US embassy cable - 03THEHAGUE1930

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 001930 
 
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 CHUPA 
WINPAC FOR FOLEY 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/31/2013 
TAGS: PARM, PREL, CWC 
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): ARTICLE VII 
CONSULTATIONS 
 
Classified By: Phil Kellogg for reasons 1.5 (b) and (d) 
 
 This is CWC-78-03. 
 
1.  (U) This is the weekly reporting cable for July 21-25, 
2003. 
 
2.  (U) RFGs contained in paragraphs 17 & 24. 
 
------------------------------------ 
Informal Consultations of the EC on 
Plan of Action Preparations 
Article VII and Universality 
------------------------------------ 
 
3.  (U) On July 24, Ambassador Petr Kubernat, EC Chairman, 
presided over the Informal Open-ended Consultations on the 
preparation of the plans of action on National Implementation 
and Universality.  Amb. Kubernat stated that the objectives 
of the meeting were to clarify how the Executive Council (EC) 
would proceed on the two plans of action.  The group would 
not be taking a decision on either issue at this point. 
 
4.  (U) Amb Kubernat reminded the group that the Review 
Conference had decided that a plan of action for both Article 
VII and Universality were needed.  EC-34 was required to 
provide recommendations on the Article VII plan of action to 
CSP-8 in October while the Universality plan of action did 
not have a timeframe associated to it.  Amb. Kubernat stated 
that his goal for the Universality plan of action was to have 
it developed by EC-35 in December. 
 
--Universality Plan of Action-- 
 
5.  (U) The meeting began with a brief discussion of 
Universality.  Amb. Kubernat announced that Consuelo Femenia, 
Spain, would be the new facilitator for the Universality plan 
of action.  Ms. Femenia was not present at the meeting, 
however, Amb. Kubernat informed the group that Ms. Femenia's 
plans were to work bilaterally with States Parties in August 
to get their views on Universality, prior to setting a date 
for an initial meeting. 
 
6.  (U) Yu Huang, Director, External Relations, presented an 
informal TS paper on Universality, (Draft Elements of an 
Action Plan on Universal Adherence to the CWC -- faxed to 
AC/CB).  Since this was the first opportunity for States 
Parties to see this paper, there was no discussion of the 
text.  However, the Mexican delegation pointed out that the 
TS paper did not include any references to the work of the 
 
SIPDIS 
International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA) Division.  She 
asked whether the TS would put out another paper to include 
ICA's contribution.  In reply, DDG Hawtin announced his 
intention to spearhead a task force approach to coordinating 
issues on Article VII and Universality.  He emphasized the 
need to enforce coordination among the TS divisions and that 
he would personally lead this effort.  (NOTE:  Ralf Trapp 
assured Del on the margins that ICA Division had coordinated 
on Huang's paper, but the fact remains that no ICA activity 
was incorporated into the draft.) 
 
--Article VII Plan of Action-- 
 
7.  (U) Amb. Kubernat announced that Mark Matthews, UK, would 
be the facilitator for the Article VII plan of action.  He 
informed the group that there were currently two papers 
tabled for consideration, a U.S. national paper and an 
informal TS paper. 
 
8.  (U) The U.S. del presented the U.S. national paper to the 
group.  Del stressed the importance of maintaining the 
momentum from the Review Conference by developing a plan of 
action for EC-34 to recommend to CSP-8.  Del emphasized that 
it was essential to establish a clear timeframe for meeting 
Article VII obligations and proposed CSP-10 as the timeframe 
for compliance.  Del also noted that if there were States 
Parties who were unwilling to meet their Article VII 
obligations by CSP-10, the Conference would have the action 
to remedy the situation, in accordance with Article XII. 
 
9.  (U) Del noted the focus of the national implementation 
should primarily be on 1) criminalizing CW activities, and 2) 
the authority to compel industry declarations to the national 
government.  The plan should emphasize States Parties' 
responsibility to come into compliance. 
 
10.  (U) Amb. Kubernat announced that Mr. Trapp, TS Office of 
the DDG, had been selected as the TS representative to 
coordinate the TS efforts on Article VII issues.  Mr. Trapp 
presented an informal TS paper (Possible Approach to 
developing an OPCW Action Plan on National Implementation of 
the CWC - faxed to AC/CB).  Mr. Trapp stated that the TS 
paper was basically a "think piece" on the issue of Article 
VII obligations. 
 
11.  (U) The Netherlands asked what the budget implications 
were for implementing the actions associated with these 
plans.  DDG Hawtin stated that there were currently no 
resource issues.  He believed that there would not be a need 
to insert a line item in the 2004 budget.  However, if 2005 
was established as the deadline for compliance, the TS might 
have to request additional funding to meet this demand. 
 
12.  (U) As the facilitator, Mr. Matthews stressed that there 
was much work to be done to develop a plan of action by 
EC-34. He stated that his plan for the facilitation was to 
begin bilateral consultations with States Parties now and to 
hold a first open-ended consultation at the end of August (29 
August).  By a second meeting in early September he would 
present a facilitator's paper for discussion.  He stated that 
he would be in The Hague through the month of August.  There 
were several dels that noted the difficulties in meeting 
during August, since this is the summer holiday time.  Mr. 
Matthews stated that he would attempt to work out a solution. 
 
------------------------- 
Meeting with the DDG and 
Article VII Facilitator 
------------------------- 
 
13.  (U) Del met in the afternoon of July 24 with DDG Hawtin, 
Ralf Trapp, Sarah Foulds, and Mark Matthews to directly 
discuss the U.S. national paper and to get feedback on the 
paper from the TS and the facilitator.  The U.S. del reviewed 
the key elements of the paper with the group and asked for 
comments. 
 
14.  (SBU) The DDG opined that this was the first time that 
the OPCW had been tasked to write a plan of action.  He 
stressed his concern that the vision of what a plan of action 
would look like means different things to different States 
Parties.  He strongly emphasized that the mention of Article 
XII in a plan of action would "scare the horses."  He is very 
concerned that, if the U.S. presses this point too hard, it 
would be detrimental to the plan itself. 
 
15.  (SBU) The DDG also asked if the U.S. believed that all 
153 States Parties would be fully compliant with Article VII 
in 2 years time.  He noted the difficulty some States Parties 
would have in meeting this timeframe.  He said that he did 
not oppose the two-year proposal.  However, he asked if a 
State Party was acting in good faith to meet its obligations, 
but had missed the timeline, would the U.S. consider it as 
non-compliant as a State Party who had done nothing in two 
years?  Del responded that the onus would be on the States 
Parties to explain why a two-year timeframe was unachievable. 
 
16.  (SBU) The DDG stated that it would be a big task not 
only for States Parties, but also for the TS to get States 
Parties to meet these obligations in two years.  He asked 
whether the U.S. would consider the idea of States Parties 
providing consultants, cost-free experts, or organizing 
events to assist the TS in this effort. 
 
17.  (SBU) RFG:  What is Washington's position regarding the 
idea of States Parties providing consultants or cost-free 
experts to assist the TS in Article VII activities? 
 
18.  (S) The DDG privately reflected, (Please Protect), his 
concern that a 2005 timeframe for compliance would be 
demanding.  He reminded the Del that the Results Based 
Budgeting was to be implemented by the TS in 2005.  This 
would require a lot of work between now and 2005 and that it 
would require the TS to work with the non-WEOG States Parties 
to change the culture of how the budget will be implemented. 
He asked that we keep both issues in perspective as we 
develop the Article VII plan of action.  He feared that we 
were moving too far too fast.  He wondered whether we would 
consider moving the Article VII plan of action timeline to 
2006. 
19.  (S) Mr. Trapp opined that the plan of action approved by 
the EC and, ultimately by the CSP, would need to be a top 
level document that clearly lays out the mechanisms and 
targets.  However, he envisioned that in order to implement 
the approved plan a more detailed version would be developed 
by the TS to operationalize the overall plan of action. 
 
20.  (SBU) Mr. Trapp mentioned that the TS had received a 
proposal from Barry Kellman on ways to help States Parties 
develop implementing legislation.  The TS has not yet made a 
decision on this proposal. 
 
21.  (SBU) Mr. Matthews stated that he would be using the 
U.S. national paper as the basis from which the facilitator's 
paper on the Article VII action plan would be drafted.  The 
del will be meeting with Mr. Matthews during the week of July 
28 to discuss the paper in more detail. 
 
---------------------------------- 
Meeting with the TS Legal Officers 
---------------------------------- 
 
22.  (U) On Friday, July 25, Del met with TS representatives 
from the Legal Advisors office to review the status of States 
Parties response to Article VI and VII questionnaires.  The 
U.S. del briefed the TS on the status of the U.S. demarches 
to States Parties who had not responded to the questionnaires 
nor had established a national authority. 
 
23.  (U) The TS informed the Del that it had sent a Note 
Verbal to States Parties requesting a status of their 
national implementation measures.  The TS plans to provide an 
updated report to CSP-8 on national implementation measures. 
Also, the TS stated that they were creating legal models for 
each type of legal system in the various regions.  The TS 
will be looking for States Parties to comment on these 
models, once they are completed.  The TS asked whether the 
U.S. nominees to the Legal Network meeting, scheduled for 
November, would be willing to review and comment on these 
models.  Del stated that they would inquire on the 
availability of the nominees to take on this task. 
 
24.  (U) RFG:  Would one or both of the U.S. nominees be 
available to provide review and comment to the TS legal 
models being developed?  It is not anticipated that travel 
would be required. 
 
------------------- 
Comments from Japan 
------------------- 
 
25.  (SBU) The Del met with Chiho Komuro, Japanese 
delegation, to receive comments from Japan on the U.S. 
national paper for Article VII.  Japan shares the views of 
the U.S. that a plan of action must be developed immediately. 
 However, Japan emphasized that it was essential that the 
U.S. get the developing States Parties on board with this 
plan.  Japan is very concerned that the tone of the paper was 
too strong in some places and that it would turn the 
developing States Parties against the U.S. plan.  For 
example, Japan does not support the reference to Article XII. 
 They believe that it will make it impossible to gain 
consensus on a plan of action.  It will place the developing 
States Parties in a defensive position and such political 
pressure would not be productive. 
 
26.  (SBU) Japan said that it would support the two-year 
timeframe, however, it believed that the U.S. was too 
optimistic in believing that all States Parties could meet 
this goal by CSP-10. 
 
27.  (SBU) Japan emphasized that the U.S. outreach may not be 
applicable in all regions, namely in Asia and with the Middle 
Eastern States Parties.  Also, the emphasis on regional 
groups needing to identify a lead State Party to foster other 
States Parties would not be agreeable to the Asian Group. 
This concept would only heighten already tense discussions 
within the Asian Group. 
28.  (C)  Japan noted, in confidence, that the Asian Group 
will meet 20 August to try to reach consensus on a delegation 
to coordinate the group for the next year.  China and Japan 
are the two candidates.  The Asian Group must also nominate 
the next Chairman of the CSP, to take office in October. 
Naturally, the possibility of China taking one job and Japan 
the other has occurred to delegations as a possible 
compromise solution. 
 
29.  (SBU) Japan asked the U.S. to poll the developing States 
Parties about their reaction to the paper.  Japan would like 
to be kept informed of the responses to the paper received by 
the U.S. 
 
-------------- 
Other Business 
-------------- 
 
30.  (U) The DDG informed the Del that Eva Murray, Canada, 
was selected as the newly hired Head, Human Resources Branch. 
 
31.  (U)  Kellogg sends. 
RUSSEL