CWC: WRAP-UP FOR MARCH 16-26, 2009

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000210

SENSITIVE
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 (BROWN AND DENYER)
NSC FOR LUTES
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR MARCH 16-26, 2009

REF: A. STATE 23254

B. THE HAGUE 181

This is CWC-18-09.

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (SBU) After Iraq's delivery of its initial
declaration, Delreps met with the Iraqi Ambassador
and delegate on March 17 to discuss preparation for
Iraq's presentation at the April destruction
informals and the importance of having Iraqi
experts arrive in The Hague in advance of that
meeting.


2. (SBU) Delrep chaired a meeting of the Geneva
Group on March 16. The Western European and Others
Group (WEOG) met March 17 for a presentation by the
new head of the Implementation and Support Branch
of the Technical Secretariat (TS),and on March 24
in expanded format with like-minded states to
discuss the search for a new Director-General (DG).
The OPCW and UNICRI hosted a seminar on the
chemical dimensions of non-proliferation on March
18, and the Open-Ended Working Group on Terrorism
hosted a meeting with Saudi counter-terrorism
officials on March 25. Details on all of these
meetings follow.

--------------
IRAQI DECLARATION AND PREPARATIONS FOR EC-56
--------------


3. (SBU) On March 17, Delreps met with Iraqi
Ambassador Siamand Banaa and Iraqi First Secretary
Abbas to deliver the non-paper in Ref A. Banaa
agreed that the early arrival of experts from
Baghdad would be important in ensuring adequate
preparation for the destruction informals. Abbas
noted that Director of Verification Horst Reeps had
also suggested this, and that he had forwarded this
to Baghdad. Banaa suggested that the U.S., UK, and
Iraq meet first, followed by a later meeting with
the TS.


4. (SBU) Delreps informed Banaa that the non-paper
had also been delivered to officials in Baghdad and
suggested that logistical questions about visas and
official invitations be directed to the TS. In
reviewing the non-paper, Delreps emphasized the
importance of Iraq being able to paint a clear
picture of the condition of the storage bunkers, as
well as any residual production capacity, and of
the current security situation. Delreps reminded
Banaa of U.S. plans to submit a declaration of the
recovered rounds and to make a brief explanatory
statement at the EC-56 destruction informals.


5. (SBU) In discussing future challenges, Delreps
raised the need for the Council to establish
destruction deadlines. Banaa expressed confidence
that, "with U.S. help," a general plan for
destruction could be developed and a destruction
program carried out.


6. (SBU) On March 18, OPCW Chief of Cabinet Richard
Ekwall called to inform Delrep of the Director
General's plan to meet with Ambassador Banaa on
March 19 to reinforce the need for Iraq to submit a
general plan for destruction without delay.
Following this, the DG planned to authorize release
of Iraq's declaration to member states by the end
of the week. Delrep informed Ekwall of U.S.
discussions with Iraq, as well as the possibility
of a U.S./UK/TS meeting with Baghdad experts before
EC-56.


7. (SBU) On March 19, First Secretary Abbas
requested a meeting with Delrep and confirmed that
the DG had spoken to Amb. Banaa. Abbas shared the
documents the DG had provided (forwarded separately
to Washington) and asked for U.S. advice on
developing a plan for destruction. Delrep noted
that this would need to be done by experts in
Baghdad, but recommended Abbas contact Chemical
Demilitarization Branch Head Dominique Anelli to
begin discussing this matter with the TS. Delrep
also provided copies of the Albanian and Libyan
general plans for destruction as a reference, and
acknowledged the challenge that the condition of
the bunkers presents in developing a detailed plan.
Finally, Delrep suggested that if the plan has not
been submitted prior to EC-56, the delegation from
Baghdad should come to any EC-56 pre-meeting
prepared to discuss a working draft.

--------------
GENEVA GROUP
--------------


8. (U) On March 16, Delrep Granger chaired a
meeting of the local Geneva Group at the delegation
office to discuss the Group's annual report on OPCW
activities. Both the UK and French delegates
remarked that their respective assessed
contributions for 2009 were higher than in 2008 (in
the case of the UK, by more than EUR 200,000),
despite a lower budget and a projected fall in
assessments. Canadian delegate Angela Peart
pointedly asked when the U.S. plans to pay its 2009
assessment. Delrep announced that with FY09 budget
having recently been passed the first payment was
expected sometime in April. Peart also noted that
the UN scale of assessment currently is being
negotiated in New York and might increase for a
number of Geneva Group countries if the methodology
is altered.


9. (U) After concluding discussion on the draft
annual report, Delrep asked for views on reforming
the Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial
Matters (ABAF). Peart suggested contacting the
Geneva Group coordinators in Geneva for experience
in dealing with similar bodies in other
organizations. There were differing views on
whether to fund ABAF members' travel, with the
French delegate saying that professionalization of
the ABAF would require financing and the German
delegate noting Berlin's skepticism toward the idea
given negative experiences in other organizations.
The UK delegate stated that the ABAF's remit should
be clarified to make it more effective and also
questioned whether the current ad-hoc self
nomination process should be changed.


10. (U) Geneva Group Co-chair Diana Gosens
(Netherlands) will host and chair the next meeting
in late May, which will feature a debrief on the
25-29 May ABAF meeting by ABAF members from Geneva
Group countries.

--------------
WEOG
--------------


11. (SBU) Ruth Surkau (Germany) convened the
regular, weekly WEOG meeting on March 17. At his
request, the new Head of the Implementation and
Support Branch (IPB),Mark Albon (former South
African OPCW delegate),presented an overview of
IPB's activities and priorities. He wants to focus
more programming on customs-related activities of
States Parties for the important role customs
authorities play in nonproliferation. His branch's
Qauthorities play in nonproliferation. His branch's
other focus is assisting States Parties in national
implementation of the convention, including the
drafting of legislation.


12. (SBU) Albon's branch primarily interacts with
National Authorities, but he would like to see more
cross-interaction among states' National
Authorities. He sees a role for WEOG to play with
their National Authorities providing assistance and
expertise to those of lesser developed countries,
and perhaps accompanying the TS on technical
assistance missions. Albon noted his appreciation
for voluntary funding from western countries, which
greatly assists his branch's activities, and then
not surprisingly, made a subtle call for increased
funding. He indicated that IPB is unable to
respond to all States Parties' requests for
programming because of insufficient funding.


13. (SBU) In response to Surkau's question on how
the TS prioritizes requests from States Parties,
Albon clarified that programs requested by SPs that
go unfunded from the voluntary budget in a given
year typically move to the top of the priority list
for those programs under the regular budget for the
next year. Overall, Albon explained that requests
from those States Parties without a National
Authority have highest priority, followed by those
without implementing legislation. Additionally,
Africa, as part of the Africa Program, is given
highest priority as the region furthest behind.


14. (SBU) In response to a question from the French
delegate, Albon recognized that evaluating the
effectiveness of National Authorities is a major
challenge. He pointed to the comprehensiveness of
declarations and implementing legislations as two
possible areas to measure progress. In response to
a question by the Italian delegate, Albon also
recognized that it is important for the TS to
engage and influence various stakeholders in those
States Parties seeking assistance, in particular
the chemical industry associations.


15. (SBU) Albon then departed and Surkau moved onto
the next agenda item, the selection of the Director
General (DG). German Ambassador Werner Burkart
provided a read-out from the WEOG meeting with
Executive Council (EC) Chairperson Ambassador
Oksana Tomova (Ref B). Burkart reviewed the points
WEOG members delivered to Tomova, stressing how
WEOG made it clear that no documents or open ended
working groups would be needed for the selection
process. Burkart also noted how this issue was
conspicuously left off the recently issued
preliminary EC-56 agenda. He opined that Tomova
will fall under increasing pressure from the
Nonaligned Movement (NAM) to develop a more
defined, rigid process.


16. (SBU) U.S. Delrep stated that WEOG members must
be firm in their resistance to any pressure for EC-
56 to issue some kind of document on the DG
selection process. She also noted Tomova's
suggestion of meeting with WEOG-plus like-minded
states as a good idea; many other delegations
agreed. Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland all
agreed that WEOG needed to remain firm in the
expected wake of building NAM pressure. The French
delegate added that delegations should strive for
consensus as the incoming EC Chair will become
Qconsensus as the incoming EC Chair will become
"king maker." Sweden warned that consensus on this
issue is unlikely.


17. (SBU) The Australian delegate reminded WEOG of
Tomova's mentioning the possibility of having two
Deputy Director Generals. While Burkart noted that
this idea came out of the PrepCom, he was
personally against this notion. The Italian
delegate then proposed that WEOG invite the next EC
Chair (Mexican Ambassador) to join Tomova when she
meets next with WEOG to brief the group on the
developments surrounding the selection process.
Delegates agreed that WEOG will have to, at some
point, address its increasingly large list of
western candidates to decide how WEOG will proceed.
The Dutch Ambassador proposed that WEOG address
this issue after all the candidates had declared
themselves.

--------------
WEOG PLUS
--------------


18. (SBU) On March 25, WEOG coordinator Surkau
chaired an expanded meeting ("WEOG Plus") including
Japan, South Korea, and all non-WEOG European Union
countries. EC Chair Tomova (Slovakia) gave an
overview of her meetings with all of the regional
groups on selecting the new DG. Tomova said that
there was "basic consensus in principle" among all
regional groups on selecting a consensus candidate
and not resorting to voting. After all of her
meetings, Tomova's impression is that the selection
process must be careful, transparent, and open.


19. (SBU) Tomova noted that the Asian Group raised
a number of points with her. Chinese Ambassador
Zhang called for a democratic process with
established rules to guide candidates. Zhang also
suggested candidates needed to be nominated as
early as possible to give them "space" and to allow
for "graceful withdrawals." Iran raised the
possibility of accepting nominations after the July
7 deadline and also reiterated their request to
clarify the process through open-ended discussions
on modalities. India asked if the EC is obliged to
choose one consensus candidate or if the EC can
recommend more than one candidate to the CSP.


20. (SBU) The African Group suggested that Tomova
expand discussions on the DG appointment beyond
regional groups or even EC members. GRULAC said
there is no need for complicated procedures, nor to
discuss the process at length. GRULAC -- as well
as the African and Asian groups -- rejected a
"north-south" rotation, with some preferring
rotation among regional groups instead.


21. (SBU) Tomova reported that she met with the DG
after her regional group consultations and was
surprised to learn that he had not approved the
first provisional agenda for EC-56 that was
released on March 13 that had conspicuously omitted
any mention of the DG selection. The DG felt it
was important to follow on from the decision
reached during EC-55 and allow for discussion of
the issue at EC-56. At his request, the agenda was
revised to include an item to DG appointment.
Tomova said that she would prepare in advance
appropriate language on the issue for the EC-56
report. (Del comment: The early provisional
agenda appears to have been the work of Secretary
Khodakov; the fact that neither the DG nor the
Chairperson had seen it before publication, and
without a Bureau meeting to discuss it, is
disturbing. End comment)


22. (SBU) German Ambassador Burkart spoke in favor
of remaining firm on the July 7 deadline, having
EC-58 (in October) agree to a consensus candidate,
and avoiding convening an open-ended working group
Qand avoiding convening an open-ended working group
or otherwise complicating the process. Burkart's
comments were echoed by a number of delegations,
including the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France,
Ireland, the Czech Republic, and France. Reacting
to the point raised with Tomova by India, Burkart
said that the EC was tasked with making "a
recommendation" and that clearly means only one
candidate. Swedish delegate Christer Ahlstrom said
that the Convention (specifically Article VIII.43)
and past practice point to only one candidate being
recommended by the EC and subsequently chosen by
the CSP. Delrep reiterated calls to keep the
process simple and in the hands of the EC Chair and
to keep discussion within the EC and open to all
member states.


23. (SBU) Under Any Other Business, Delrep
announced that the invitation letter for the EC
visit to U.S. Chemical Weapon Destruction
Facilities in June had been sent to Tomova and that
April 1 is the deadline for regional group
representatives to be named. Surkau promised to
distribute the invitation and coordinate the WEOG
nomination via email.

--------------
UNICRI MEETING AT OPCW
--------------


24. (U) On March 18, Delreps attended an OPCW-
hosted seminar entitled "Multilateral Approaches to
Non-Proliferation: the Chemical Dimension." The
meeting was part of a wider program developed by
the UN's Interregional Crime and Justice Research
Institute (UNICRI) for countries in South-Eastern
Europe; however, the OPCW session was open to all
member states. Director-General Pfirter opened the
meeting by noting the active engagement of the OPCW
with organizations like UNICRI, and the important
contribution the OPCW makes to preventing the
proliferation of chemical weapons. UNICRI Director
Sandro Calvani then highlighted the need for
multilateral organizations to work together,
develop new approaches, and share knowledge. He
described the UNICRI "Knowledge Management System"
project, started in May 2008, to assist countries
in South-Eastern Europe and the Caucasus in
communications regarding the trafficking of CBRN
materials.


25. (U) Filippo Sevini (European Commission
representative) provided an overview of the
Commission's Instrument for Stability, established
in 2006. The instrument consists of two parts:
responding to emerging crises, and building
capacity to prevent and respond to crises. Sevini
also reviewed three Commission priorities in this
area: counteracting WMD proliferation, addressing
threats of trafficking and organized crime, and
building emergency response capacity. Specific
projects include establishing "regional centers of
excellence" to help countries in fighting illicit
CBRN trafficking and financing.


26. (U) OPCW Legal Advisor Santiago Onate gave a
presentation on the legal framework of the CWC for
transfers and import/export of scheduled chemicals.
He reviewed the general obligations of the
Convention and explained the need for implementing
legislation to extend the prohibitions of the CWC
to individuals as well as States Parties. Onate
also noted the connection between implementation of
the CWC and UNSCR 1540. He summarized annual
reporting obligations and the importance of States
Parties and the Secretariat working together to
resolve issues that arise regarding transfers.


27. (U) Steve Wade (Head, Declarations Branch)
provided an overview of the CWC verification
Qprovided an overview of the CWC verification
regime, and noted that verification begins with a
State Party's declaration. He outlined the cycle
of declarations, from the initial submission to TS
evaluation, to on site inspection and monitoring,
to analysis and reporting. In a detailed
description of the CW verification regime, Wade
listed Iraq as one of the States Parties in
possession of chemical weapons. He described some
of the future challenges facing the verification
division, and concluded by mentioning work
currently being done with the World Trade
Organization to help customs and border officials
more easily identify regulated chemicals.


28. (U) The highlight of the seminar was Director
of Special Projects Krzysztof Paturej's
presentation on the OPCW's role in chemical safety
and security issues. Paturej laid out the mandate
from the Second Review Conference in April 2008 for
the Organization to be a platform and venue for
supporting global cooperation on a range of issues
-- including chemical safety and security, for
fostering collaboration, and for raising awareness
of best practices. Paturej tempered this mandate
with a list of things that the OPCW would not do
(i.e., the Organization's "red lines"),including:
- taking on an independent role (i.e., going beyond
supporting member states' activities);
- developing TS expertise on the issue;
- including safety and security issues in
verification and inspection activities;
- developing regulatory measures; and
- developing guidance or advice on chemical safety
and security issues.


29. (U) Again referencing a mandate from the Second
Review Conference, Paturej also touched on the need
to engage stakeholders, such as chemical industry
and the scientific community, in the OPCW's work.
He noted that the OPCW already had experience in
this regard, citing a number of events held to mark
the OPCW's tenth anniversary in 2007, as well as
the industry forum and the academic forum held in
conjunction with the Second Review Conference.
Paturej went on to suggest developing a long-term
strategy for the OPCW to develop its relationship
with stakeholders. He singled out Article X
(Assistance and Protection) and Article XI
(Economic and Technological Development) as two key
areas having a direct relation to chemical safety
and security where implementation would be
broadened through cooperation with stakeholders.

--------------
OPCW OPEN ENDED WORKING GROUP ON TERRORISM
--------------


30. (U) On March 25, Annie Mari (France) chaired a
session of the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on
Terrorism. She opened by reiterating her sense
that the group should build on links to Article VII
and Article X, and should explore the topic of
safety and security of chemical industry, given its
direct bearing on the prevention of terrorist
acquisition of chemical weapons. She also
indicated that she would be holding informal
discussions with delegations on the future work of
the group. Marie then listed some of the OPCW's
recent and upcoming events related to terrorism
including the previous week's UNICRI seminar; the
March 26-27 Clingendael workshop on 1540; a
workshop in Croatia in April, a possible tabletop
exercise in Poland; and an Algeria-hosted
conference on chemical terrorism.
Qconference on chemical terrorism.


31. (U) The speakers for this meeting of the
working group were Saudi ministry officials:
Secretary of the National Authority Mohammed A. Al-
Matrafi and General Director of the Ideological
Security Directorate Dr. Abdulrahman Alhadlaq. Al-
Matrafi gave a largely irrelevant briefing on Saudi
Arabia's implementation of the CWC that included a
review of the various provisions of the Convention;
and was related to the work of the OEWG only
through a vague reference to the fact that
implementation of CWC prohibitions is a preventive
measure.


32. (U) The briefing that followed was not only
inappropriate for the OPCW, but also offensive.
Dr. Alhadlaq gave a lengthy presentation on his
area of expertise: combating terrorist ideology.
With the exception of a gratuitous reference to
having seen ideology that would encourage
terrorists to use WMD, the presentation was
unrelated to work of the Open Ended Working Group
and to the OPCW. Alhadlaq provided a detailed
overview of the cycle of recruitment and
radicalization, the propagation of extremist
ideology over the internet, and the work Saudi
officials are doing to propagate more moderate
ideology. His explanation of factors that drove
individuals to extremism included a desire to force
the U.S. and UK out of Iraq and Afghanistan and the
"fear of hellfire." These factors were supported
by pictures found on extremist websites of U.S.
soldiers and Abu Ghraib. Alhadlaq also explained
in detail various methods Saudi officials use to
rehabilitate terrorists. Of his presentation, the
one slide Mari was able to recall in her summary as
relevant was on the physical protection of
industrial sites (actually related specifically to
oil processing facilities and pipelines).


33. (U) The stunned silence following the briefings
was broken by the Algerian Ambassador (and
candidate for the post of Director General),who
asked about a Saudi center for terrorism, and also
asked the Saudi officials for their assessment of
the level of threat of a terrorist attack using
chemicals. The officials responded that there have
been "many reports" of terrorists attempting to
acquire chemical weapons/WMD.


34. (SBU) Del comment: The Saudi briefings were by
far the least relevant the working group has had to
date. The politically inflammatory nature of the
second presentation, and the lack of relevance of
either to the work of the group, would seem to
indicate that neither the group's chair nor the
Secretariat previewed their content before the
meeting. In a private conversation following the
meeting, the UK delegate noted that this was likely
to strengthen the case of delegations who wish to
discontinue the Open Ended Working Group on
Terrorism. German Ambassador Burkart also shared
his view that it was clearly time to assess the
relevance and future orientation of the group. End
comment.


35. (U) BEIK SENDS.
GALLAGHER