VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0597/01 2751845
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 021845Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3324
INFO 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 000597 
 
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 (BROWN, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO) 
NSC FOR LUTES 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR TWO WEEKS FROM SEPTEMBER 21 TO 
OCTOBER 2, 2009 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 566 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 584 
 
This is CWC-57-09 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) In the run-up to the 58th Executive 
Council (EC-58), the frequency and number of 
meetings at the OPCW has increased.  This cable 
covers the two weeks from September 21 to October 2 
including the regular weekly meeting of the Western 
European and Others Group (WEOG); a range of budget 
consultations; and consultations on articles VII, X 
and XI. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Dr. Robert Mikulak, ISN/CB Director and 
U.S. Representative to the Executive Council, 
visited The Hague on September 24 to consult with 
key delegations on the selection of a new Director- 
General (DG) for the Organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), as reported 
in Ref B.  Other reporting on the DG selection will 
be sent septel following the first informal straw 
poll scheduled for October 5. 
 
---- 
WEOG 
---- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Coordinator Ruth Surkau (Germany) convened 
the WEOG on September 22.  Budget Co-Facilitator 
Martin Strub (Switzerland) stated his expectation 
that the afternoon's budget meeting would likely 
include discussion on key performance indicators 
(KPIs) and the budget of the Office of Special 
Projects (OSP).  Strub stated that the South 
African delegate had voiced an intention to 
challenge OSP's existence, as he did last year. 
Delrep stated that the elimination of this office 
is not a budget decision but rather a policy 
decision for the Conference of the States Parties 
(CSP). 
 
¶4. (SBU) EC Vice-Chairperson Ambassador Lohman (the 
Netherlands) stated that Iran had continued to 
press for attention to the report from the visit in 
June by EC representatives to the U.S. and for a 
strong statement against delays in U.S. 
destruction.  At the request of EC Chairperson 
Ambassador Lomonaco (Mexico), Lohman will convene 
informal consultations on the visit report before 
EC-58.  Swedish Delegate Lodding enquired about the 
format for the meeting and suggested that the 
report's authors are answerable for the report, and 
questions specific to the U.S. program should be 
deferred to bilateral discussions or the informal 
destruction consultations.  Delrep suggested that 
this meeting be held just in advance of the EC 
which may also allow for the Indian representative 
who attended the visit and is from capital to be 
present for the meeting.  (Del note:  Lohmans's 
meeting on the report of the visit in June to the 
U.S. is scheduled for October 8.  End note.) 
 
¶5. (SBU) Lohman also gave a summary of the EC 
Bureau's meeting the week before in which Lomonaco 
outlined progress on the selection of the next DG. 
Based on his "confessional" meetings, Lomonaco 
feels that there are clear and consistent trends, 
and he intends to approach relevant, or lower- 
ranked, candidates about his findings.  Lomonaco 
planned to convene a meeting on September 29 to 
inform EC members of any withdrawals and to call 
for a straw poll if not. (Del note: No candidates 
 
have withdrawn.  The straw poll is scheduled for 
the morning of October 5.  End note.) 
 
¶6. (SBU) Delrep intervened to inform the group that 
the Libyan deadline extension request was available 
for review and inquired if there were any 
preliminary impressions.  Swedish Delegate Lodding 
stated that this might be handled as a revision of 
an earlier EC decision since Libya's request does 
not go beyond the 2012 deadline.  French Delegate 
Rabia stated that France had been approached in 
Tripoli to support the request.  Surkau will 
include the item for future discussion in WEOG. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Mike Byers (Australia), Facilitator of the 
Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Terrorism, 
described his intentions for the OEWG, including 
having an open discussion with member states to 
solicit input and concerns on the OEWG's priorities 
and activities.  Byers suggested convening this 
session on October 6, however multiple delegates 
(from the Netherlands, France and the UK) 
recommended postponing such a session until after 
EC-58.  Byers responded that there is value in 
parallel meetings, particularly as the budget 
discussions on the Office of Special Projects may 
affect the OEWG.  Delrep encouraged WEOG members to 
defend the OEWG and to be prepared to contribute to 
its future agenda. 
 
-------------------- 
BUDGET CONSULTATIONS 
 
-------------------- 
 
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, ERD AND PMO 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Co-Facilitator Francisco Aguilar (Costa 
Rica) convened the budget meeting on September 22 
to discuss the Executive Management offices, 
External Relations Division (ERD) and Support for 
the Policy-Making Organs (PMO).  There were few 
questions on most of the office programs, and some, 
like the Office of Internal Oversight and the 
Health and Safety Branch had no comments or 
questions at all.  For ERD, questions centered on 
KPIs pertaining to travel and the overlap with the 
International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA) 
Branch and with the Office of Special Projects 
(OSP).  The South African delegate also questioned 
the transfer of one professional position from ERD; 
the DDG responded that it was a temporary shift of 
one position to the DG's office.  The Dutch 
Ambassador inquired about the projected increase in 
media coverage, to which the DDG replied that two 
new staff members have been added to the Media 
section and there are a growing number of hits on 
the web site, so the Technical Secretariat (TS) 
considered 10% a reasonable increase in projected 
activity. 
 
¶9. (U) On his own office, the DDG noted that travel 
for the Scientific Advisory Body is included in his 
budget, but now broken out to show that it is not 
his own travel.  Labib Sahab (Head, Budget 
Planning) explained the "other staff costs" items 
and the new separation of travel costs for 
consultants, located in the DG's section of the 
budget. 
 
¶10. (U) Director of Special Projects Paturej 
presented his budget as the smallest section and of 
the same size (3 people) as when the office was 
created 12 years before.  He outlined his counter- 
terrorism work, coordination with stakeholders, and 
Qterrorism work, coordination with stakeholders, and 
joint activities with ICA and ERD, as well as his 
fundraising role.  The Iranian delegation objected 
 
to the use of "weapons of mass destruction" as 
being over-broad for the chemical weapons mandate 
of the Organization.  Paturej noted that it was the 
same language as in the budget last year; the DDG 
assured the Iranians that only chemical weapons are 
within OPCW's mandate but that OPCW's work 
contributes to the broader WMD agenda as reflected 
in the language.   The South African delegate then 
launched into a series of questions on OSP's 
activities and the overlap with other branches; he 
also questioned why counter-terrorism, which should 
be an integral part of the OPCW's work, is still 
considered a "special project."  He requested a 
formal break-down of the work being done by OSP, 
particularly with relation to other divisions. 
Delegates from the Czech Republic, the Netherlands 
and Australia spoke in support of OSP's cross- 
cutting work.  The South African delegate 
reiterated his request for the budget breakdown for 
OSP activities, which the DDG promised to provide 
at a future meeting.  (Del note:  Delrep later 
learned that the breakdown was provided bilaterally 
to the South African delegation in order to avoid 
further discussion on OSP at later consultations. 
End note.) 
 
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION AND MEDIUM-TERM PLAN 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶11. (U) On September 24, Co-Facilitator Martin 
Strub (Switzerland) convened a consultation on the 
Administration Division's budget, the final in the 
series of consultations focusing on specific 
divisions within the TS.  Administration Director 
Ron Nelson reported no significant changes in his 
Division's budget for 2010 and explained that the 
reduction in staff turn-over costs (EUR 300,000 
less than in 2009) is based on estimates of tenure- 
related separations.  Responding to a question 
posed by the South African delegate on moving to 
International Public Sector Accounting Standards 
(IPSAS), Nelson said that the TS will continue to 
engage an external consultant but is on track to 
have everything in place by the end of 2010 for a 
full roll-out of IPSAS beginning in 2011. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Moving to the Medium-Term Plan for 2010- 
2012, the South African delegate asked why the TS 
plans to deploy more contract (SSA) inspectors 
rather than hiring more fixed-term inspectors.  The 
DDG noted that using SSA inspectors provides the TS 
with flexibility to respond to fluctuating 
verification needs.  Acting Inspectorate Director 
Renato Carvalho added that destruction activity is 
expected to peak in 2011 and then drop 
substantially in 2012, so having experienced SSA 
inspectors for a year is more practical than 
recruiting and then training inspectors who 
ostensibly would expect to work for three to seven 
years.  The South African delegate then launched 
into a debate on whether SSA inspectors can be 
trusted and questioning their loyalty to the OPCW. 
The DDG stressed that using SSA inspectors has been 
endorsed by all member states in previous budgets 
and medium-term plans and does not represent a new 
mode of operation for the Organization. 
 
BUDGET WRAP-UP SESSION 1 
------------------------ 
 
¶13. (U) On September 28, Aguilar chaired the first 
Q13. (U) On September 28, Aguilar chaired the first 
wrap-up session to address outstanding issues on 
the budget and to discuss the draft decision for 
approving the budget, which was circulated during 
the meeting.  At the outset, the Indian, Iranian, 
Chinese and -- for the first time -- Pakistani 
delegates stated their inability to agree to the 
 
budget given their objections to the increase in 
inspections for other chemical production 
facilities (OCPFs).  The Iranian delegate also 
insisted on adding language to the draft decision 
from last year's budget decision regarding the 
policy nature of industry inspection numbers and 
the need for such policy discussion to take place 
in the Industry Cluster.  The British and French 
delegates responded that insertion of any such 
language would depend on the number of industry 
inspections finally agreed. 
 
¶14. (U) The Chinese delegate proposed adding a 
reference to abandoned chemical weapons (ACW) in 
Core Objective 1 of the OPCW, which currently only 
mentions the elimination of chemical weapons (CW) 
stockpiles and CW production facilities (CWPFs). 
The Dutch delegate proposed putting the reference 
either in the indicators of achievement or the key 
outcomes for 2010 for Core Objective 1 rather than 
redrafting the objective itself.  Aguilar suggested 
that the Chinese and Japanese delegations confer 
bilaterally to find agreeable language. 
 
¶15. (U) South African Delegate van Schalkwyk then 
started a discussion on whether to approve the 
budget on a programmatic level, as has been done 
since the 2005 budget, or on the sub-programmatic 
level considering the re-introduction of sub- 
programs in the 2010 budget.  Budget Planning Head 
Sahab responded that the sub-programs were 
introduced as a transparency measure but on a trial 
basis in order to give the TS experience and data 
to use when setting levels for 2011.  Van Schalkwyk 
said if sub-programs are included in the budget, 
Financial Regulation 4.6 regarding transfers of 
funds between sub-programs has to be observed; 
Sahab countered that the regulation would not apply 
if the budget were adopted at the program level and 
that the TS wanted to maintain some flexibility 
during the trial year to assess the accuracy of its 
estimations for sub-program budget levels.  The DDG 
added that the TS does not expect to transfer more 
than 15% between sub-programs (the level set in 
Regulation 4.6).  He also noted that the ABAF had 
endorsed the TS's proposal to adopt the budget at 
the program level; van Schalkwyk -- the ABAF vice- 
chairperson -- said that he agreed with the ABAF 
endorsement in his personal capacity but that South 
Africa's national position is to insist that all 
financial regulations and rules are complied with 
fully.  German Ambassador Burkart asked for an 
opinion on the matter from the Legal Advisor, which 
the DDG promised to have for the next consultation 
on October 1. 
 
¶16. (U) Turning to the Verification Division's 
KPIs, van Schalkwyk reiterated his request for more 
detail in the KPI related to Article IV/V (CW 
destruction) activity.  The Iranian delegate asked 
that the term "chemical-warfare agents" in the KPI 
be changed to "chemical weapons"; Verification 
Director Reeps agreed that this would be an 
accurate modification.  On the 2010-2012 Medium- 
Term Plan, the Russian delegate stated that he did 
not like the term "steady-state situation" related 
to TS plans for continued verification of converted 
Qto TS plans for continued verification of converted 
CWPFs, and the DDG agreed to consider alternative 
wording in consultation with the Russian and UK 
delegations. 
 
BUDGET WRAP-UP SESSION 2 
------------------------ 
 
¶17. (U) Strub chaired the second wrap-up session on 
October 1.  Updated drafts of the budget decision 
and revisions to the budget, as well as the 
 
revision to the Medium-Term Plan were circulated. 
The DDG noted the changes to the Verification 
Division KPIs to add the detail to Article IV/V 
activities previously requested by van Schalkwyk. 
 
¶18. (U) The DDG then raised the issue of sub- 
programs, stating that Financial Regulation 4.6 
would apply in 2010 if the budget were adopted at 
the sub-program level.  However, he stressed, the 
TS would prefer the sub-programs in the budget be 
used illustratively and not concretely until 
formally introducing them in the 2011 budget. 
Legal Advisor Onate then gave a thorough legal 
opinion on the applicability of the financial rules 
and regulations, concluding that the TS is required 
by Financial Regulation 3.3 to divide the budget 
into two chapters and the two chapters into 
programs; however, the division of programs into 
sub-programs is not mandatory but rather applicable 
only when considered appropriate.  Onate stated 
that, if the budget were to be adopted at the 
program level, Financial Regulation 4.5 (on the 
transfer of funds between programs) would apply but 
Financial Regulation 4.6 would not as the budget 
formally would not have sub-programs and therefore 
would be outside of the scope of Regulation 4.6. 
After Onate's report, van Schalkwyk stated that 
South Africa's firm position is that Financial 
Regulation 4.6 should be enforced, and he insisted 
that the budget be approved at the sub-program 
level to ensure the Regulation's applicability. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶19. (U) New facilitator Rami Adwan (Lebanon) 
convened his first consultation on Article VII 
implementation on September 25.  Legal Advisor 
Santiago Onate gave a detailed overview of the 
annual report, which will be considered at EC-58. 
Onate drew particular attention to the suggestions 
in the report's introductory cover note (paragraphs 
11-16) as possible elements to be used in a 
decision on Article VII.  Onate announced that 
since the cut-off date for the report (August 19), 
Barbados and Comoros each have established national 
authorities.  He also confirmed that the TS 
responds within 10-15 business days to requests 
from States Parties for comments on their Article 
VII submissions. 
 
¶20. (U) France, Sweden (in its EU Presidency 
capacity) and Germany all noted the assistance they 
provide to member states, particularly in Africa, 
in meeting their Article VII obligations.  WEOG 
delegations (France, Italy, the Netherlands and 
Germany) noted their general satisfaction with the 
overall positive trend in this area but stated that 
there is still more progress to be achieved. 
Russian Delegate Konstantin Gavrilov contended that 
progress is too slow and offered that it was time 
for delegations to start considering the option of 
"punitive" measures and for the TS to "name and 
shame" countries into meeting their obligations. 
 
¶21. (SBU) The South African delegate encouraged the 
TS to sustain momentum in engaging State Parties on 
Article VII, highlighting the value of reaching out 
to parliamentarians.  The delegate also stated his 
persistent view that the TS should not include the 
Qpersistent view that the TS should not include the 
annual declarations of past activities (ADPAs) as a 
measure of compliance with Article VII as not all 
member states have declarable activities.  German 
Ambassador Burkart responded that countries without 
declarable activities can still submit "nil" 
declarations.  Adwan recognized that the issue also 
 
had been raised last year and promised to work with 
interested delegations and the TS in finding an 
agreeable solution. 
 
¶22. (U) On October 2, Adwan held a follow-on 
consultation to discuss what recommendations, 
including the possibility of a decision, the EC 
should make to the CSP when forwarding the report. 
The Iranian delegate stated that Tehran has not 
sent instructions yet; while he did not see any 
problem with noting the factual parts of the annual 
report, he said that the TS "recommendations" in 
the introductory cover note are "subjective" and 
need further discussion.  Delrep pointed out that 
the cover note only contained suggestions or 
options for consideration and not TS 
recommendations.  Delrep and other delegates (from 
Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland) noted that 
the suggestions provide useful elements for 
recommendations for future action.  The Russian 
delegate described the report as purely technical 
and ready for noting; however, he said that any 
draft decision would need further discussion, 
suggesting the addition of new measures to build on 
last year's decision.  The Czech delegate stated 
that a draft decision would help maintain momentum 
on Article VII implementation, and the Brazilian 
delegate said that any draft decision should offer 
innovative ideas rather than merely repeating past 
decisions. 
 
¶23. (U) The South African delegate again raised his 
objection to the inclusion of ADPA data in the 
report and said that any report language or 
decision will need to take this into account and 
give clear guidance to the TS on what to include in 
future reports.  Adwan scheduled the next 
consultation for October 8. 
 
--------- 
ARTICLE X 
--------- 
 
¶24. (U) On September 25, Facilitator Maciej 
Karasinski (Poland) held informal consultations on 
assistance and protection against chemical weapons 
under Article X.  He opened the meeting by 
soliciting feedback from States Parties on the 
utility of the Protection and Assistance Databank. 
The Technical Secretariat provided a brief 
presentation on the databank.  The Russian Delegate 
provided a positive assessment on the considerable 
progress made. The Italian Delegate provided 
generally positive feedback, but stated that he 
intended to follow up with his capital for more 
substantive comments. The Czech Delegate provided 
specific feedback on incorrect data that was 
included related to participation in conferences 
and suggested adding subcategories in the section 
on experts.  The French Delegate opined that 
further reflection may be required on the 
disclosure of information of national experts as 
this information may be sensitive, and that she 
would follow up with her capital for instructions. 
 
¶25. (SBU) Karasinski  circulated the nomination 
request for qualified experts (S/775/2009).  The TS 
provided a short presentation on the role of 
qualified experts, explaining that they are 
intended to augment the OPCW team when specific 
expertise is needed.  The core group of qualified 
experts comprises eighteen individuals from three 
distinct disciplines: medical, CW explosive 
ordinance disposal (EOD), and disaster management. 
Qordinance disposal (EOD), and disaster management. 
These experts are retained on a contract basis; the 
special service agreements for the current group of 
experts expire in February 2010.  The deadline for 
 
nominations is October 30, and experts will be 
selected in November.  Training for selected 
experts will occur in February 2010 with the goal 
of operational preparedness by March 1, 2010. 
Seven nominations have been received thus far. 
Following questions from the floor, the Technical 
Secretariat stated that there has been no previous 
specific request made for these qualified experts 
to support the OPCW as intended, however several 
have been used as instructors or speakers at 
regional events.  To the French Delegate's inquiry 
about the breakdown of military and civilian 
representation, the TS stated that ten of the 
experts are military and eight civilian.  On the 
experts' obligations to protect information, the TS 
stated that there is a secrecy agreement as part of 
the experts' contract that forbids the sharing of 
information and in that sense there is a legal 
guarantee similar to that found in employment 
contracts with the OPCW. 
 
¶26. (SBU) Karasinski distributed a chart depicting 
the current status on the submission of 
declarations of national protection program, as 
required by Article X, Paragraph 4.  Karasinski 
reminded States Parties of their obligations to 
provide this information and reported that more 
than 100 members have not yet reported.  Several 
delegates (Italy, Germany, the U.S., Yemen, and the 
UK) encouraged improved procedures by the TS, 
specifically including better coordination among 
divisions of the TS that may be engaging States 
Parties to better communicate the outstanding 
requirements and foster compliance, and 
particularly calling for a snapshot or 
comprehensive list of all treaty requirements and 
current status arranged by country. 
 
---------- 
ARTICLE XI 
---------- 
 
¶27. (U) Facilitator Chen Kai (China) held his first 
consultation on September 28.  The tone of the 
brief meeting was positive and upbeat.  Chen stated 
that the workshop proposed in 2008 still appears to 
have general support although a number of details 
remain outstanding.  He believes the workshop 
should be a forum for all relevant stakeholders, 
including participants from government, industry, 
academia and civil society, to brainstorm ideas on 
how to promote the full implementation of Article 
XI.  Any results or recommendations from the 
workshop could then feed into the ongoing 
consultative process at the OPCW.  Chen proposed 
drafting a simple decision for CSP-14 to give a 
green light to holding the workshop in 2010, 
leaving details to be worked out later though 
consultations. 
 
¶28. (U) The Iranian delegate stated the importance 
of the full implementation of Article XI but 
reserved comments on the workshop for the next 
consultation.  Other delegates (from South Africa, 
Italy, Poland and the U.S.) intervened to offer 
their general support for the concept of the 
workshop.  The Cuban delegate was the only one to 
support preparing a decision for CSP-14 and said 
that it should promote the full implementation of 
Article XI and not just endorse the workshop.  Chen 
concluded the consultation by promising to consult 
with interested delegations and to discuss draft 
Qwith interested delegations and to discuss draft 
decision language at another consultation prior to 
EC-58. 
 
¶29. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
LEVIN