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