INDEPENDENT NEWS

Cablegate: Chemical Weapons Convention (Cwc) - Scenesetter

Published: Thu 17 Jun 2004 12:52 PM
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
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILE © Scoop Media