Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 04THEHAGUE2409 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 04THEHAGUE2409 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy The Hague |
| Created: | 2004-09-21 15:32:00 |
| Classification: | UNCLASSIFIED |
| Tags: | PARM PREL 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 03 THE HAGUE 002409 SIPDIS 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, CWC SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP FOR SEPTEMBER 17, 2004 This is CWC-110-04. --------------------- DATA AUTOMATION (VIS) --------------------- 1. (U) At the request of DG Pfirter, Glen Johnson, Office Director of VC/VO, assessed the Technical Secretariat accomplishments on the Verification Information System (VIS) Enhancement project over the past year and recommended how best to move the project forward. Johnson determined that significant progress has been made, but much remains to be done. A Relational Data Base Management System prototype is in-house and will be ready to test after the completion of some interface programming work. Johnson recommended that the best way to move the project forward would be to hire two database programmers for in-house work and not renew the contract with Sitar, Inc. He also recommended that the DG establish a full-time project leader from the Verification Division, who would be supported by two full-time programmers from Information Services Branch (ISB), one officer from the Office of Security and Confidentiality (OCS), and two officers from Verification Division. The DG, upon receipt of the recommendations, immediately named Ruth Mohlenkamp (Germany) as project leader. --------------------------------- REQUEST FOR A COST-FREE IT EXPERT --------------------------------- 2. (U) Del reps and visiting expert Glen Johnson met with Magda Bauta and Anand Dhavle (Implementation Support Branch (ISP)), Peter Kaiser (Public Affairs), and Greg Linden (ISB) to review Bauta's requests for a cost-free U.S. expert. Del reps noted that such as expert is not cost-free to U.S., and that the U.S. needed specific project details in order to match expertise with the job requirements. 3. (U) All participants reviewed the expert's proposed job elements. -- First, the individual would mount the updated training materials from the Infopack1 CD-ROM onto the OPCW website. Kaiser noted that these materials were already available and that an IT expert was not needed to merely do an update. -- Second, the expert would mount the materials on the Infopack2 CD-ROM onto OPCW Website. Kaiser noted that a better way to proceed at far less expense would be to hire a vendor that specializes in development of IT-based training; this was not a computer programming effort. Johnson strongly seconded this suggestion, estimating that it would cost about $50,000 to do web-based training using both infopacks in a matter of weeks. -- Third, Bauta proposed that the IT expert complete the programming of and then populate the National Implementation Profile System (NIPS) Database. Linden responded that the NIPS programming is completed and only minor tweaking remains to be done; database population is not a job for an IT expert. Bauta replied that the latter could be done by two interns working in her section. -- Fourth, Bauta wants the joint U.S./Romanian training under development mounted on the OPCW website (again, this could be done from Washington). 4. (U) Finally, del reps discussed Bauta's request for a National Authority Chat Room. Kaiser noted that a chat room is already up and running on a trial basis. The issue is not the technology; it is the critical necessity to have a moderator who will be available to check content for questionable material or inaccuracies. Bauta noted that she did not have the resources to support this. Linden recommended sending prospective users a survey to determine topics that would be of most interest, to restricting the task to just one or two threads. 5. (U) Participants agreed that the proposed effort would be better supported by using the remaining 25,000 euros remaining in the FY04 ISP budget to hire a vendor to develop an interactive web-based training materials. Del reps agreed to explore possible funding streams for the remaining circa $25,000 probably needed to fund the effort. --------------------------- REPORTS OF SYRIAN USE OF CW --------------------------- 6. (U) There was extensive discussion among delegations of the September 15 article in the German periodical "Die Welt" alleging that western intelligence services have determined that Syria tested CW on civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan in June. DG Pfirter subsequently wrote to the Ambassadors of Sudan and Syria, highlighting the press items and requesting a response. ------------------------------ COUNTERTERRORISM WORKING GROUP ------------------------------ 7. (U) Counterterrorism Working Group (CTWG) facilitator Sophie Moal-Makame (France) held a consultation 20 September to review TS outreach efforts and to consider how the OPCW can best support global CT efforts. The facilitator briefly reviewed OPCW and UN CT initiatives before asking the DG for opening remarks and Special Advisor Khodakov to review TS outreach efforts. Khodakov has initiated discussions with Europol, NATO's WMD center, OSCE, Interpol, InterParliamentary Union, South and SE European cooperation units, and the CIS CT center. Possible areas for cooperation were identified as information exchanges, relevant workshops, training, exercises, and various assistance programs. Future TS outreach efforts will include the African Union, the EU, SIPDIS international customs agencies, etc. (Note: Iran warned the TS against reaching out to the Australia Group). The SIPDIS facilitator gave the floor to the UK, which gave a brief presentation on two of its CW terrorist exercises. 8. (U) Finally the facilitator asked for delegations' suggestions on their views of possible areas for future CT-related efforts. South Africa sees no reason for further meetings. Other delegations were unanimous: the mandate of the OPCW cannot be extended, universality and full effective implementation are the most significant contributions SPs can make to the CT campaign; the OPCW must adhere to its core objective and purpose. The Netherlands suggested that SPs could work with chemical industry to alert them to the threat and advise it on ways to secure dangerous chemicals. The Netherlands also recommended that the CTWG might begin discussions of export controls and importance of transparency in transfers of dangerous chemicals. ----------- 2005 BUDGET ----------- 9. (U) The third day of budget discussions took place on September 15. The topic was objectives of the organization for 2005. At the outset of the meeting, the Australian co-facilitator, Gordon Eckersley, highlighted the fact that the core objectives should not be viewed as a document "carved in stone" and that it may change and evolve in the future. In a subsequent conversation, the Canadian co-facilitator, Ian Mundell, said that he and Eckersley planned to propose language to delegations in early October that would be incorporated in the decision document and reflect the fact that the budget objectives are not permanent, and may be changed in the future. (Note: we subsequently recommended to the facilitators that they should circulate some draft language on that point soon. They agreed to consider our suggestion but said that they also felt that it would be better to finish the next two weeks of discussions before floating the language.) 10. (U) Most of the discussion involved suggestions by certain delegations (Iran and to a lesser degree Brazil) to make minor changes in the language of the Core, Supporting, and Operational Objectives. Several delegations, including Switzerland, Canada and the UK, pushed back and opposed the changes. In the end, it did not appear that any of the proposed changes got any traction amongst other delegations and at this point it appears unlikely that there will be any changes to the objectives this year. 11. (U) Iran first proposed that "capacities" be replaced with "facilities" in Core Objective #1 and that the word "including" should be deleted from Core Objective #2. The Iranians noted that the word "facilities" is used throughout the convention and so for consistencies sake should be used in the Core Objectives as well. Brazil endorsed Iran's suggestion that the word "including" should be deleted from Core Objective #2 and also suggested that new and better indicators should be found for Core Objective #4. 12. (U) Canada and the UK argued for the retention of "including" in Core Objective #2 but noted that they would be willing to consider expanding the language in Core Objectives #3 and 4, provided that the discussions not become a "drafting exercise." 13. (U) Italy suggested that the distinction between Core Objective and Supporting Objective should be eliminated. At that point, the Iranians suggested that perhaps the word "objective" itself was not appropriate. The Swiss opined that the use of the word "objective" was essential to the RBB process. 14. (U) Iran then proposed that the word "national" be deleted from Supporting Objective #6. The Swiss and Canadians replied that the word "national" provided the necessary amount of specificity to the objective. 15. (U) In the end, little was accomplished during the discussion, although it did provide certain delegations with the requisite amount of venting before moving on to discussions on consultancy services and GTA needs on the 21st; request for new staff positions on the 22nd; and Article VI discussions on the 23rd. On September 28th budget discussions on Article IV and V inspections are scheduled followed by additional budget discussions on the 28th and 29th for any remaining budget items to be discussed before moving onto a final consultation on September 30th on the overall budget request. 16. (U) The co-facilitators are also attempting to schedule a Geneva Group meeting on September 24 to discuss: verification related planning assumptions impacting on the 2005 budget; overall budget appropriation for 2005; and any other business. This meeting will hopefully give us a sense of where the Japanese and Germans are on the requested budget increase. Informally the Germans have told us that they believe that Berlin may be willing to accept a 4.2 percent increase. The Germans believe that the Japanese are also looking at a 4.0 to 4.2 percent increase but that neither have received firm instructions from capitals. The Germans also mentioned on September 20 that they would like to seek further clarifications from the TS on the authorized number of fixed-term positions (the Germans believe that it should remain at 507 even if twenty security guards are made fixed-term employees) and on the methodology for computing salary increases. 17. (U) Ito sends. SOBEL
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04