Our @UNIDIR report on 5th #ChemicalWeapons Convention RevCon outlined 5 outcome scenarios. While consensus should be sought, State Parties will likely ask: consensus at what cost? Substantive issues will divide SPs, so consensus will likely be a dilution of the issues. 1/7 #OPCW 
But will SPs permit such dilution? If not, we may repeat RC4 outcome: a chair’s report. This can capture some substance, but it’s not an effective, solidifying, strategic document for #OPCW. However, this outcome seems likely. So how do SPs make the best of this situation? 2/7
There are discrete topics that might generate agreement as to their importance for #OPCW strategic vision, i.e. the #ChemTechCentre, #theAfricaProgram, #gender #geographicrepresentation –&others? So, how can SPs ensure these aren't lost in diluted outcome or chair's report? 3/7
I see 2 potential options to generate a strategic view forward for these discrete topics. In both options, what's important is the decoupling and shielding of the topics from whatever fallout the process of seeking a formal outcome document generates . 4/7
Opt1 is to draft package of decisions on discrete topics for RC5. Unprecedented(I think), but provides concrete way for SPs to establish ‘issue safe-spaces’ to deliver outcomes that reflect traditional visions of success. Package of bounded consensus Decs provide structure. 5/7
Opt2, if Opt1 is not feasible: draft joint statements on discrete issues w/ as many SPs as possible. Imagine the signal that would be sent in a statement w/ ~188 SPs stressing strategic importance of a particular issue. Not a decision, but still meaningful and creative 6/7 #opcw
These are workarounds for SPs to make the most of #RC5. Limited time & will take work, but this doesn’t need to be a binary win/lose. There are creative options for SPs to clearly articulate strategic priorities for #OPCW in areas that might come close to commanding consensus.7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
