US embassy cable - 04THEHAGUE1499

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) - SCENESETTER FOR THE 37TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, JUNE 29-JULY 2

Identifier: 04THEHAGUE1499
Wikileaks: View 04THEHAGUE1499 at Wikileaks.org
Origin: Embassy The Hague
Created: 2004-06-17 12:52:00
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Tags: PARM PREL AL LY CWC
Redacted: This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks.
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 THE HAGUE 001499 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR JOECK 
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM, PREL, AL, LY, CWC 
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) - SCENESETTER 
FOR THE 37TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, JUNE 29-JULY 2 
 
This is CWC-72-04. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
1.  (SBU)  There are two specific set of decisions which are 
the highest priorities at this EC.  The first set of issues 
is time-sensitive and involves amendments to the Working 
Capital Fund and the Financial Regulations.  These draft 
decisions will give the OPCW a much greater financial cushion 
and greater leeway in replenishment of that fund.  Should 
these resolutions not be adopted in June, the next 
opportunity for a decision will be the October EC, which 
could generate difficulties for the OPCW depending on the 
state of finances.  The second set of issues involves the 
requests from Libya and Albania for extension of their 
destruction deadlines.  These may not be so acutely 
time-sensitive, but are politically important and adoption in 
June would send an important message to the countries 
involved about the OPCW's responsiveness and ability to take 
action.  The concerns of some countries (particularly France 
and Germany) on "in principle" extensions cast some doubts on 
whether these will be adopted at the J 
une EC, but the onus will lie on them to block consensus on 
extension requests which are generally supported. 
 
2.  (SBU)  With regard to the Libyan conversion request on 
Rabta, a substantial amount of spade-work will need to be 
done in the run-up to the EC and at the EC itself in order to 
assuage the concerns of other delegations.  While the 
conversion request likely will not be adopted in June, it 
will be important to do the lobbying necessary to ensure its 
adoption in October.  On the industry side, following the 
numerous decisions adopted at the March EC, there appears to 
have been insufficient time to prepare decision documents for 
this EC.  But the proposed draft opening statement by the 
Ambassador (provided by E-mail to AC/CB) will emphasize that 
it is critical that we use the time before the October EC to 
complete work on a number of important topics, such as late 
declarations and transfer discrepancy clarifications. 
 
----- 
LIBYA 
----- 
 
3.  (SBU) We have reported septel on the status of 
discussions with other delegations on the Libyan extension 
request and the conversion request for Rabta. 
 
------- 
ALBANIA 
------- 
 
4.  (SBU)  As in the case of Libya, there appears to be a 
general desire among delegations to accommodate the needs of 
the Albanians.  The problem that has arisen is the reluctance 
of France and Germany in particular to accept "in principle" 
extensions of the destruction deadlines.  Such concerns had 
been raised last year with regard to U.S. and Russian 
extension requests.  However, the acceptance of "in 
principle" extensions for the U.S. and Russia makes it 
difficult for delegations to raise an objection to their use 
with regard to Albania.  We certainly anticipate that France 
and Germany will repeat this refrain up to the EC.  Whether 
they will actually take the step of breaking consensus on 
this issue is another matter, especially if there is an 
overwhelming desire to accommodate Tirana.  A related issue 
has been the initiative of some countries to push for site 
visits in connection with these extension requests.  While 
such visits are of dubious value and the decision of whether 
to accept them would ultimately rest with the Libyans and 
Albanians themselves, the issue could delay adoption of the 
Albanian extension request if some, in particular Germany and 
France, insist upon having visits included as part of the 
decision documents (EC-37/DEC/CRP.5, 28 May 2004). 
 
---------------- 
FINANCIAL ISSUES 
---------------- 
 
5.  (U)  Working Capital Fund:  Under the facilitation of 
Johan Verboom (Netherlands), agreement has been reached on a 
draft decision document increasing the level of the WCF to 
9.9 million Euros.  In addition, the proposed change will 
extend to the following calendar year the period within which 
any funds taken by the TS from the WCF must be put back into 
the WCF.  At Germany's insistence, the mechanism for 
increasing the funds in the WCF has been done in accordance 
with the Financial Regulations.  Due to the complexities of 
this action, the facilitator provided an accompanying 
explanatory sheet, and has scheduled a June 21 consultation 
to ensure that any objections from member states will be 
addressed before the EC convenes.  Washington supports the 
draft decision document, and it is likely the U.S. will have 
to do a lot of work in the run-up to the EC and at the EC 
itself to ensure the draft decision is adopted. 
 
6.  (U)  Financial Regulations:  In what became an 
accompanying facilitation, Peter van Brakel (Canada) worked 
to update a number of financial regulations.  Most critical 
to the U.S. was the effort to formalize a "schedule" for 
payment of Article IV/V invoices.  It had become clear that 
many delegations viewed this as a package deal: while the WCF 
would be increased to cover cash-flow problems, it was 
important to have greater certainty regarding the Article 
IV/V payments by possessor states.  Once again, Washington 
supports the draft decision document, and it will be 
important to press for adoption of the two parts of the 
package at the EC. 
 
7.  (U) As for the rest of the EC-37 session, the following 
items are addressed as included on the annotated agenda 
(EC-37/INF.2, dated May 7 2004): 
 
------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM THREE: DG STATEMENT 
------------------------------- 
 
8.  (U)  We will provide the text of the DG's statement when 
it becomes available. 
 
--------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM FOUR:  GENERAL DEBATE 
--------------------------------- 
 
9.  (U)  We will provide a draft statement for Ambassador 
Javits to AC/CB for Washington's consideration. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
AGENDA ITEM FIVE: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
10.  (SBU) The council is requested to consider under agenda 
item 5.1 the 2003 verification implementation report 
(EC-37/HP/DG.1, dated 28 April 2004).  One set of 
consultations were held on the report. 
 
11.  (SBU) A report from the DG on the status of 
implementation of Articles X and XI is noted under 5.2 
(EC-37/DG.7, 24 May 2004 and corrigendum EC-37/DG.7/Corr.1, 7 
June 2004). 
 
------------------------------------------ 
AGENDA ITEM SIX: DRAFT REPORT OF THE OPCW 
------------------------------------------ 
 
12.  (SBU)  Washington comments to the draft report 
(EC-37/CRP.1, dated 27 April 2004) were provided to the 
Deputy DG and were adopted into the document. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM SEVEN: LIBYAN EXTENSION REQUEST 
------------------------------------------- 
 
13.  (SBU)  See septel. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
AGENDA ITEM EIGHT: DETAILED PLANS FOR DESTRUCTION 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
14.  (U)  The U.S. detailed plans for Aberdeen and Dugway are 
addressed under this item.  Item 8.1 concerns Aberdeen 
(EC-32/DEC/CRP.2, dated 14 February 2003) and 8.2 covers 
Dugway (EC-36/DEC/CRP.11, dated 3 March 2004). 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
AGENDA ITEM NINE: DESTRUCTION/CONVERSION OF CWPFS 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
15.  (U)  The sub-items are as follows: 
-- 9.1 covers Pine Bluff. 
-- 9.2 covers changes to chemical process equipment in a 
State Party (EC-37/HP/NAT.1, dated 12 March 2004 and 
EC-37/DG.2, dated 1 April 2004). 
-- 9.3 covers the Russian changes in the former CWPF at 
Novocheboksarsk (EC-37/DG.4, dated 4 May 2004). 
-- 9.4 notes a DG report (not yet circulated) on CWPFs where 
conversion is in progress, and of progress at such facilities. 
 
------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM TEN: FACILITY AGREEMENTS 
------------------------------------- 
 
16. (U)  The sub-items are as follows: 
--10.1 covers Aberdeen. 
--10.2 covers Dugway. 
--10.3 covers a Singapore Schedule 1 facility agreement 
(EC-37/DEC.CRP.1, dated 15 March 2004). 
--10.4 covers an Australian Schedule 1 facility agreement 
(EC-37/DEC/CRP.1, dated 26 March 2004). 
--10.5 covers Pine Bluff. 
 
----------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM ELEVEN: INDUSTRY ISSUES 
----------------------------------- 
 
17.  (U) The only issue which appears ripe for adoption as a 
result of the cluster sessions is EC report language for 
facility agreements. 
 
The language proposed by the facilitators is as follows: 
"The Council recalled paras 17 and 24 of the VA Part VII 
where a Schedule 2 facility agreement shall be concluded 
between the iSP and the Organization unless the iSP and the 
Secretariat agree that it is not needed.  The Council 
 
SIPDIS 
recommended the Secretariat, which was requested by the 
Conference 'to continue its efforts to optimize verification 
measures' (Para 7.39(i), RC-1/5, 9 May 03) to consider 
carefully the need for each Schedule 2 FA, in a consistent 
and non-discriminatory manner, based on the information 
available through its verification activities (declaration 
and inspection) and also taking into account the opinion of 
the iSP involved.  The Council expects that the future 
application of paragraphs 17 and 24 may lead to a noticeable 
reduction in the overall number of Schedule 2 facility 
agreements which are required to be negotiated between the 
iSP and the Secretariat and brought before the Council for 
approval." 
 
18.  (U) Del understands the only two delegations in 
opposition to the proposed text remain India and Iran.  India 
has requested the facilitators to include some language which 
would broadly set out the criteria which the TS would 
consider as it decides whether or not to negotiate an 
agreement (e.g., characteristics of the facility, anticipated 
frequency of inspection, etc.).  The facilitators are 
reluctant to do so, given that this would set in motion an 
effort to define the criteria that should fall under the 
purview of the TS as it is their procedures that are in 
question.  The Iranian delegation has requested the 
facilitators to drop the last sentence of the proposal. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM TWELVE: NEW VALIDATED DATA 
-------------------------------------- 
 
19.  (U)  The EC is requested to consider the DG's note on 
new validated data for inclusion in the OPCW Central 
Analytical Database (draft decision EC-37/DEC/CRP.3, 18 May 
2004). 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
AGENDA ITEM THIRTEEN: OPCW PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIIES 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
20.  (U)  The EC is requested to consider and conclude an 
agreement on privileges and immunities between the OPCW and 
Mauritius (EC-37/DEC/CRP.6, 6 June 2004).  There is a similar 
agreement with Malta (EC-37/DEC/CRP.7, 7 June 2004) which has 
also been circulated. 
 
-------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM FOURTEEN: OIO REPORT 
-------------------------------- 
 
21.  (U)  In general, delegations have used the consultations 
on the report (EC-37/DG.5, dated 7 May 2004) to question why 
OIO recommendations have not been adopted by the TS and to 
raise questions on management and administrative policy.  A 
more detailed report on consultations was provided in The 
Hague 1391. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM FIFTEEN: FINANCIAL ISSUES 
-------------------------------------- 
 
22.  (U)  Item 15.1 covers income and expenditure 
(EC-37/DG.3, dated 23 April 2004, EC-37/DG.8, 25 May 2004, 
and the document for income and expenditure as of May 31, 
which has yet to be circulated). 
 
23.  (U)  Item 15.2 addresses non-service incurred death and 
disability insurance (EC-36/S/10, dated 15 March 2004) and 
the EC is requested to note the report on phasing out 
existing agreements for this coverage in a way that respects 
any acquired rights. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
AGENDA ITEM SIXTEEN: AMENDMENTS TO THE FINANCIAL REGULATIONS 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
24.  (U)  Addressed above. 
 
--------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM SEVENTEEN: ABAF REPORT 
--------------------------------- 
 
25.  (U)  The ABAF is meeting June 14-18.  It is expected 
that a report will be available the week of the EC.  Del will 
report separately on the outcome of the ABAF meetings. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
AGENDA ITEM EIGHTEEN: PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF CSP 9 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
26.  (U)  The council is requested to consider the 
provisional agenda of the Ninth CSP, which has yet to be 
circulated. 
 
----------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM NINETEEN: 2005 EC DATES 
----------------------------------- 
 
27.  (U)  The council is requested to consider the following 
dates for its regular sessions in 2005: EC-40, 15-18 March; 
EC-41, 28-1 July; EC-42, 27-30 September; EC-43, 6-9 December. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM TWENTY: ANY OTHER BUSINESS 
-------------------------------------- 
 
28.  (U) At this point, there is no additional topic that is 
contemplated under this agenda item. 
 
29.  (U) Javits sends. 
SOBEL 

Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04