CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 56TH

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000236

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: DECL: 04/09/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 56TH
SESSION, APRIL 21-24, 2009

REF: THE HAGUE 210

Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)

(U) This is CWC-19-09

--------------
Summary and Introduction
--------------


1. (SBU) The two main topics that are likely to
dominate Executive Council (EC) debate and informal
discussions are the search for a new Director
General and Iraq's recent submission of its
declaration. On the DG search, candidates continue
to emerge - most notably from the Western European
and Others Group (WEOG),which has led to some
speculation about how WEOG will eventually choose
one candidate to support. Western and like-minded
States Parties have encouraged EC Chair Ambassador
Tomova to resist attempts to discuss procedures,
criteria, modalities, and the like in an open ended
working group. However, pressure from the Non-
Aligned Movement (NAM) to hold such a meeting is
mounting.


2. (SBU) Iraq's declaration has now been available
to States Parties for several weeks. There has
been little discussion of the contents, but Del
expects an Iraqi presentation at the destruction
informals and accompanying statements by the U.S.
and UK to generate far more. While the U.S.
statement regarding recoveries and destruction of
chemical weapons in Iraq is best kept simple, based
on recent interactions Del recommends EC guidance
include if-asked responses to questions about the
legal basis for and status of the U.S. submission.
A reaction of stunned silence could easily be the
extent of States Parties' responses to information
shared in the informals, but pointed questions
about U.S. actions, Iraq's ability to fulfill its
CWC obligations, and the Secretariat's ability to
carry out its verification mission, are sure to
come.


3. (SBU) The agenda for EC-56 also includes a
number of more routine items, many of which were
deferred from previous sessions.


4. (SBU) Iran's participation in this Executive
Council (EC) is an unknown factor. Chief
obstructionist Mohsen Naziri Asl has finally
departed from The Hague. Del assumes Gholamhossein
Dehghani will lead the delegation as at EC-55.
Iran's delegation has been quiet at recent
meetings. The delegation may follow its moderately
cooperative role from EC-55, or revert to its more
traditional spoiler role. The crystal ball is
cloudy this time.

--------------
DG SEARCH
--------------


5. (SBU) Following the EC-55 compromise that
called for States Parties to present candidates no
later than 7 July 2009, the search for a new
Director General has gained momentum, with four
official candidates from Algeria, Turkey, the
United Kingdom, and Germany having been nominated
so far and at least two more countries
(Switzerland, Finland) having indicated their
intent to do so. EC Chair Tomova has continued her
consultations with regional groups, reporting on
the results to WEOG-Plus and the EC Bureau.


6. (SBU) All regional groups agree in principle
that it is preferable for EC-58 in October to

recommend a consensus candidate to the Conference
of States Parties, and that the process of
selection must be open and transparent. The idea
of a "north-south" rotation has received little to
no public support. Several delegations have
indicated interest in a regional rotation, but most
agree this would place undue constraints on the
process. The greatest divergence in views is on
the question of whether an open-ended working group
of some sort should be established to clarify
modalities, procedures, and other details of the
selection process that Western delegations believe
are best left in the hands of the EC Chair.


7. (SBU) WEOG continues to speak in favor of
keeping the process simple and avoiding documents
or procedural discussions. South Africa and
others, however, have called for an open meeting
prior to the upcoming EC to discuss exactly what
WEOG and like-minded States Parties would prefer to
avoid. No such meeting has been scheduled yet, but
still could be. The impression of WEOG Vice Chair
Burkart and others is that Tomova is coming under
increasing pressure to hold at least one open
meeting on the subject, in addition to or in place
of the small meeting format in which she would
prefer to work. Tomova intends to report on the
results of her consultations to EC-56, and will
prepare appropriate report language (likely to be
the starting point for negotiations in which the
NAM attempts to establish a more formal process).


8. (SBU) Guidance requested: Del would appreciate
guidance on what we could accept as well as
redlines for any potential procedural discussion.
For this EC, we would definitely want to avoid
anything that restricts the new Council and new
Chairman in vetting candidates after the deadline.
However, it might be appropriate to agree on a
format for the candidates to address EC-57 (for
example, all candidates invited to speak to the
Council in plenary, advised to address their vision
for the Organization, given a speaking time limit
(10 minutes) with time for questions from the
floor, etc.).

--------------
IRAQ
--------------


9. (SBU) Iraq's declaration and status will no
doubt be the subject of discussion at the upcoming
EC, but just how remains to be seen. Of note, Iran
is not among the twenty-some delegations that have
picked up their copy of Iraq's initial declaration.
Del has heard very little in the corridors, and
anticipates delegations may need more time to
digest not only the declaration, but what they will
hear at the destruction informals on April 20.


10. (C) On April 7, Del informed first France and
Germany, and then WEOG, that the U.S. intends to
make a brief statement at the informals regarding
pre-1991 chemical munitions U.S. forces have
recovered and destroyed since 2003. Del also noted
that the U.S. will be providing additional
information to the Secretariat. The UK also
indicated its intent to do the same. In the
private meeting with France and Germany, Germany
asked whether the U.S. is submitting its
information as an official declaration, whether it
views this is an obligation, and why its submission
is coming now. Burkart noted that Germany would of
Qis coming now. Burkart noted that Germany would of
course avoid such questions in public, but that he
anticipated others might not. Canadian Delrep also
asked privately whether the U.S. and UK viewed
their declarations as a legal obligation. In WEOG,
other comments on Iraq's declaration centered on

the complexity of the task ahead and the importance
of proactive engagement with Iraq, especially given
the possible implications of EC "handling" of Iraq
for universality. Several delegations also noted
the issue of supplier countries and questioned
Iran's possible statements on this aspect of the
declaration.


11. (C) On April 6, Delrep was contacted by the
Technical Secretariat for a follow-up meeting on
the U.S. submission (April 3) of its information on
the rounds recovered in Iraq. Specific questions
have been forwarded separately to Washington. TS
questions stemmed from a desire to clarify how the
U.S. views its submission ) whether it is truly a
declaration or a transparency measure, under what
Article/obligation the declaration has been made,
etc. Although the Secretariat has apparently not
conducted its own legal review of the U.S.
declaration, the primary concern voiced was to be
able to provide answers ) if possible - that are
consistent with the U.S. view. Several TS
participants in the meeting seemed to hold the view
that the U.S. should have submitted a letter
instead of a declaration that could raise more
questions (about fills, locations, etc.) than it
answers.


12. (C) Del expects a follow-up meeting with the
Secre tariat, including the Office of the Legal
Advisor, to discuss this matter. The submission of
the UK's information in a different format is
likely to further complicate such discussions,
especially given the difference between the U.S.
and UK legal basis for recovery/destruction
actions. TS officers indicated a strong interest
in resolving legal and other questions prior to the
April 20 destruction informals.


13. (SBU) Del continues to work with Iraqi delegate
Abbas to gauge Iraq's involvement and progress with
the TS and other delegations. Del has also
repeatedly reinforced with Iraqi Ambassador Banaa
and delegate Abbas the importance of having experts
from Baghdad arrive early in The Hague to shape an
effective presentation for the destruction
informals and begin work on a general plan for
destruction. Delrep also communicated to Abbas the
need expressed in Baghdad for an official
invitation from the OPCW to facilitate issuance of
visas, but believes Abbas will wait for
instructions from Baghdad before approaching the
Technical Secretariat on this matter. According to
Abbas, Iraq has received no questions so far on its
declaration; the only inquiry has been from the
German delegation, which indicated a desire to have
a meeting of technical experts on the margins of
the EC.

--------------
CHEMICAL WEAPONS ISSUES
--------------


14. (SBU) With no 90-Day reports on the agenda this
session, Del expects discussion will be dominated
by other topics. Following the U.S. suggestion,
the Director General is issuing a note to
adjust/regularize the schedule of submission of
these reports. Del does expect some congratulatory
remarks for India having completed destruction of
its CW stockpile, and the usual expressions of
concern that the slow pace of destruction in the
two major possessors. The real debate on U.S.
Qtwo major possessors. The real debate on U.S.
destruction is likely to come in July, when
discussion of the report of the EC visit to Pueblo
and Umatilla is on the agenda.


15. (SBU) Iraq clearly presents a new challenge in

the area of chemical weapons, although there is
currently no specific agenda item under which this
topic could easily be discussed. The EC will soon
need to face its obligation to establish
destruction deadlines for Iraq; this and the range
of associated and complicated topics would benefit
in the coming months from the political and
technical guidance of an Ambassador (perhaps the
Vice Chair for CW issues) and senior TS staff.
Despite the lack of a specific agenda item, Del
believes initial views on this subject could
manifest themselves in the form of report language.


16. (U) The Note by the Secretariat on continued
verification measures at the UK's converted form
chemical weapons production facility at Portreath
remains on the agenda. During the April 8 EC
preparatory meeting, Vice Chair for the CW Cluster
Ambassador Burkart recommended that, due to the
ongoing discussions on this item (understood to be
between Russia and the UK),the paragraph be
dropped from the agenda. Secretary for the Policy
Making Organs Alexander Khodakov recommended the
item be retained, as the Secretariat has produced a
paper on "general guidelines" for such facilities
that may allow interested delegations to resolve
their differences. The Secretariat hopes to
distribute these guidelines by April 10.

--------------
SCHEDULE 1 FACILITY AGREEMENTS
--------------


17. (SBU) Del has tentatively scheduled a meeting
the week of April 14 with the Iranian delegation to
follow up on issues outstanding from discussions at
EC-55. Del requests guidance as to whether the
U.S. intends to make any changes to the current
draft of our own Schedule 1 Facility Agreement,
and/or whether we will insist on revisions to
Iran's agreement.

--------------
ARTICLE X
--------------


18. (U) On April 7, Polish delegate Maciej
Karasinski held his first round of consultations as
the new Article X facilitator. Based on these
consultations, Del expects both Article X documents
on the agenda to be noted. Given opinions
expressed regarding the note by the Secretariat on
the effectiveness of current Article X programs
(EC-55/S/2),the facilitator may also propose
report language on regularizing and/or improving
this type of reporting.

--------------
ARTICLE XI
--------------


19. (U) The DG's report on the Status of
Implementation of Article XI as of December 31,
2008, is still on the agenda, having been deferred
from EC-55 because delegations had not had a chance
to discuss the report in consultations. As this
fact has not changed since EC-55, it is likely the
report will be deferred again. Del understands
Chen Kai, China's new deputy head of delegation,
may be interested in assuming predecessor Li Hong's
role as Article XI facilitator.

--------------
INDUSTRY ISSUES
--------------


20. (SBU) It is unclear whether, following meetings
held during the April 1-2 session of the industry

cluster, delegations are now in a position to note
the two industry related documents on the EC
agenda. On the issue of OCPF site selection, Del
understands that China is likely to push for
stronger report language on the need to find a
facilitator.

--------------
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL ISSUES
--------------


21. (SBU) ABAF: The U.S. added this agenda item
during EC-55 in the belief that the discussion of
ABAF reform should continue, and with the view that
any consideration of funding for delegates from the
regular budget would need to have a Council
decision before the Draft Budget is published in
July. However, as the last Geneva Group discussion
showed (REFTEL),there is no consensus among
Geneva Group members on possible funding for
delegates and a general lethargy about letting ABAF
make recommendations to the Council without further
guidance in the form of questions or direction.
Del has not heard of any follow-up activity by the
Costa Rican Vice Chair for budget and
administrative issues. Unless instructed to pursue
active discussion during this EC, Del recommends
providing questions privately to friendly ABAF
members for the ABAF review of its own activities
with the objective of getting some useful
recommendations from ABAF for the Council
consideration in the fall.


22. (SBU) At the EC Chair's preparatory meeting on
April 8, Russia noted that it has made a request to
the Secretariat to add a paragraph under the ABAF
item on the reappointment of Russia's
representative on ABAF. Secretary Khodakov
acknowledged that this request had been received
and added that the Chinese representative will also
be addressed in this new paragraph. (Del note: The
Iranian delegate serving on ABAF has also departed
The Hague. A new Iranian nominee may appear at
some point. End note.)


23. (U) Beik sends.
GALLAGHER