CWC: WRAP-UP FOR AUGUST 25 TO SEPTEMBER 5, 2008

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000755 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 FLY WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/15/2018 TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR AUGUST 25 TO SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 REF: A. THE HAGUE 721 ¶B. STATE 87401 ¶C. THE HAGUE 674 Classified By: Ambassador Eric M. Javits for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) August ended along with the dry spell of formal meetings at the OPCW. Delrep met with Technical Secretariat (TS) officials to discuss the final inspection of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Storage Facility at Newport, Indiana on August 26 and 27. The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) began its new season of meetings promptly on September 2, followed by a consultation on Article VII on September 3. The Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial matters (ABAF) met September 1-4 and briefed the local chapter of the Geneva Group on September 5. ¶2. (SBU) ISN/CB Director Mikulak visited The Hague September 4-5 before joining the Executive Council's (EC) representatives' visit to the Shchuchye destruction facility in Russia September 8-10. Mikulak met with the German and UK delegations, and OPCW's Industry Verification Branch head Bill Kane and Chief of Cabinet Richard Ekwall. He attended a briefing by General Victor Kholstov (Director of Convention Compliance, Russian Ministry of Industry) and a lunch for the traveling team hosted by the Russian Ambassador. Ambassador Javits hosted Mikulak to lunch with EC Chair Ambassador Oksana Tomova (Slovakia). Mikulak and Delrep also met with Ambassador Maarten Lak, the former Netherlands representative to the OCPW, to discuss plans for a seminar on UN Security Council Resolution 1540 at the Clingendael Institute. -------------- --- CLOSE-OUT INSPECTION OF NEWPORT STORAGE FACILITY -------------- --- ¶3. (U) On August 26 and 27, Delrep met with Chemical Demilitarization Branch (CDB) Head Dominique Anelli and his staff to discuss the issue of a final inspection of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Storage Facility at Newport, Indiana. The Secretariat apparently intended to use this inspection as the close-out inspection, assuming that the U.S. declaration of the removal of the last of the agent would arrive prior to the Director-General's signature of the mandate. Their assumption, however, was incorrect and resulted in a last-minute revision of the inspection mandate to a standard, systematic inspection instead. Despite a U.S. request to reconsider this (refs B and C),and to avoid an unnecessary additional inspection, the Director- General refused to change the inspection mandate. ¶4. (U) Delrep discussed the inspection planning and conduct with the Secretariat and, per Washington guidance, suggested that the Secretariat could either provide a formal response to the U.S. letter noting that due to exceptional circumstances, this systematic inspection could be used to confirm the U.S. declaration; or send a new mandate to the demilitarization team at Newport to perform the final close-out inspection. Anelli opted for the former, and agreed that process and documentation of closing out storage and destruction facilities would benefit from standardization. CDB is currently reviewing its internal procedures in this area, and is open to discussing with U.S. representatives on the margins of the next Executive Council session. -------------- WESTERN EUROPEAN AND OTHERS GROUP -------------- ¶5. (U) On September 2, Coordinator Ruth Surkau (Germany) convened the first meeting of WEOG following the summer holidays. The first order of business was the upcoming EC visit to the Russian chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuchye. Ambassador Burkart (Germany),the WEOG representative for the visit, noted that so far only the UK and Canada had submitted questions for him to raise, and called for other delegations to submit questions as soon as possible. Burkart also proposed that he and U.S. representative Robert Mikulak (Office Director, ISN/CB) brief the group upon return on September 11; both this and the suggestion to expand the audience to "WEOG Plus" (non-WEOG EU members, Japan, and the Republic of Korea) met with the group's approval. ¶6. (U) Several delegations asked how the report of the visit would be handled, recalling the politicization of the Anniston visit report. U.S. Del inquired specifically as to whether a meeting would be held to discuss the final report prior to EC-54, given the concerns expressed last time that inadequate opportunity was given for consideration. ¶7. (U) Budget facilitator Martin Strub (Switzerland) reported that he expected the more difficult budget discussions to begin with the second scheduled consultation, which will cover the Inspectorate. The increase in the number of OCPF inspections and the move of the equipment store to the Inspectorate are likely to generate a number of questions. The Dutch delegation also corrected an inaccurate indication in the budget that the Netherlands has committed to funding capacity building for biomedical sampling, as this is still under consideration. ¶8. (U) On current consultations, there was very little discussion of the upcoming Article VII consultations or the Article VII and XI consultations held in July. Surkau did note that a UNOCHA representative would be speaking at the next Article X consultations on September 18. She also raised the fact that the next Industry Cluster has not been scheduled, although this may change before the end of the week, and recommended delegations come to next week's WEOG prepared to discuss the current state of industry issues. Surkau also noted that the recent Secretariat review of the Review Conference report might be a useful tool in these discussions. ¶9. (U) In its role as current EU President, the French delegation noted that an EU Article VII demarche is being prepared in Brussels next week, and that EU visits to capitals to assist with implementation are being discussed. France also gave a brief update on the latest plans for an extra day of the National Authorities meeting, split between national implementation and industry outreach, with a lunchtime presentation on UNSCR 1540. -------------- ARTICLE VII -------------- ¶10. (U) On September 3, Said Moussi (Algeria) convened a consultation on Article VII. The Office of the Legal Adviser circulated an informal briefing memo on Article VII implementation during 2008 and specifically noted that, in July, EC Chair Amb. Tomova sent letters to the seven States Parties without a designated National Authority (per C- 12/DEC.9). While the TS has not yet received responses to Amb. Tomova's letter, Barbados and Timor-Leste reportedly are in the process of designating their National Authorities and might do so by the end of the year. Amb. Javits suggested that States Parties should reach out bilaterally to encourage the seven States Parties (Barbados, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Honduras, Mauritania, and Timor-Leste) to designate their National Authorities as a key part of implementing the Convention. France agreed with Amb. Javits' comments and noted that EU members will be coordinating diplomatic efforts to encourage Article VII implementation. ¶11. (U) Cutting straight to the chase, Moussi asked what recommendation should be given to the Conference of States Parties (CSP) in December. He specifically asked for delegations' views on presenting another decision to the CSP. Most delegations indicated that report language reaffirming the last CSP's decision on Article VII (C-12/DEC.9) would be sufficient and that it was unnecessary to have a repetitive decision for the sake of having a decision. Amb. Javits and German, Italian and UK delegates all stressed the importance of keeping Article VII implementation an active and focal issue; the UK noted that the CSP is a good forum to raise the issue with States Parties that are otherwise not normally active. South Africa and China also agreed that a new decision was not necessary but kept the option open depending on the contents of the TS's annual report on Article VII implementation (due to be released before EC-54 in October). -------------- ABAF MEMBERS BRIEF GENEVA GROUP -------------- ¶12. (U) On September 5, Diana Gosens (Netherlands) and Delrep Granger co-chaired a meeting of the Geneva Group at the Del. The main focus of the meeting was a briefing by ABAF members Mary Rios (U.S.) and Jonathan Wolstenholme (UK) on the ABAF meeting (September 1-4). In addition to extensively discussing the draft 2009 budget, the ABAF considered implementation of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS),a draft agreement with the UN Pension Scheme, and a TS note on guidelines for trust funds. ¶13. (U) On IPSAS implementation, the TS has hired a consultant to perform a gap analysis on what will need to be done in order to fully implement IPSAS by ¶2010. While the TS claims that its accounting system is already partially-IPSAS compliant, Rios and Wolstenholme noted that IPSAS will require a "cultural" change for how the TS operates. The TS will present an interim progress report for the ABAF's next meeting in June 2009. ¶14. (U) While noting their satisfaction that the draft 2009 budget maintains zero nominal growth (ZNG) for the fourth year in a row, the ABAF criticized the budget as not yet really reflecting results-based budgeting. They specifically cited the lack of measurable key performance indicators in the budget and the TS's reluctance to link resources to activities. Rios and Wolstenholme addressed temporary staffing and their concerns that a number of temporary staff positions are carried over for multiple years and are actually quasi-fixed-term; not only does this create a lack of transparency in the organization but also means that a number of staff are not entitled to the same benefits afforded fixed- term staff. -------------- UK/GERMANY SHCHUCHYE PRE-BRIEF -------------- ¶15. (SBU) On September 4, visiting ISN/CB Office Director Mikulak and Delrep met with German Ambassador Burkart, WEOG representative for the EC visit to Shchuchye, and UK officials James Harrison and Jim McGilly to discuss the technical and political aspects of the visit. Harrison provided detailed background on the overall Russian destruction program, Shchuchye specifics, and an overview of UK and other donor contributions at Shchuchye. Harrison and Mikulak discussed in some detail the projected throughput at Shchuchye in particular, and the fact that the current Russian schedule not only seems rather optimistic in terms of processing rates, but also appears not to have built in any significant risk. ¶16. (C) Participants also discussed other aspects of the program, to include the fact that Germany understands the incinerators at Maradykovsky are still experiencing difficulties, possibly due to corrosion. Despite this, Harrison noted that the history of the Russian program to date is that facilities have not experienced major technical difficulties once operational. There was general agreement, however, that the program as a whole is structured so as to leave virtually no margin of error for completion of destruction by 2012. ¶17. (SBU) Participants also discussed the detailed questions the UK and Canada had submitted to WEOG, and Burkart agreed that it would be useful to share these with EC Chair Tomova. Mikulak noted that many of the more technical questions about schedules and risks could be reduced to several key political questions about commitment and likelihood of meeting intermediate and final deadlines. Harrison recommended issues such as these would be more constructively couched in terms of risk, and also noted the UK desire to see the final report of the visit refer to the importance and value of continuing EC visits to destruction facilities. The meeting concluded with a discussion of how best to handle the drafting, finalizing, and consideration of the report. -------------- LUNCH WITH EC CHAIR TOMOVA -------------- ¶18. (SBU) On September 4, Amb. Javits hosted a lunch for EC Chair Amb. Tomova (Slovakia) and Director Mikulak. Ambassador Tomova spoke enthusiastically about the success of her bilateral consultations and outreach before EC-53, and noted that she intends to continue consulting delegations in the run-up to EC- ¶54. When asked what she viewed as priorities for the fall, Tomova focused primarily on Review Conference follow-up, e.g. analyzing the report language to assess what issues should be taken forward. She mentioned in particular the OCPF issue and commented that Slovakia is considering sponsoring a workshop in Bratislava in the spring. Amb. Javits agreed that this could be a useful exercise, as the report language contained a solid foundation for future work. ¶19. (U) Tomova and Mikulak also discussed the upcoming EC visit to Shchuchye. Tomova expressed appreciation for Mikulak's expertise and seemed amenable to his suggestion to meet with the members of the visiting delegation at the beginning of the visit to discuss the delegation's goals and any specific questions the regional groups might intend to pose. -------------- UK BILAT -------------- ¶20. (C) On September 4, Amb. Javits, Mikulak, and Delrep met with UK Amb. Parker and his delegation. The group briefly reviewed the day's earlier preparatory meeting for Shchuchye and then turned to broader issues facing the Executive Council. Delegations agreed that the EC Chair should begin this year to set in motion the process for selecting the next Director-General (DG),as current DG Pfirter's term expires in 2010. A transparent process, steered by the EC Chair, should allow time for candidates to be announced and present credentials, and a decision to be taken before CSP- ¶15. There was also agreement that thought should be given soon to appropriate candidates. ¶21. (SBU) Delegations discussed current consultations; the UK noted its view that the purpose of the Italian hosted workshop in Florence (scheduled for September 25-26) seems to be to establish which industry issues could most usefully be picked back up in consultations. UK and U.S. agreed that an OCPF workshop should be scheduled by next spring if at all possible, although the UK expressed some concern at the possibility of the appropriate mandate being given. Amb. Javits also suggested an ad hoc facilitation of Review Conference results, to discuss ways to establish synergistic work on issues of security and capacity building. ¶22. (SBU) Discussions then turned to the sensitive topics of UNSCR 1540 and terrorism in the OPCW context. Parker suggested that the first step was for like minded delegations to figure out what they thought the OPCW might usefully accomplish, then focus on facilitating practical steps as opposed to forcing a theoretical discussion on what has become a contentious subject. Mikulak raised the recent positive trend in India's attitude toward safety and security in chemical industry, and suggested that some thought be given to capitalizing on this. The UK raised the current agenda for the EU-planned extra day of the National Authorities meeting, and expressed concern that even the current lunchtime presentation on UNSCR 1540 might be "too toxic" because its title contained the explicit reference to ¶1540. ¶23. (SBU) Amb. Javits noted that one of the most effective terrorism/1540 related presentations he had seen was at the universality workshop in Rome. The UK suggested that perhaps a non-Western delegation would have better success in raising this connection in universality consultations. On universality itself, delegations agreed that the most likely short term progress would be in the "non-principled" holdouts. ¶24. (SBU) Mikulak mentioned to UK experts Harrison and McGilly that U.S. Central Command has become increasingly interested in ensuring Iraq is fully trained and able to take on the responsibilities associated with establishing and running a National Authority, to include supporting future OPCW inspections. He noted that the U.S. is currently planning training along these lines and would coordinate closely with the UK. Parker suggested considering the possibility that some training might be done more effectively outside of Iraq. ¶25. (SBU) U.S. and UK reps also shared perspectives on their respective delegations' visits to Libya, which were generally positive in terms of cooperation and progress in converting the former CW production facility at Rabta. UK reps noted that Libyan authorities continue to be evasive on the status of their contract with Italy for CW destruction, and seem unfazed by having missed their conversion deadline. On the procedure associated with removing the protective berm at Rabta from the list of specialized features, UK and U.S. reps have taken different understandings away from meetings with the TS, and committed to confirm exactly how this matter will be handled in the Executive Council. -------------- -------------- MEETING WITH INDUSTRY VERIFICATION BRANCH HEAD BILL KANE -------------- -------------- ¶26. (U) On September 4, Mikulak and Delrep met briefly with Industry Verification Branch Head Bill Kane. Kane noted that he is working on a reply to the U.S. letter on Sampling and Analysis, and understands the necessity of detailed discussions with the U.S. on the margins of EC-54. He discussed recent TS practice in this area, and explained the Secretariat view that sampling and analysis is the most direct way the TS has of confirming the absence of undeclared scheduled chemicals. Kane also shared his plans to discuss timing and content of the next industry meeting with Industry Cluster Vice-Chair Amb. Benchaa Dani (Algeria). Kane has suggested late October, and anticipates using the meeting in part to elicit feedback from delegations on the DG's two papers on improving OCPF declarations. ¶27. (U) In a subsequent meeting with Kane, Delrep explained the importance of having an industry cluster meeting before EC-54. Delrep noted that delegations are raising a number of industry-related issues in budget consultations, partly due to the lack of any other forum in which to raise them. Kane promised to consult with the DG and agreed in principle with scheduling the next industry cluster meeting between the Florence workshop (September 25- 26) and EC-54 (October 14-17). -------------- -------------- RUSSIAN AND TS PREPARATORY BRIEFINGS FOR EC VISIT TO SHCHUCHYE -------------- -------------- ¶28. (U) On September 5, EC Chair Tomova convened a meeting in preparation for the Shchuchye visit. Russian General Kholstov, Director of Convention Compliance in the Russian Ministry of Industry, briefed members of the visiting delegation on Russian CWC implementation, to include funding, the responsibilities of various ministries, relevant EC and CSP decisions, destruction schedules, and facility-by-facility updates. Kholstov also provided a brief overview of the destruction technology and process to be used at Shchuchye. The briefing was accompanied by a comprehensive pamphlet on Russian CW destruction, which will be forwarded separately to Washington. ¶29. (U) While thorough, the briefing covered very little new information. Of note, however, Kholstov confirmed that Leonidovka started operations on September 2, and that Shchuchye's planned contribution to the 45% deadline was 1100 MT. While more specific information was provided on the facilities currently in operation or soon to be put into operation, far less was provided about the remaining facilities. Kholstov noted that Pochep should be commissioned in the fourth quarter of 2009, and Kizner in 2010. On donor assistance, Kholstov made the usual pointed remarks about the unpredictability of donor funds, specifically citing the impact this had on Pochep and Shchuchye and outlining the "factors that hamper international contribution." ¶30. (U) DG Pfirter introduced the TS portion of the briefing by noting that the TS had confirmed destruction of 28.67% of the Russian stockpile. Senior Chemical Demilitarization Officer Gabriela Coman-Enescu then briefed the group on verification of CW destruction in Russia (hard copy of briefing to be provided separately to Washington). Coman-Enescu explained that a number of technologies have been used for a range of agents/munitions, then went on to outline the methods the Secretariat uses to assure non-diversion of CW agent. She discussed the continuous physical presence of the inspection team, the use of monitoring instruments, access to records, and sampling and analysis. ¶31. (U) Coman-Enescu then explained specific verification measures at different facilities, noting in particular how critical monitoring instruments are in Kambarka, where physical observation is often impossible due to process configuration. She also noted the reporting point for destruction at each facility. Finally, she presented a schematic of planned verification activities at Shchuchye. ¶32. (U) The meeting concluded with an update from Kholstov on the program for the visit, the circulation of additional practical information by the Secretariat, and a reminder from the EC Chair of the trust the Council has placed in the visiting delegation and the mandate its members have been given. DG Pfirter also reminded the group of the Russian request to have the final report for review no later than October 1. -------------- -------------- MEETING WITH OPCW CHIEF OF CABINET RICHARD EKWALL -------------- -------------- ¶33. (SBU) On September 5, Mikulak and Delrep met with Chief of Cabinet Richard Ekwall. The first topic of discussion was universality; of note, Ekwall confirmed what Del had recently learned -- that former Dutch Ambassador to the OPCW Marc Vogelaar will be taking on a role as part-time consultant to the DG on North Korea. Vogelaar has regional expertise, and will work with the DG to develop a strategy that might be used to bring in CWC discussions at an appropriate point in the nuclear dialogue. Ekwall and Mikulak also discussed Iraq, and the notable lag between near completion of the requisite political steps toward accession and the final publication of the law in the national gazette. Mikulak shared developing U.S. plans to assist in training the Iraqis to take on National Authority responsibilities. On Lebanon, Mikulak noted that the delegation had recently heard of the pressure the Arab League had apparently put on Lebanon to back away from its plans to accede. Finally, on the Bahamas, Mikulak mentioned the recent communication of a senior level official in the Government of the Bahamas indicating accession could be imminent. ¶34. (SBU) Mikulak inquired as to Ekwall's sense of the sensitivities in the TS and among States Parties on the topic of 1540. Ekwall noted that discussions might best be kept in the framework of full and effective implementation of the CWC as a contribution to 1540 implementation, although he was unable to specify concrete objections to the topic beyond the Iranian attitude at the Review Conference. Mikulak suggested that it could be fruitful to encourage discussion of chemical industry safety and security as a deterrent to chemical terrorism. Ekwall agreed that an informal exchange of State Party views and experiences on this subject could be useful. ¶35. (SBU) On the handling of the meeting to discuss the Scientific Advisory Board's report to the Review Conference, as mandated by the Review Conference report, it was clear the TS had done little to no planning. Mikulak suggested that some guidance by a Chair in advance of and during such a meeting could lead to far more constructive results than simply holding an open discussion. He also inquired as to whether the DG might, in the longer term, consider categorizing SAB recommendations a bit more clearly in terms of what the TS could work on, what might bear further study, and what might require a decision or action by the policy making organs. ¶36. (U) In closing, Ekwall sought U.S. views on the emerging plans for an OCPF workshop, now apparently being planned to coincide with the April 2009 SAB meeting, and the upcoming seminar in Vilnius on sea- dumped chemical weapons. -------------- -- CLINGENDAEL 1540 WORKSHOP AND EU EXTRA NATIONAL AUTHORITIES DAY -------------- -- ¶37. (SBU) Preparations continue on both efforts (see ref A); on August 29, Delrep met with UK delegate Karen Wolstenholme to elicit UK views on both. Wolstenholme provided a copy of the current draft agenda for the extra day of the National Authorities meeting (forwarded to Washington) and expressed her concerns that the agenda still lacked the balance needed for widespread support of the day. Although there is room for discussions of capacity building, Wolstenholme believes a more obvious reference to Article XI would be necessary to bring the Non- Aligned Movement on board. The TS also remains skeptical of any mention of 1540, even in its current form, which is limited to a lunchtime presentation. It is also unclear at this point exactly how much EU support is actually behind this initiative of the French presidency, and a decision on funding has yet to be taken, although a meeting in Brussels on September 9 is evidently scheduled to take up the subject. ¶38. (SBU) On planning for the Clingendael seminar, Wolstenholme indicated that while the UK would also find an event more tailored to implementation of UNSCR 1540 obligations more useful, this raised the bigger question of how like-minded States Parties might approach this issue in the wake of the Review Conference. She outlined two possibilities: one an approach that refuses to cater to the desire of Iran and others to downplay the legitimacy of 1540 and the other a quieter approach that gradually reintroduces the parallels between implementation of 1540 and CWC obligations. The UK would welcome discussions with the U.S. on this topic; and the UK delegation also intends to assess the actual level of senior Secretariat support for discussions of 1540 in an OPCW context, and whether the Secretariat believes a clear mandate from member states is necessary for further work. ¶39. (SBU) On September 5, ISN/CB Office Director Mikulak and Delrep met with former Dutch Ambassador to the OPCW Maarten Lak to discuss the emerging plans for the Clingendael seminar. In this meeting, Lak gave the impression of a more practical and implementation-focused event, as opposed to the academic exercise he had outlined in a previous meeting (ref A). Lak reiterated his previous request for any U.S. suggestions for appropriate speakers, noting that the seminar invitations would be sent out later in the month. Mikulak suggested that VERTIC in London would be a good resource, and also that Lak might contact Volker Beck from the German MFA. ¶40. (U) Mikulak and Lak also discussed the valuable experience that the OPCW could share with the 1540 committee, which is now grappling with the problem of implementation assistance. Lak noted that a focused presentation by an OPCW legal representative on the OPCW's experience in this area might fit well in the Clingendael program. Lak also discussed the value of having a regional spread of countries in attendance, some of whom could share their best practices on 1540 implementation, and others who might leave having gained insight for their own implementation process. ¶41. (U) Separately, Lak mentioned that Clingendael's longer term theme of study for the next four years will be governance, less national than international (through organizations, coalitions, etc.). He and Mikulak discussed the emerging role of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group and others in this context. Finally, they agreed that in the coming years, the OPCW could take on increased value as a platform for discussions related to but not necessarily governed by the CWC. ¶42. (U) Javits sends. Culbertson