CWC: WRAP-UP FOR MAY 11-29, 2009

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000324 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: 05/29/2019 TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR MAY 11-29, 2009 REF: A. STATE 51992 ¶B. WEEKMAN/DEL EMAIL (21 MAY 09) ¶C. THE HAGUE 000312 ¶D. STATE 51407 Classified By: A. Robinson for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) This is CWC-30-09. -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Official meetings at OPCW are still few and far between, with the exception of this week's industry cluster (reported septel). In accordance with Refs A and B, the Del continues to inform key individuals of the recently published chemical demilitarization schedule. This has evoked concern from all informed, as it is the first official admission to the OPCW that the U.S. will begin operations at its last two facilities after the treaty deadline of April 29, 2012; and will complete destruction nine years after the deadline. ¶2. (SBU) The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) held its regular Tuesday meetings, the most recent of which included an update by the Executive Council (EC) Chairman on his consultations regarding the search for a new Director General (DG); and an appearance by the Swiss DG candidate. The Russian Ambassador hosted the Permanent-Five members of the Security Council on May 18, and the Finnish candidate for the Director-General called on the U.S. delegation May 20. Also on May 20, Delreps met with colleagues from the Pacific Rim at a luncheon, and with close allies at the invitation of French delegate Annie Mari to discuss the Open Ended Working Group on Terrorism. Details follow. -------------- -------------- - PREPARATIONS FOR THE EC VISIT TO PUEBLO AND UMATILLA AND NOTIFICATION OF U.S. DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE -------------- -------------- - ¶3. (C) On May 26, per Refs A and B, Delreps met with WEOG Vice Chair Amb. de Savornin Lohman to inform him of the latest U.S. chemical demilitarization schedule in advance of the upcoming EC visit. Lohman expressed appreciation for the advance notice, and noted that word will spread quickly once "certain delegations" on the visit receive the information. He offered his view that the most likely question will be how it can possibly take so long to destroy the remaining 10% of the stockpile. Lohman also noted that, as this is the first official U.S. admission of such information, management of the issue will be quite challenging. He expressed particular concern regarding the new South African and Indian Ambassadors, both of whom he believes will take strong positions on the issue. In closing, Lohman recommended the U.S. provide as much detail as possible as to the causes of the delays at Pueblo and Blue Grass, as this will be critical in countering the perception that the delays stem from a lack of political will or financial commitment. ¶4. (C) As an aside, Lohman also noted that the Swiss candidate for Director General had provided more coherent answers to questions at the Swiss- hosted dinner the previous evening. He expressed surprise at the quality of Amb. Thalmann's responses in WEOG (see para 20 below),and stated that similar responses were unlikely to garner support from other regional groups. ¶5. (SBU) On May 27, Delrep convened the final preparatory meeting for participants in the EC visit. The meeting was attended by all members of the visiting group (plus delegates),the Director General, and his Chief of Cabinet Richard Ekwall. Delrep distributed the updated itinerary and a fact sheet on Umatilla and Pueblo, and reviewed administrative details. Senior Chemical Demilitarization Officer Gabi Coman-Enescu then briefed the group on verification measures in place at the two facilities. ¶6. (C) In closing, per instructions in Ref A, Delrep informed the group that a report on the U.S. CW destruction program had just been submitted to Congress, and that this report made reference to the fact that the facilities at Pueblo and Blue Grass would begin operations after the treaty deadline. Delrep emphasized U.S. commitment to the Convention and destruction, and requested that members of the group keep the information in confidence until after the visit. Dutch Ambassador Lohman asked for clarification on the "current legal constraints and planning projections," and South African rep van Schalkwyk requested confirmation that the U.S. expected to reach 90% completion by 2012. Russian rep Gavrilov noted that this was not a surprise. ¶7. (C) In conversation later, Gavrilov joked that there was no longer any point in the visit, as the U.S. had now clearly indicated its inability to meet the treaty deadline. He and van Schalkwyk indicated that they appreciated having the information in advance of the visit, as this would give them more time to prepare detailed questions. ¶8. (C) On May 29, Delreps briefed the French, German, and UK delegations on the U.S. destruction schedule. As in previous conversations, Delreps drew on talking points in Ref A, and emphasized U.S. commitment to complete destruction as rapidly and safely as possible. Delreps also confirmed that the U.S. expects to have completed 90% destruction by 2012. Delegations agreed that this will be a difficult issue, particularly given the fact that the schedule now extends to 2021. The UK Del asked whether, given just how far past the treaty deadline the U.S. now anticipates going, the U.S. might reconsider transportation of CW. Delrep explained the difficulty of doing so, and noted that the U.S. is seeking other ways to accelerate progress. ¶9. (C) German Ambassador Burkart asked how this schedule could be reconciled with the fact that Congress had passed a law that destruction had to be completed by 2017. Delrep stated that the latest schedule is based on current legal constraints and planning projections, and that the U.S. will continue to seek ways to complete destruction as soon as possible. Delreps also explained the circumstances that had impacted these two facilities, and the technical complexity of new processes being used for the first time on a large scale. The French Del asked what kind of technology these facilities would use; Delrep stated that both facilities would use neutralization followed by secondary treatment. Finally, the French rep asked whether the U.S. was QFinally, the French rep asked whether the U.S. was looking for "legal solutions" to this issue. Delreps assured France and others that the U.S. was carefully considering the issue. -------------- DG REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON USE OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS IN AFGHANISTAN -------------- ¶10. (C) On May 27, Delrep was summoned by the Deputy Director General to receive a letter from the DG requesting clarification on two recent press articles about the use of white phosphorus in Afghanistan. DDG Freeman noted that the formal request for clarification was standard practice, whether in response to State Party inquiries or press reports regarding issues with potential implications for compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. The letter and articles have been forwarded for Washington for a formal response. -------------- WEOG -------------- ¶11. (SBU) On May 12, Gary Mallard (Head of the OPCW Lab) met with the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) to discuss the OPCW Central Analytical Database (OCAD) and the proposal to include derivatives of scheduled chemicals in the OCAD. Mallard pre-briefed WEOG in advance of making a similar presentation at the Industry Cluster meeting on May 25 (reported septel). He said that the Verification Division was working on a new paper to address only derivatives in an attempt to de-link them from riot control agents (RCAs) and non-scheduled degradation products. ¶12. (SBU) After Mallard's presentation, WEOG coordinator Ruth Surkau (Germany) moved discussion to the search for a new DG. Surkau announced that the new Executive Council Chairman, Amb. Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico),would meet WEOG on May 26 to discuss how candidates will address the July EC session. U.S. Delrep stated that all candidates should have equal opportunity to speak and that time should be allowed for questions and answers. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Spain all agreed with the U.S. Under Any Other Business, German Ambassador Werner Burkart asked if WEOG would be willing to meet with the German DG candidate, Amb. Peter Gottwald. The Swiss, Turkish and Finnish delegates spoke up that their candidates would also like to address WEOG and reiterated the principle of equal opportunity for all. UK delegate Karen Wolstenholme said that the British DG candidate, current Deputy DG John Freeman, does not want to be active as a candidate too soon due to his duties, especially with the budget. U.S. Delrep said that invitations to address WEOG should be extended to all candidates, including non-WEOG candidates. The Spanish and French delegates agreed, noting that WEOG will not be able to agree on a common candidate. ¶13. (SBU) At the May 19 WEOG meeting, Amb. de Savornin Lohman (Netherlands) reported on the first meeting of the new EC Bureau. Cluster assignments were made, with WEOG keeping chemical weapons (CW) destruction issues, African Group (Sudanese Ambassador Abuelgasim Idris) keeping industry issues, Eastern European Group (Russian Ambassador Kiril Gevorgian) taking legal and organizational issues, and Asian Group (Iran) taking administrative and financial issues. Lohman also announced that Chinese delegate Chen Kai had agreed to take over from his predecessor in facilitating Article XI. Lohman noted that Costa Rican Ambassador Francisco Aguilar and Swiss delegate Martin Strub are still tentatively up for QMartin Strub are still tentatively up for facilitating the 2010 draft budget. Strub added that he was willing to co-facilitate the budget but is waiting for Aguilar to confirm the arrangement. Lohman finished his briefing by noting that EC Chair Lomonaco has been meeting with regional groups -- and in some cases also with sub-groups -- to get views on how to handle meeting with DG candidates at the July EC session. ¶14. (SBU) Moving on to the topic of the DG search, Surkau said that no one had objected to having all candidates address WEOG after the question was raised at the last WEOG meeting. She then announced a schedule, starting with the Swiss candidate on May 26, followed by the Finnish candidate on June 2, the Turkish candidate on June 9, the German candidate on June 16 and the British candidate in late June or early July. Surkau noted that she would contact the Indonesian and Algerian delegations to invite their respective candidates also to meet with WEOG. ¶15. (SBU) At the WEOG meeting on May 26, EC Chair Amb. Lomonaco briefed WEOG on the results of his consultations to date with regional groups on the process of selecting a new Director General. Lomonaco shared his view that the Council has very specific responsibilities on this issue, including the responsibility to submit only one recommendation to the Conference of States Parties (CSP). He cited the fact that the CSP shall "appoint," as opposed to "elect" a new Director General. Lomonaco also emphasized the importance of an inclusive approach, in which that all member states have the opportunity to participate in the process. He intends to hold one more round of consultations with regional groups before the EC in July, but plans to send a letter to all States Parties, by mid-June at the latest, to invite the candidates and all States Parties to an "Informal Consultation of the Executive Council and Interested Parties" on Wednesday, July 15. ¶16. (SBU) On the "modalities" of the meeting in July, Lomonaco intends to have candidates appear separately, and to ensure they are not present for other candidates' presentations. Candidates could be chosen by a draw the night before the meeting. Lomonaco indicated that there is still no agreement on the question and answer period following candidate presentations. Not all delegations agree there should be a question and answer period and "an African State Party" suggested this be done in October instead. Some have suggested one question per regional group, and/or using the same questions for all candidates. ¶17. (SBU) In general, WEOG delegations expressed support for Lomonaco's approach. Different suggestions were made on specific aspects (e.g. time limits for presentations),but many delegations spoke in favor of a question and answer period. There was widespread agreement on the importance of giving equal treatment to all candidates. ¶18. (SBU) In closing, Lomonaco reminded delegations that the EC will have a full agenda in July, and asked for WEOG support in pushing back on attempts to unnecessarily defer documents without clear justification. He shared his view that the candidate presentations in July will give capitals time to reflect over the summer break, after which it will be critical to begin reducing the number of candidates before the October EC. Lomonaco also noted that, despite attempts from some delegations Qnoted that, despite attempts from some delegations to control the entire selection process and modalities, it is already too late in the process to begin drawing up guidelines or insisting upon regional rotation. Finally, Lomonaco drew WEOG's attention to the recently circulated South African proposal on the topic of the DG selection, which he expects will be distributed shortly as a national paper. ¶19. (SBU) Following this discussion, Swiss candidate for Director General Ambassador Anton Thalmann, Deputy State Secretary and Political Director at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, introduced himself to the group. After reviewing his credentials, he noted that he was aware of the upcoming challenges for the Organization (e.g. 2012),and said that a course for the Organization must be charted in cooperation with member states. He cited three pillars for the Organization, among which disarmament was conspicuously absent. Surkau then opened the floor for questions. ¶20. (SBU) When delegations remained silent, U.S. Delrep asked Amb. Thalmann for his vision of the Organization and its focus in the coming years, particularly as destruction begins to wind down. Thalmann seemed to misunderstand the question as U.S. self-interest and stated that he was "not here to finger-point" on destruction. Dutch Ambassador Lohman attempted to rephrase the question, noting that his idea had been to ask something similar and that he was surprised by the answer. Thalmann then replied that the Organization should maintain expertise in destruction; and that counter- proliferation will become more important. He reminded delegations of Switzerland's contributions to CW destruction in Albania and Russia. The Australian delegation then asked how Thalmann might handle the issue of terrorism, especially given its often polarizing effect within the Organization. Thalmann replied that it was, of course, easier to hold States Parties responsible than non-state actors. --- P-5 --- ¶21. (SBU) On May 18, Delreps attended a meeting of the Permanent Five (P-5) members of the UN Security Council, hosted by Russian Ambassador Kiril Gevorgian. The Chinese, French and British ambassadors also attended the meeting. The agenda included discussion on universality and the DG search; French Ambassador Francois Blarel and delegate Annie Mari raised the OEWG on Terrorism under Any Other Business. ¶22. (SBU) Gevorgian reviewed the increase in membership since the last P-5 meeting, noting that with the Bahamas' and the Dominican Republic's ratification of the CWC, the Latin America and Caribbean (GRULAC) region does not have any more non-member states. Gevorgian also reported that the DG's special envoy for North Korea, former Dutch Permanent Representative Marc Vogelaar, visited Moscow to discuss possibilities for engaging North Korea. Chinese Ambassador Zhang Jun noted that Vogelaar had been in Beijing in March, and Delrep noted that Vogelaar had also visited Washington (as reported at the last P-5 meeting in February); Blarel and British Ambassador Lyn Parker both said that Vogelaar has not yet visited either Paris or London. ¶23. (SBU) Blarel suggested that out of the remaining seven non-member states, Angola is the easiest to press to join the CWC; all agreed, and Gevorgian suggested Cuba could be effective in lobbying Angola. Blarel also said that Burma could be another target for pressing separately from the remaining hard cases. Delrep recounted that the DG heard from the Burmese representative at the April Qheard from the Burmese representative at the April Istanbul universality seminar a prediction that Burma would join within a year, following a change of government in Rangoon. Parker said that Syria, Israel and Egypt likely will look to how Iraq is handled as an example of how they might be treated. ¶24. (SBU) Segueing from universality, Gevorgian pointedly asked about the current situation in Iraq. Delrep and Parker noted Iraq's unique nature and that an initial site visit would be necessary to assess the situation before finalizing Iraq's destruction plan. Zhang, citing the need for a comprehensive assessment of the security situation, said that it would be practically impossible for the Iraqi authorities to ensure inspection teams' security without the assistance of Coalition forces. Gevorgian followed by turning to the U.S. and UK representatives and saying, "it's up to your governments to take appropriate action." Delrep and Parker both pointed out that it would be up to the Iraqi government to request any security or technical assistance. ¶25. (SBU) Gevorgian also stated that the CWC sets out clear procedures to follow and that the practical considerations need to be reconciled with legal obligations. He said that the EC is unable to fulfill its mandate without a destruction plan for Iraq and without requisite verification. Gevorgian also noted that the EC additionally needs to consider the "semi-declaration" or "non- declaration" of the U.S. and the UK. Gevorgian said that the EC Bureau will discuss the agenda for the July session at its meeting on June 8, and he stated that Iraq should be added to the EC's agenda. Delrep noted that Iraq is not required to submit 90-day reports but that EC members likely will want regular updates, which would require a separate legal decision. -------------- MEETING WITH FINNISH DG CANDIDATE -------------- ¶26. (C) Delreps met Finnish DG candidate Amb. Aapo Polho (currently the Finnish Ambassador to Belgium and to NATO) and Finnish delegate Erik af Hallstrom on May 20. Polho began by stating that Finland was interested in the position because no Finns have previously held senior management positions in the OPCW despite Finland's long history of supporting CW disarmament. Polho also said that he had been put forward as Finland's candidate due to his long involvement with CW issues, including as Finland's CWC negotiator in Geneva. Throughout the meeting, Polho was extremely frank and relaxed, demonstrating his breadth of knowledge on general disarmament issues and on more specific OPCW issues. He asked what the U.S. was seeking in a new DG, and said that he would visit Washington at a future date. -------------- PACIFIC LUNCH -------------- ¶27. (SBU) Delrep attended a lunch on May 20 hosted by the Japanese delegation for colleagues from the Pacific Rim (China, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S.). Chen Kai (China) confirmed that he would be facilitating Article XI, following his predecessor, but since the appointment will not be approved until EC-57, consultations would likely not start again until September. The Asian Group had met with Amb. Lomonaco, with no agreement on modalities for the EC-57 presentation of the DG candidates. Iran had QEC-57 presentation of the DG candidates. Iran had requested that the candidates' presentations be in writing and distributed well before the session (presumably for review by Tehran). Some Asian delegations had proposed that the regional groups vet questions for the candidates, with each regional group proposing a given number (five was the suggestion). WEOG delegates said that WEOG would be meeting with Amb. Lomonaco the following week, and would be inviting all candidates to meet with the group if they wished. -------------- QUAD MEETING ON OEWG ON TERRORISM -------------- ¶28. (SBU) On May 20, at the request of the French delegation, Delreps met with Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Terrorism facilitator Annie Mari and the UK and German delegations to discuss the future of the Open Ended Working Group. Mari announced that her departure this summer has been confirmed, and that she intends to spend the coming weeks working on her "legacy" on the topic of terrorism. Mari seems to be attempting far too ambitious a program on what continues to be a contentious topic, and the other meeting participants tried tactfully to suggest a more realistic approach. ¶29. (SBU) Mari again asked for feedback on a Secretariat suggestion to consider having the Chair of the UN 1540 Committee address the OEWG when he is in The Hague in June. Others noted that the previous chair had already addressed the OEWG, and recommended the purpose of a second meeting be articulated. By the end of the meeting, Mari seemed to have decided not to have the Chair address the group, but perhaps to set up a time at the French Embassy for interested delegations to meet with him. ¶30. (SBU) Mari then recounted a recent conversation with Krzyzstof Paturej, the Secretariat official with oversight of the working group. She seemed rather surprised by what she claimed was his sudden resistance to a number of her initiatives. Paturej evidently told Mari that her idea of a brainstorming session with delegations to discuss the future orientation of the group was dangerous; and that her desire to highlight synergies between the OPCW's role in the fight against terrorism and the provisions of Article XI was not mature enough for discussion. He then explained that he had received calls from capitals expressing concern that her current approach was too ambitious. ¶31. (SBU) Delreps supported Mari's suggestion of a brainstorming lunch, to which Mari could invite a geographically diverse group of delegates. There was some discussion of whether the topic of the lunch should be made clear beforehand, but general agreement that an event like this could be more productive than a more formal discussion in the OEWG itself. ¶32. (SBU) Delreps also confirmed that Mari is moving ahead with planning for an OEWG on chemical safety and security the week of July 9. Mari is counting on the U.S. commitment to provide a speaker, and is working with the Indian delegation and a colleague on the Secretariat to arrange for an Indian expert to speak at the meeting. Mari did not indicate any interest in or need for U.S. funding for speakers other than the U.S. expert. Delreps suggested the Indian expert speak first to share India's views on the vulnerability of chemical facilities, in order to more clearly tie this topic to the work of the OEWG. Mari is also considering asking Paturej to provide a readout of Qconsidering asking Paturej to provide a readout of the Australian seminar on the same topic that will be held in June; with the above listed elements, Mari has now developed a full program for this upcoming session of the OEWG. -------------- --- MEETING WITH OPCW OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS AND FRENCH DELEGATION ON THE OEWG ON TERRORISM -------------- --- ¶33. (SBU) On May 28, Delrep met with Paturej and Mari to discuss plans for holding an OEWG on chemical safety and security. Paturej expressed serious concern that this would politicize the issue and jeopardize the work he has done this year to build support for using the OPCW as a discussion platform for issues related to chemical safety and security. He recommended keeping the two issues separate, and instead providing a U.S. expert to train participants in the National Authorities workshop at the end of the year. Paturej explained that this would allow the message to reach practitioners, as opposed to speaking to diplomats in the OEWG. As evidence of his success in building broad support for the issue, Paturej shared a copy of a letter from the Saudi delegation, donating 15,000 Euro for TS activities in the field of chemical safety and security. Later, Mari asked Delrep for U.S. views on the possibility of the Australian delegation taking over as chair of the OEWG. ¶34. (U) Robinson sends. GALLAGHER