO RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY 0666
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 0447
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1423
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 0178
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 4564
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000263 
 
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 (BROWN AND DENYER) 
NSC FOR LUTES 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC EUN PARM PREL PTER CWC KPAO UNSC
SUBJECT: CWC: UNSCR 1540 WORKSHOP IN THE HAGUE 
 
This is CWC-23-09 
 
------------------------- 
SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION 
------------------------- 
 
¶1. (U) On March 26-27, 2009, the Dutch Foreign 
Ministry, Clingendael Institute for International 
Relations and VERTIC co-hosted a workshop on UN 
Security Council Resolution 1540 in The Hague. 
Participants included representatives from the 
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical 
Weapons (OPCW), the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA), the Biological Weapons Convention 
(BWC), the United Nations 1540 Committee, 
diplomatic missions resident in The Hague, non- 
governmental organizations (NGOs) and academia. 
Presentations focused on challenges and experience 
in implementing 1540 and the chemical, biological 
and nuclear treaties.  U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom 
Wuchte opened the first session with an expert from 
the UN 1540 Committee, raising questions on the 
progress and challenges in national implementation 
of resolution 1540.  Discussion was lively 
throughout all the sessions, and participants 
seemed pleased with the opportunity to share their 
experiences, raise issues and learn from 
counterparts. 
 
--------------------------------- 
Opening Speeches and 1540 Session 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) In his opening speech on March 26, OPCW 
Director General Rogelio Pfirter highlighted the 
active engagement of the OPCW in the area of 
national implementation.  Henk Cor van der Kwast, 
Head of the Dutch MFA's Nuclear Affairs and Non- 
Proliferation Division, then spoke to the 
importance of cooperation among countries to 
promote effective implementation of the legal 
obligations of 1540.  He noted the positive trends 
highlighted in the 1540 Committee's 2008 report, 
and stated that awareness has been raised, but much 
work remains to be done on implementation.  This 
will require greater cooperation not only between 
states, but also between international frameworks. 
Van der Kwast shared the Dutch view that a more 
robust administrative role for the UN Secretariat 
is necessary, and said that the legal approach to 
combating WMD proliferation should be as wide as 
possible.  He also noted that 1540 has not received 
consistent support from the international community 
or world leaders including the U.S.  Van der Kwast 
concluded by stressing the need for more targeted 
reporting, concrete follow-up, capacity building, 
and available funding. 
 
¶3. (U) 1540 Committee member Victor Slipchenko gave 
a presentation on progress in national 
implementation of 1540.  He stated that the 2008 
report demonstrated a qualitative improvement in 
implementation, highlighted the fact that far more 
work remained, and added that this work will take 
time and a sense of urgency will be required to 
maintain momentum.  In Slipchenko's view, the 
"precursors for progress" included raising 
awareness, the increased legitimacy of the 
resolution, and an ability to dispel concerns 
Qresolution, and an ability to dispel concerns 
regarding sanctions.  He also recommended 
organizations like the OPCW adopt specific 
decisions on implementing 1540.  Slipchenko 
outlined major challenges that lie ahead in 
implementation, including the following:  a 
continued "legitimacy deficit," insufficient 
clarity on key provisions, a lack of national 
capacity to oversee implementation, the need for a 
major assistance effort, and the lack of a true 
network of experts and cohesiveness in the 1540 
Committee.  He concluded by referring to the 
comprehensive review of 1540 and its implementation 
before the end of the year. 
 
¶4. (U) In the discussion that followed, several 
speakers raised the apparent disconnect between 
1540 reporting of CWC implementation and the OPCW's 
reports on the same.  OPCW Legal Advisor Santiago 
Onate noted that the 1540 Committee has yet to 
reach out to the OPCW on implementation assistance 
issues, an area where the OPCW has considerable 
experience 
 
¶5. (U) U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte also 
provided an overview of progress in implementation. 
Wuchte outlined some of the positive aspects of 
implementation to date, including a number of joint 
regional efforts, but emphasized that the words of 
1540 must be transformed into practical action.  He 
noted the positive political role that endorsements 
by multilateral organizations such as the OSCE and 
NATO play in increasing the legitimacy of 1540; and 
the ways in which such organizations can multiply 
the efforts of the Committee and complement 
regional outreach. 
 
¶6. (U) In looking ahead to future implementation 
work, Wuchte raised a number of questions for the 
group's consideration, including whether key 
intergovernmental organizations should exchange 
Memorandums of Agreement with the 1540 Committee to 
coordinate assistance and avoid duplication of 
effort.  The discussion that followed included 
comments on the importance of taking advantage of 
legislative opportunities, and of better 
coordinating requests for assistance (and 
corresponding offers) between the 1540 Committee, 
individual countries, and relevant organizations. 
 
----------------------------- 
Lessons from CWC, NPT and BWC 
----------------------------- 
 
¶7. (U) On March 27, the second session on the 
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) featured OPCW 
Legal Advisor Santiago Onate and Disarmament 
Consultation (and former OPCW insider) Ralph Trapp 
outlining the evolution the OPCW's action plan on 
Article VII implementation.  Onate noted the 
tendency for a large number of states to view the 
CWC as a political act, and not one that 
encompassed obligations on their part; UNSCR 1540 
has helped raise awareness in this regard, he said. 
The shift from working with ministries and national 
authorities to dealing with parliaments on 
legislation presented many challenges.  OPCW has 
learned through more than 100 technical assistance 
missions that the approach needs to be tailored for 
the country or the region; this became even more 
important when moving from draft legislation to 
creating regulations and procedures, and training 
officials.  Onate said the "question of compliance 
Qofficials.  Onate said the "question of compliance 
becomes moot," as everything is a process that 
needs to change and evolve constantly.  Both Onate 
and Trapp described the importance of a national 
champion, usually a politician who sees it in his 
or the nation's interest to carry through 
implementation legislation and involve relevant 
stakeholders.  Trapp noted that requests for 
assistance are often not clear, with governments 
not knowing what they actually need.  He 
categorized four critical elements for success -- 
competence, consistency, coordination and 
implementation-orientation. 
 
¶8. (U) Discussion focused on Trapp's "three c's" 
and specifically on coordination, how and who 
should do it, and how difficult it can be.  While 
opinions clearly differed, most participants agreed 
that it is easier to coordinate a plan for a single 
country or region than to try and set up an 
effective coordination mechanism generally.  Other 
questions focused on the usefulness of requiring 
reporting by states.  Onate responded that the 
early reporting requirements for OPCW were onerous, 
and while the pressure might have been useful at 
first, they later found that cooperation with 
states was more successful than shaming them for 
lack of progress. 
 
¶9. (U) The next session on the Nuclear Non- 
proliferation Treaty (NPT) was led by IAEA's Senior 
External Relations Officer Lourdes Vez-Carmona, and 
Amb. Sergey Batsanov, another OPCW veteran now with 
Pugwash.  Batsanov highlighted the differences 
among the regimes with IAEA not responsible for a 
treaty, OPCW as treaty-bound, and the BWC not 
having its own   organization.  He opined that the 
system around the NPT is more adaptable, and that 
the nuclear safeguards process at IAEA is more 
effective than 1540.  Another critical difference, 
he said, is that national implementation of nuclear 
regulation began before the treaty due to the 
nature of nuclear development -- which is not the 
case with the other two treaties.  The CWC is much 
younger and the BWC is largely with NGOs.  One of 
the benefits of 1540, in his view, was that it 
induced people to look at the whole area of non- 
proliferation together.  Vez-Carmona presented the 
IAEA's comprehensive approach, and its coordination 
in-house as well as externally.  She described 
IAEA's programs for legislative and regulatory 
assistance to strengthen states' systems for 
controlling nuclear material and technology, 
particularly physical protection and border 
controls. 
 
¶10. (U) Discussion during the NPT session included 
questions on whether IAEA had received any requests 
for assistance from the 1540 committee; Vez-Carmona 
stated that there had so far been no requests, 
while 1540 Committee rep Slipchenko said that the 
Committee had suggested to states to seek 
assistance from IAEA directly.  Batsanov noted some 
states' hesitation in admitting that they need 
assistance and preferring to request it 
bilaterally; he said that bilateral assistance 
needed to be done in consultation with the relevant 
international organizations so that there is some 
consistency in outcome.  U.S. Coordinator Wuchte 
noted that the 1540 committee now has some 50 
requests for assistance posted on its website; the 
process was slow to start but things are now moving 
Qprocess was slow to start but things are now moving 
and the committee is about to send a letter to 
other organizations to pass on requests. 
Slipchenko added that it was only after certain 
members of the Security Council left that the 
Committee was able to publish the requests; he also 
stated that bilateral requests are picked up more 
quickly than the international organizations are 
able to do. 
 
¶11. (U) The fourth session on the Biological 
Weapons Convention session had presentations by 
Richard Lennane of the BWC's Implementation Support 
Unit and VERTIC's senior legal officer Scott 
Spence.  Lennane outlined the links between the BWC 
and 1540, including explicit recognition of 1540 in 
the last BWC Review Conference.  BWC does not have 
a political body making binding decisions but 
issues recommendations and guidelines based on 
common understandings.  In Lennane's view that 
permits greater flexibility for working on 
implementation of 1540, which has been helpful in 
raising awareness of the need for national 
implementation.  He also underscored the importance 
of the self-regulation by and the active 
involvement of the scientific community, and the 
linkage to naturally occurring disease outbreaks 
that enables the BWC to reach out to states' 
authorities with some success.  Spence presented 
VERTIC's project for national implementation, from 
analysis of a state's legislation to drafting 
assistance, fact sheets and assistance to states 
developing action plans.  VERTIC's project focuses 
on biological legislation, but has collaborated 
with OPCW and IAEA on chemical and nuclear omnibus 
drafts. 
 
¶12. (U) Discussion centered on the turn-around time 
for requests for legislative assistance, the need 
for thorough preparation before technical 
assistance visits, and the growing demand for 
omnibus legislation that covers chemical, 
biological and nuclear regulation.  For many small 
states, this is the only feasible option, but 
VERTIC Director Angela Woodward noted that there 
are other issues with combining the three.  A 
researcher with SIPRI noted the multiple seminars 
and activities taking place in the Balkans from a 
variety of agencies and donors that appear to have 
little coordination and take up enormous amounts of 
time among the few resident experts in those 
countries. 
 
¶13. (U) The final wrap-up discussion was wide- 
ranging with few consensus conclusions but many 
recommendations were raised.  Participants 
expressed their gratitude for the information 
shared and cross-fertilization of ideas and 
experiences.  Algerian OPCW delegate Said Moussi 
stated that assistance is not charity, and that 
many countries such as his both receive and provide 
assistance; he emphasized the importance of 
reinforcing synergies.  OPCW's Director for Special 
Projects Krzysztof Paturej spoke of the importance 
of having representatives from the CWC, BWC and NPT 
together -- for the first time.  He made a pitch 
for The Hague Process, of which this workshop was 
the first event, as a platform for networking and 
ongoing exchanges.  U.S. 1540 Coordinator Wuchte 
encouraged greater action and interest in the 1540 
activities in New York, particularly for the 
Comprehensive Review at the end of the year. 
VERTIC Director Woodward, who had chaired many of 
the sessions, noted the importance of action that 
is pragmatic, effective and focused on outcomes. 
Qis pragmatic, effective and focused on outcomes. 
Clingendael plans to circulate, and possibly 
publish, a summary of the session. 
 
¶14. (U) COMMENT: The workshop was by all accounts a 
great success.  On the margins, all three key IGOs 
(IAEA, OPCW, and BTWC) noted that it was time for 
this functionally based decision.  The Dutch 
support broad multilateral work and the technical 
leadership of the OPCW, particularly Director of 
Special Projects Krzysztof Paturej, are interested 
in promoting further cooperation along with the 
1540 Committee.  In this context, the Committee 
recently received five assistance requests: four 
from Member States, namely, Armenia, Democratic 
Republic of Congo, Iraq, and Madagascar; and one 
from the sub-regional organization Caribbean 
Community (CARICOM).  Since this workshop, they 
have been sent for consideration as a potential 
provider of assistance to all three IGOs.  These 
requests have used, or referred to, the assistance 
template, approved by the Committee in November 
¶2007.  They indicate areas in which assistance is 
being sought.  The letter to these IGOs also notes 
the Committee's website has over 20 Member States 
that have expressed more general interest in 
receiving assistance. 
 
¶15. (U) U.S. 1540 Coordinator Wuchte cleared this 
report. 
 
¶16. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
GALLAGHER