CWC: MEETINGS ON THE MARGINS OF EC-56

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000295 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: 05/07/2019 TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: MEETINGS ON THE MARGINS OF EC-56 REF: A. THE HAGUE 288 ¶B. THE HAGUE 286 ¶C. THE HAGUE 287 ¶D. 08 THE HAGUE 1025 ¶E. STATE 14492 Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) (U) This is CWC-27-09 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) On the margins of the 56th session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' Executive Council (ref A),the U.S. Del met with a number of other delegations to discuss OPCW affairs as well as the Algerian and Turkish candidates to be next Director-General (DG). Meetings with the Iraqi delegation and with OPCW Legal Advisor regarding Iraq are reported separately (refs B and C). ¶2. (SBU) In addition to meetings detailed below, the U.S. Del attended a lunch with Close Allies hosted by German Ambassador Werner Burkart. -------------- MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs) Dr. Arthur Hopkins, OSD Policy Office Director for Combating WMD Policy Laura Gross, EC Representative and INS/CB Office Director Dr. Robert Mikulak, and Delrep Beik called on Director-General Pfirter on April 20. OPCW Chief of Cabinet Ekwall also sat in. Hopkins briefed the DG on U.S. destruction highlights, noting that things are ahead of schedule, new funding has been requested and that updated information on the construction completion dates for the Pueblo facility would be coming out before the Executive Council representatives' visit in June. Pfirter said the Asian group had had some competition for their slot on the visit; Mikulak reminded him that the delegation needed the names, now three weeks overdue, as soon as possible. ¶4. (C) The DG turned immediately to Iraq, stating that the Secretariat had a few questions on the Iraqi initial declaration but was pleased that the Iraqis would be making a full presentation to the EC. He said he would be highlighting Iraq as a special case in his statement to the Council and asking for assistance; he added that Ekwall was creating an inventory of requirements and possible assistance, including legal support. Mikulak presented the DG with the letter and supporting documents on the U.S. recovered rounds in Iraq. The DG specifically clarified that it was a letter, not a declaration. Mikulak said the U.S. would be making a brief statement in the destruction informals later that day. Pfirter stated that as the U.S. had reported occasionally to the UN Security Council, and to the OPCW, there should be no question about transparency. Mikulak noted that the plan for destruction in Iraq would require a lot of work. Pfirter said that the Iraq case would be handled in the same way as any other -- the TS would present a technical plan to the Council. He hoped in that respect to depoliticize the EC discussion, as certain delegations had already expressed anxiety about the requirement that the Council set a deadline. Due to the complexity of the situation in Iraq, it would need more time, but the basis remained an assessment mission. Pfirter Qthe basis remained an assessment mission. Pfirter described a sense of urgency, but said the TS would not skip any steps. ¶5. (SBU) The DG raised the issue of U.S. non- payment of its assessed contributions and emphasized that the Organization needs money now to continue at its current level. He repeated that the U.S. contribution is crucial for operations. Mikulak responded that the pattern would likely be the same as last year, an initial payment in the spring, with the rest after the new fiscal year in October. ¶6. (SBU) The budget is being drafted, Pfirter said, and they would try to keep it to zero-nominal growth; although it is getting more difficult with each successive year, he felt that particularly in light of the worldwide crisis, it was not a time for increases. He intends to keep his proposal for other chemical production facilities' inspections to ten, as he had last year, realizing that some will see this as an increase over the number approved by the EC and CSP. In fact, he said, he sees it as the same level as last year, no modifications. ¶7. (U) Just back from the universality conference in Istanbul, Pfirter reported that there had been positive engagements. The Turks co-chaired with the EU, and 31 states attended. The Israeli DCM was well informed and very constructive, and the Egyptian representative, while not officially from the government, was a professor and member of the upper house of Parliament. There was no Syrian representative. Burma had attended, and the representative assured them at lunch that Burma would join next year after the elections (which he predicted the military junta would lose). The OPCW had offered good-will missions to Israel and Egypt; both had accepted, and Israel already had set dates in June. Legal Advisor Onate will lead that mission. -------------- MEETING WITH EC CHAIR -------------- ¶8. (SBU) EC Representative Mikulak and Delrep Beik met with Ambassador Tomova (Slovakia),the EC Chairperson, and Slovakian delegate Komada on April ¶20. Mikulak briefed Tomova on the U.S. supplementary information on Iraq that would be presented at the destruction informal later that afternoon. He urged that efforts on Iraq be forward-looking, not dwelling on past history. Tomova agreed and noted Slovakian and EU support for Iraq. Mikulak also noted that the U.S. presentation on our own destruction would include new dates beyond 2012 for the first time. Komada asked whether this should be raised in the Bureau meeting in anticipation of report language; Mikulak stated that it was too premature for that. The EC representatives would be visiting Pueblo, one of the delayed sites, and there would be much more information available shortly on the projected start dates. Mikulak and Delrep also emphasized the need for specific names and passport information for the traveling EC group immediately. ¶9. (SBU) On the DG search, Tomova described her consultations and the report that she planned to present to the Council. She noted that there were some delegations that wanted to edit the report, but she was resisting. Delreps agreed that her report should not become a drafting exercise, but Qreport should not become a drafting exercise, but remain a factual statement of her activities between sessions. Delrep asked about the push by some delegations for an open meeting; Tomova said the initiative was largely South African with the justification that states that were not members of the Council should have an opportunity to express their views. She said that she planned to continue consultations until the end of her term in May and would be collaborating closely with the incoming Chairman, Amb. Lomonaco (Mexico). -------------- MEETINGS WITH DG CANDIDATES -------------- ¶10. (SBU) EC Representative Mikulak and Delrep Granger met Algerian Ambassador Benchaa Dani, at his request, to discuss his bid for the DG position. Dani opened the meeting by noting that the U.S. and Algeria share the same objectives even if each adopts differing methods at times. He also referred to his chairmanship of the Committee of the Whole during the Second Review Conference in April 2008, describing his approach then as ambitious. Turning to his view of the future, Dani said that the 2012 destruction deadline is not the OPCW's objective, rather non-proliferation is. He stressed the importance of verification and inspection activities but said that they should be balanced with increased international cooperation and assistance (ICA). Dani characterized ICA as an incentive for accepting non-proliferation. Dani noted that dialogue and assistance worked in advancing Article VII and suggested the same approach could work with Article XI. ¶11. (SBU) Returning to the issue of 2012, Dani said that everyone knows the deadline will be missed and stated that now is the time to postpone it. He suggested that if the deadline had been postponed once that it could be postponed again. ¶12. (C) EC Representative Mikulak and Delrep Granger also met the Turkish DG candidate, Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu. Uzumcu came across as extremely smooth and polished, and he was well- briefed on the OPCW and CWC. Mikulak highlighted a number of the challenges facing the OPCW over the next few years, including the 2012 deadline. Uzumcu asked if the U.S. has considered the legal aspect of the deadline, noting that the DG had talked about the need for a special CSP to address ¶2012. Mikulak responded that it is too early to discuss in the OPCW but said that the next DG will be important in framing the debate and identifying the issues for member states. Noting that the U.S. will have destroyed more than 90% of its stockpile by the deadline, Mikulak stated that there should be no question of the United States' commitment to complete destruction. Uzumcu noted that Turkey faced a similar situation with the Ottawa Treaty when it missed the deadline for destruction of its anti-personnel mines. He said that Turkey was able to manage the PR aspect of missing the deadline but could do nothing about the legal aspect: like the CWC, the Ottawa Treaty deadline has no possibility for extension. ¶13. (SBU) Uzumcu said he plans to visit Washington in late May and hopes to meet the new Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security to push his candidacy. He also noted his intention to visit other P-5 capitals (expect for London, considering there is a UK nominee). -------------- BILATERAL WITH INDIAN DELEGATION QBILATERAL WITH INDIAN DELEGATION -------------- ¶14. (SBU) On April 22, EC Representative Mikulak and Delreps Granger, Beckett and Weekman met with the Indian delegation to discuss industry issues and follow up on previous discussions about including non-scheduled chemicals in the OPCW's Central Analytical Database (OCAD) (refs D and E). Indian National Authority rep Dayalan provided a non-paper on India's position on OCAD and said that India's position is one of principle and is based on the hierarchy of risk. Dayalan also stated that the non-paper suggests having two databases: one for use in Article VI inspections and another for investigations of alleged use and challenge inspections. While India is opposed to including non-scheduled chemicals in the former database due to the possibility for "false positives" during industry inspections, Dayalan said that the latter database could include non-scheduled chemicals due to the more intrusive nature of challenge inspections and investigations of alleged use. ¶15. (SBU) In response to Mikulak's request for clarification on marker chemicals, Dayalan said that marker chemicals are non-toxic chemicals that indicate the possibility of the presence of toxic chemicals; she noted that marker chemicals are not necessarily pre-cursors. Dayalan cited only one example: Schedule 2(B)6 as a marker for Tabun. ¶16. (SBU) Dayalan noted that India developed new technology to deal with heel resulting from chemical weapons (CW) destruction and asked if the U.S. would be interested in using the technology. Indian rep Sekhar said that the technology has been patented in Russia and the EU and that the U.S. patent was granted on April 14. Daylan also asked for information on assistance and protection equipment and procedures used by the U.S., specifically air monitoring systems for protecting civilian populations. ¶17. (SBU) On industry issues, Dayalan announced that India will issue a non-paper on OCPF declaration enhancements before the July EC and Industry Cluster. She reiterated the Indian position that additional declaration obligations contravene the spirit of the Second Review Conference. Mikulak asked for what experience India had had with sampling and analysis during industry inspections; Dayalan responded that, pending the analysis of India's second sampling and analysis inspection which took place the week before the EC, there only had been some logistical "hiccups." Mikulak then described some of the problems encountered by the U.S. and suggested that it would be useful to compare experiences during future meetings. -------------- LUNCH WITH CHINESE DELEGATION -------------- ¶18. (SBU) On April 23, the Chinese Delegation hosted a lunch for the U.S. Del. EC Representative Mikulak and Delreps Beik, Beckett, and Granger attended for the U.S.; Yang Yi (Deputy Director of Arms Control and Disarmament),resident delegates Chen Kai and Li Dong, and Jiang Bo (from Yang's Department) attended for the Chinese side. The meeting was a chance to re-start previously regular bilateral consultations. Of note, Yang reiterated China's offer for a delegation from the U.S. to visit Beijing. -------------- U.S.-UK TRILATERAL WITH LIBYAN DELEGATION -------------- ¶19. (SBU) U.S. Delreps (Robinson, Weekman, Beckett Q19. (SBU) U.S. Delreps (Robinson, Weekman, Beckett and Bunton) and UK Reps (Rowland, McGilly and Yu) met with Libyan officials (led by Dr. Hesnawy) on April 23 to discuss the Rabta conversion request and the status of CW destruction in Libya. Hesnawy's key concern on the conversion was clearly ensuring U.S. and UK support for retention of the protective berm surrounding the Rabta facilities. U.S. and UK reps indicated support for changing the sandbag wall from specialized to standard equipment provided that Libya: return to giving more detailed presentations at the EC destruction informals; provide sound justification for making the technical correction; and allow the U.S. and the UK to review the technical correction before submitting it to the TS. Highlighting the multilateral political dynamic of having the EC agree to the change, U.S. and UK reps encouraged Hesnawy to consult with as many delegations as possible to secure support for the technical correction. Hesnawy indicated that he had consulted with several key delegations, most of whom indicated that the U.S. and UK would likely be the most interested in this issue. As a transparency measure, Hesnawy suggested inviting a small group from the OPCW to visit Rabta and see the berm. Delrep replied that the EC Chair or Vice-Chair could lead a small group with representatives from each regional group, similar to the model used by the U.S. and Russia. Hesnawy was receptive to Delrep's proposal for further trilateral meetings to review Libya's presentation prior to the EC destruction informals. ¶20. (SBU) On the progress of conversion at Rabta, Hesnawy stated that Libya is further along than what is publically stated and indicated that Libya is on target to complete conversion by December ¶2009. Buildings 3 and 4, along with their foundations, have been dismantled. In building 17, the utilities for the dryer are being connected, and the reactor and other equipment are being tested. Hesnawy mentioned that only local Libyan contractors are working on the conversion. He also reported that all of the commercial equipment is onsite, including the transportation tanks, and that testing for the feasibility of producing pharmaceuticals will take place in September. ¶21. (SBU) Despite an anticipated slip in the scheduled March 2010 start for CW destruction, Hesnawy stated that destruction would be completed by December 2010. However, he did not provide specific information on the status of the Rabta CW destruction facility. ¶22. (SBU) Hesnawy explained that the reloading process was delayed from January to March 2009 because test runs were necessary to figure out the best way to empty the containers. Operations were conducted at night (1830 to 0200) to avoid the daytime heat. Hesnawy stated that the reloading at Ruwagha has been completed. The reloading of HD was carried out from 31 March to 18 April 2009. The reloading of pinacolyl alcohol and i-propyl alcohol was carried out 11-15 April 2009. Decalin was used instead of fuel to rinse the containers during reloading because the shipment of fuel they received contained water, which would hydrolyze with mustard in a stainless steel tank over time and produce hydrochloric acid in its liquid phase. The total amount of HD reloaded was 22295 kg and there were 382 canisters with roughly 10% heel left Qthere were 382 canisters with roughly 10% heel left in each, totaling 2449 kg. The difference between the total amount declared and the total measured (24,744 kg) is 168 kg. ¶23. (SBU) Due to safety concerns, Hesnawy stated that Libya is considering using mobile hydrolysis instead of reloading to destroy the other two bulk chemicals located at Rabta. Currently the phosphorus trichloride and thionyl chloride are being stored in corroded tanks that are in terrible condition. Sand has entered the tanks through E large openings and may have reacted with the phosphorus trichloride. ¶24. (SBU) Hesnawy said that the second set of (proliferation sensitive) equipment is "in good hands" and that will not be touched until a decision is made about what to do with the equipment. He said that the pharmaceutical company is still talking to different international firms (including Japanese, Indian and British firms). Hesnawy said that he would follow up to determine a good time for U.S. and UK reps to come and see the equipment. Hesnawy indicated that Libya may build a second plant near the Rabta site for the second set of equipment. He pointed out that a lot of active pharmaceutical ingredients can be produced to make medications for diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. -------------- MEETING WITH TERRORISM OEWG CHAIR -------------- ¶25. (SBU) On April 24, Delreps Robinson and Weekman met with Annie Mari (France),Chair of the Open- ended Working Group (OEWG) on Terrorism, to discuss the OEWG's future. Weekman suggested that upcoming meetings could focus on chemical safety and/or security and could include industry experts and plant safety officers. Mari was receptive to the ideas and appreciated input to help steer the group. She suggested that thematic workshops on chemical safety and/or security could be tied to articles X or XI; Delreps agreed that presenting the next meeting from a Convention perspective would be helpful and make the discussion more applicable to the OPCW. Mari told Delreps that Krzysztof Paturej (OPCW Director of Special Projects) had suggested hosting a panel from the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) at a future OEWG meeting. Delreps suggested that having a CTC would be more politically acceptable if the meeting were tied to articles X or XI. Mari stated that the next OEWG would likely be mid-to- late June. -------------- MEETING WITH ALGERIAN DELEGATE -------------- ¶26. (SBU) On April 24, Delreps Robinson and Weekman also met with Said Moussi (Algeria) to discuss the proposed chemical safety and security conference. Moussi reported that the draft conference agenda still was under review in Algiers but noted that preliminary feedback was "positive." He explained that recent national elections had delayed things but said that he expects to get detailed feedback once the new government is in place. Moussi agreed that holding the conference in early 2010 was realistic. (Del Note: Spain assumes the EU Council Presidency in January 2010. OEWG Chair Mari earlier had suggested that Spain, as a strong supporter of counter-terrorism activities, may be able to provide some funding for the conference. End Note.) ¶27. (SBU) Moussi was clear that Algeria would expect a senior U.S. official from the counter- terrorism community to speak at the conference. He added that the Director of the Algiers-based African Center for the Study and Research against Terrorism (ACSRT) and the head of the African Commission for Peace and Security within the QCommission for Peace and Security within the African Union, along with senior Algerian officials, would be available to make plenary statements. Moussi also tried to get a sense of how much funding the U.S. could provide. Weekman noted that ISN/CTR's Chemical Security Engagement Program might be able to support sessions on chemical safety and security training and promised to inquire with ISN/CTR. Moussi stated that the ACSRT would cover the costs for the conference facility, equipment, staff and administrative support, as well as providing security and local transportation. Funding for interpretation and meals still needs to be arranged. Moussi and Delreps agreed that linking the conference to Article X would provide the rationale for OPCW involvement, participation and potential funding. ¶28. (U) BEIK SENDS. GALLAGHER