Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08THEHAGUE160
2008-02-21 15:07:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:
MEETING WITH MEXICAN DELEGATION ON CHEMICAL
how-toVZCZCXYZ0000 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHTC #0160/01 0521507 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 211507Z FEB 08 FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1095 INFO RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 0278 RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000160
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR,
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP>
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS)
NSC FOR SMITH
WINPAC FOR WALTER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/21/2018
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: MEETING WITH MEXICAN DELEGATION ON CHEMICAL
WEAPONS ISSUES
Classified By: Permanent Representative Eric M. Javits for reasons 1.5
(B) and (D).
This is CWC-09-08.
C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000160
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR,
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP>
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS)
NSC FOR SMITH
WINPAC FOR WALTER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/21/2018
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: MEETING WITH MEXICAN DELEGATION ON CHEMICAL
WEAPONS ISSUES
Classified By: Permanent Representative Eric M. Javits for reasons 1.5
(B) and (D).
This is CWC-09-08.
1. (U) This is an action message, see para 13
--------------
SUMMARY
--------------
2. (C) On February 13, Ambassador Javits and the del
met with Mexican Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco and
delegates Miguel Zamudio and Blanca Hernandez Polo.
Intended as a venue to share thoughts on the upcoming
Review Conference, the discussion covered
preparations for the RevCon in some detail on both
process and substance, as well as views on the
dynamics of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) at the
OPCW. Amb. Lomonaco also shared his understanding of
the status of Mexico's implementing legislation in
Parliament.
--------------
THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT AND "POLARIZATION"
--------------
3. (C) Amb. Lomonaco acknowledged that polarization
of positions along north-south lines is a problem,
and particularly unhelpful in the context of RevCon
preparations. He said that Mexico has been
participating in NAM meetings as an observer, and as
such has useful insight into the group's
deliberations. He added that the Mexican role within
GRULAC is complicated by what many perceive to be a
tendency on the part of Mexico toward more "North
American" views since NAFTA.
4. (C) Amb. Lomonaco characterized the view within
NAM as "us versus them." He noted that the "WEOG
Plus" tends to appear "monolithic"; he specifically
noted that the "Europeans" all raise their flags and
echo each other on the floor. Amb. Lomonaco
portrayed the NAM as less monolithic, saying its
strategy is to capture a number of voices with one
clear statement, followed by States Parties (SPs)
raising their own issues individually. In response
to Del objections to the NAM's role in the OPCW given
its lack of any official status, Zamudio noted that a
public debate in this vein was not constructive. He
underlined the importance of working together to
achieve RevCon objectives.
5. (C) Amb. Lomonaco went on to cite the specific
case of the RevCon Provisional Agenda and the
handling of the draft text as good examples of
attempts to express valid concern that quickly
devolved into debates between the NAM and WEOG Plus.
Regarding the Provisional Agenda, the process has
exacerbated the polarization of positions and has
encouraged the NAM to entrench. On the draft report
text, he noted the concern that the Chair's
incorporation of comments is something of a "black
box" and is not transparent enough on how choices are
made for inclusion/exclusion of input. This has
given rise to suspicion among NAM members that
suggestions from certain SPs (Western states) are
given preferential treatment.
--------------
PROPOSED REVCON DRAFTING GROUP
--------------
6. (C) Amb. Javits noted the useful contributions
made by Amb. Lomonaco during RevCon OEWG meetings and
raised the idea of his chairing a drafting committee
to address these concerns. Amb. Lomonaco was adamant
that he lacked the capacity to take on that role, but
he agreed that the process needs to be opened up --
specifically to include Iran so that they will not be
able to drag things out later. Both ambassadors
agreed that a "friends of the Chair" group would be a
good mechanism to vet proposed changes in the RevCon
texts without undermining the Chair's position.
Delrep noted that this would be a good time to
propose such a group since the first draft is
complete and the political declaration will be next
on the working group's agenda. All agreed that two
representatives from each official regional group
would ensure adequate political and geographical
diversity, avoiding direct NAM (and EU)
representatives. Amb. Javits and Amb. Lomonaco
agreed to each raise the idea individually with the
UK Chair.
7. (C) Amb. Javits phoned UK Amb. Parker following
this meeting to discuss the idea of a "friends of the
chair" group. Parker saw the advantage of creating
such a group and said he would think about the timing
for establishing it.
--------------
REVCON WORKING GROUP SUBSTANCE
--------------
8. (C) On the substance of progress to date in the
Open Ended Working Group, Amb. Lomonaco noted that
Mexico had no concerns with the agenda items on
terrorism and the relationship between the OPCW and
other international organizations. On the Scientific
Advisory Board (SAB),Mexico is concerned that the
Board's draft recommendations not be selectively
quoted in the Chair's text, and Amb. Lomonaco thought
perhaps his delegation could support the Japanese
suggestion to have a consolidated reference to the
report of the SAB. Del shared current thinking in
Washington on improving the process by which the SAB
pursues topics of interest and provides
recommendations to the Director General. Zamudio
noted that the SAB is a "divisive element" for many
NAM delegations, who see it as a means to justify and
reinforce issues that are of greatest concern to
industrialized SPs.
9. (C) Discussions turned to Article XI, and Amb.
Lomonaco suggested opening up discussion to "see
what's behind the rhetoric" on both sides. His
delegation later added that, with the number of
working groups established to make progress in other
areas, it hardly seemed fair that a Plan of Action
could not be established. Amb. Javits noted that it
was difficult to agree to such a plan when the
desired objectives had yet to be articulated. He
suggested focusing more in the future on "cross-
fertilization" between industries, and that the U.S.
might be able to put forward a proposal to re-start
the dialogue on assistance (exchanges, internships,
etc.). Amb. Lomonaco agreed that, if a developed
country put forward a concept paper on Article XI
assistance, it could be seen as a good faith gesture
that the developed countries were willing to engage
constructively on this important topic.
--------------
MEXICAN IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
--------------
10. (C) Amb. Lomonaco provided an update as to the
status of its national implementing legislation.
The current draft legislation has moved quickly;
however, full passage has been held up over concerns
by Mexico's chemical industry -- which generally is
supportive of CWC provisions on industry verification
-- on two points. First, the draft legislation
includes a list of chemicals more extensive than
those in the CWC's schedules. Second, the draft
legislation proposes establishing exclusive customs
points for importing and exporting certain chemical
substances. Mexico's industry opposes both these
provisions. Amb. Lomonaco inquired specifically as
to whether the U.S. had influenced these specific
aspects of the legislation.
11. (C) The Mexican delegation was quite frank about
the linkage and parallels in deadlines for
destruction and national implementation, and made it
clear that Mexico's instructions continue to include
vocal criticism of delays in U.S. CW destruction.
Amb. Lomonaco explained the perception of many in the
NAM that the DG's RevCon paper can be interpreted as
an implicit admission that the final deadline will
not be met, which is not healthy for the
Organization. Another widely-held perception is that
the DG's paper is not well-balanced and essentially
lets the U.S. off too easily on destruction while
taking a harder line on small states in meeting
deadlines for national implementation and other areas
of the Convention. When the importance of
considering specific circumstances was discussed, the
Mexicans clearly drew a parallel between the
deadlines for U.S. destruction and Mexico's (and
others') progress on national implementation.
--------------
COMMENT
--------------
12. (C) Amb. Lomonaco's portrayal of the "WEOG Plus"
and the NAM counters commonly-held WEOG views that
the WEOG is neither effectively coordinated nor vocal
enough. The Mexican delegation's perspective is
useful in better understanding the NAM and how to
engage them as the battle lines are drawn in
preparation for the RevCon.
--------------
ACTION REQUEST
--------------
13. (C): Del would appreciate further information on
whether the USG (DHS or another agency) has pushed
for the establishment of separate customs points in
Mexico, and whether we can respond to Amb. Lomonaco's
question (ref Para 10).
12. (U) Javits sends.
Arnall
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR,
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP>
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS)
NSC FOR SMITH
WINPAC FOR WALTER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/21/2018
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: MEETING WITH MEXICAN DELEGATION ON CHEMICAL
WEAPONS ISSUES
Classified By: Permanent Representative Eric M. Javits for reasons 1.5
(B) and (D).
This is CWC-09-08.
1. (U) This is an action message, see para 13
--------------
SUMMARY
--------------
2. (C) On February 13, Ambassador Javits and the del
met with Mexican Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco and
delegates Miguel Zamudio and Blanca Hernandez Polo.
Intended as a venue to share thoughts on the upcoming
Review Conference, the discussion covered
preparations for the RevCon in some detail on both
process and substance, as well as views on the
dynamics of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) at the
OPCW. Amb. Lomonaco also shared his understanding of
the status of Mexico's implementing legislation in
Parliament.
--------------
THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT AND "POLARIZATION"
--------------
3. (C) Amb. Lomonaco acknowledged that polarization
of positions along north-south lines is a problem,
and particularly unhelpful in the context of RevCon
preparations. He said that Mexico has been
participating in NAM meetings as an observer, and as
such has useful insight into the group's
deliberations. He added that the Mexican role within
GRULAC is complicated by what many perceive to be a
tendency on the part of Mexico toward more "North
American" views since NAFTA.
4. (C) Amb. Lomonaco characterized the view within
NAM as "us versus them." He noted that the "WEOG
Plus" tends to appear "monolithic"; he specifically
noted that the "Europeans" all raise their flags and
echo each other on the floor. Amb. Lomonaco
portrayed the NAM as less monolithic, saying its
strategy is to capture a number of voices with one
clear statement, followed by States Parties (SPs)
raising their own issues individually. In response
to Del objections to the NAM's role in the OPCW given
its lack of any official status, Zamudio noted that a
public debate in this vein was not constructive. He
underlined the importance of working together to
achieve RevCon objectives.
5. (C) Amb. Lomonaco went on to cite the specific
case of the RevCon Provisional Agenda and the
handling of the draft text as good examples of
attempts to express valid concern that quickly
devolved into debates between the NAM and WEOG Plus.
Regarding the Provisional Agenda, the process has
exacerbated the polarization of positions and has
encouraged the NAM to entrench. On the draft report
text, he noted the concern that the Chair's
incorporation of comments is something of a "black
box" and is not transparent enough on how choices are
made for inclusion/exclusion of input. This has
given rise to suspicion among NAM members that
suggestions from certain SPs (Western states) are
given preferential treatment.
--------------
PROPOSED REVCON DRAFTING GROUP
--------------
6. (C) Amb. Javits noted the useful contributions
made by Amb. Lomonaco during RevCon OEWG meetings and
raised the idea of his chairing a drafting committee
to address these concerns. Amb. Lomonaco was adamant
that he lacked the capacity to take on that role, but
he agreed that the process needs to be opened up --
specifically to include Iran so that they will not be
able to drag things out later. Both ambassadors
agreed that a "friends of the Chair" group would be a
good mechanism to vet proposed changes in the RevCon
texts without undermining the Chair's position.
Delrep noted that this would be a good time to
propose such a group since the first draft is
complete and the political declaration will be next
on the working group's agenda. All agreed that two
representatives from each official regional group
would ensure adequate political and geographical
diversity, avoiding direct NAM (and EU)
representatives. Amb. Javits and Amb. Lomonaco
agreed to each raise the idea individually with the
UK Chair.
7. (C) Amb. Javits phoned UK Amb. Parker following
this meeting to discuss the idea of a "friends of the
chair" group. Parker saw the advantage of creating
such a group and said he would think about the timing
for establishing it.
--------------
REVCON WORKING GROUP SUBSTANCE
--------------
8. (C) On the substance of progress to date in the
Open Ended Working Group, Amb. Lomonaco noted that
Mexico had no concerns with the agenda items on
terrorism and the relationship between the OPCW and
other international organizations. On the Scientific
Advisory Board (SAB),Mexico is concerned that the
Board's draft recommendations not be selectively
quoted in the Chair's text, and Amb. Lomonaco thought
perhaps his delegation could support the Japanese
suggestion to have a consolidated reference to the
report of the SAB. Del shared current thinking in
Washington on improving the process by which the SAB
pursues topics of interest and provides
recommendations to the Director General. Zamudio
noted that the SAB is a "divisive element" for many
NAM delegations, who see it as a means to justify and
reinforce issues that are of greatest concern to
industrialized SPs.
9. (C) Discussions turned to Article XI, and Amb.
Lomonaco suggested opening up discussion to "see
what's behind the rhetoric" on both sides. His
delegation later added that, with the number of
working groups established to make progress in other
areas, it hardly seemed fair that a Plan of Action
could not be established. Amb. Javits noted that it
was difficult to agree to such a plan when the
desired objectives had yet to be articulated. He
suggested focusing more in the future on "cross-
fertilization" between industries, and that the U.S.
might be able to put forward a proposal to re-start
the dialogue on assistance (exchanges, internships,
etc.). Amb. Lomonaco agreed that, if a developed
country put forward a concept paper on Article XI
assistance, it could be seen as a good faith gesture
that the developed countries were willing to engage
constructively on this important topic.
--------------
MEXICAN IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
--------------
10. (C) Amb. Lomonaco provided an update as to the
status of its national implementing legislation.
The current draft legislation has moved quickly;
however, full passage has been held up over concerns
by Mexico's chemical industry -- which generally is
supportive of CWC provisions on industry verification
-- on two points. First, the draft legislation
includes a list of chemicals more extensive than
those in the CWC's schedules. Second, the draft
legislation proposes establishing exclusive customs
points for importing and exporting certain chemical
substances. Mexico's industry opposes both these
provisions. Amb. Lomonaco inquired specifically as
to whether the U.S. had influenced these specific
aspects of the legislation.
11. (C) The Mexican delegation was quite frank about
the linkage and parallels in deadlines for
destruction and national implementation, and made it
clear that Mexico's instructions continue to include
vocal criticism of delays in U.S. CW destruction.
Amb. Lomonaco explained the perception of many in the
NAM that the DG's RevCon paper can be interpreted as
an implicit admission that the final deadline will
not be met, which is not healthy for the
Organization. Another widely-held perception is that
the DG's paper is not well-balanced and essentially
lets the U.S. off too easily on destruction while
taking a harder line on small states in meeting
deadlines for national implementation and other areas
of the Convention. When the importance of
considering specific circumstances was discussed, the
Mexicans clearly drew a parallel between the
deadlines for U.S. destruction and Mexico's (and
others') progress on national implementation.
--------------
COMMENT
--------------
12. (C) Amb. Lomonaco's portrayal of the "WEOG Plus"
and the NAM counters commonly-held WEOG views that
the WEOG is neither effectively coordinated nor vocal
enough. The Mexican delegation's perspective is
useful in better understanding the NAM and how to
engage them as the battle lines are drawn in
preparation for the RevCon.
--------------
ACTION REQUEST
--------------
13. (C): Del would appreciate further information on
whether the USG (DHS or another agency) has pushed
for the establishment of separate customs points in
Mexico, and whether we can respond to Amb. Lomonaco's
question (ref Para 10).
12. (U) Javits sends.
Arnall