CWC: WRAP UP FOR WEEK ENDING JUNE 12, 2009

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000352 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 WEEK ENDING JUNE 12, 2009 This is CWC-30-09. -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (U) Over the past two weeks, the two main topics of discussion at the OPCW have been the search for a new Director General (DG) and recent news of the current U.S. chemical weapons destruction schedule. On the DG search, the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) heard presentations by three additional candidates from Finland, Turkey and Indonesia; and met with the EC Chair to continue discussing modalities for the upcoming Executive Council session and beyond. ¶2. (SBU) On June 9, the Del briefed WEOG on the recently published report to Congress and the fact that the U.S. is currently scheduled to complete destruction at its last facility nine years after the treaty deadline. As with previous conversations with representatives on the Executive Council (EC) visit, the initial reaction continues to be an emphasis on the fact that this is the first time the U.S. has officially acknowledged its inability to meet the treaty deadline. WEOG colleagues have expressed a desire to be supportive, but also concern at the possible impact of the U.S. news on other efforts at the OPCW. Delegations are also seeking reassurance that the U.S. is making best efforts to rectify the situation. WEOG delegations in particular are interested in discussing how best to politically manage this issue. -------------- WEOG - JUNE 2 -------------- ¶3. (SBU) On June 2, the (WEOG) heard a presentation by Finnish candidate for Director General Ambassador Aapo Polho. Polho gave an overview of Finland's contributions to the OPCW, then highlighted portions of his background most relevant to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Polho continued on to enumerate in some detail the challenges he sees ahead for the OPCW, including: destruction of existing chemical weapons (CW) in States Parties; preventing new actors from acquiring chemical weapons; full implementation of the treaty's provisions in all States Parties; keeping the OPCW relevant and efficient in the face of emerging challenges; and responding realistically to developing countries' expectations for assistance. On CW destruction deadlines, Polho emphasized the importance of keeping this issue from overwhelming the Organization. He also stated that member states should not lose sight of the fact that stockpiles of States Parties are well known and under verification; potential stockpiles outside the Convention are not. ¶4. (SBU) In response to questions from delegations, Polho came across as very knowledgeable about the OPCW, with a clear sense of potential strategies to meet challenges that lie ahead for the Organization. He indicated his belief that continued adherence to a Zero Nominal Growth budget is possible, but also that voluntary contributions should not form a sizeable part of operations. On the issue of the deadlines, he acknowledged that missing 2012 will be politically difficult, and stated that it would be important for possessor states to continue to demonstrate commitment and provide detailed updates to keep from weakening the CWC. On industry inspections, Polho noted that the QCWC. On industry inspections, Polho noted that the ratio of OCPF inspections to the actual number of facilities is far too low. On the topic of universality, Polho spoke in detail about the countries that remain outside the Convention, and possible ways to move forward. ¶5. (SBU) Next, WEOG delegations discussed the recently circulated South African paper on modalities (lifted in large part from the procedures at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) associated with the appointment of the next Director General. Several delegations noted that it was rather late in the process to develop new rules now. Many emphasized the need to use the OPCW's Rules of Procedure as a starting point, as opposed to relying on other organizations with structures and procedures not necessarily analogous to the OPCW. U.S. Delrep noted that the South African proposal deliberately left open the possibility for the EC to forward multiple candidates to the CSP. This concern was shared by a number of delegations. Delegations also pointed out that the EC Chair has the latitude to use mechanisms like straw polls without having them laid out in new rules of procedure. ¶6. (SBU) The meeting ended with a brief review of the Industry Cluster meetings. Coordinator Ruth Surkau noted that the Secretariat's presentation on the OPCW Central Analytical Database (OCAD) seemed to have raised more questions than it answered. Low Concentrations facilitator Giuseppe Cornacchia said that the intentions of delegations in his consultation seem quite positive, and that slow progress is being made. -------------- WEOG - JUNE 9 -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The WEOG meeting on June 9 had a full agenda, including an update from the U.S. on its revised chemical weapons destruction timeline. Before the U.S. announcement, Turkish DG candidate Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu made a brief presentation and answered questions from WEOG delegations. ¶8. (SBU) In prepared remarks, Uzumcu highlighted Turkey's commitment to arms control and disarmament generally and to the OPCW specifically, citing the April universality workshop in Istanbul and the upcoming industry workshop also to be hosted by Turkey this fall. In outlining his vision for the OPCW, Uzumcu stated that increasing the pace of CW destruction efforts would be a priority. The OPCW must also display flexibility to handle emerging technologies, and the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) should play an instrumental role in this regard. Inspections of Other Chemical Production Facilities (OCPFs) need to be addressed to strike a balance between relevance and numbers. National declarations need improvement, as well as reporting by national authorities, in particular customs agencies. Although it is not a counterterrorism body, the OPCW also needs to address the issue of terrorism. Uzumcu added, in the context of promoting greater universality, that the three counterproliferation treaties (Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT),CWC and Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BWC)) are all being held hostage to each other in the Middle East. He ended his remarks by emphasizing the importance of consensus in multilateral security fora. ¶9. (SBU) In response to questions from delegations, Q9. (SBU) In response to questions from delegations, Uzumcu stated his support for continued zero nominal growth (ZNG) budgets but was undecided on the merits of the current OPCW tenure policy. On Iraq, he believes that the DG can play an active and leading role in ensuring destruction moves forward and in seeking international assistance. Regarding the 2012 destruction deadline, he would encourage all possessor states to meet this deadline and suggested that a special Conference of the States Parties (CSP) could be convened to address this if the deadline is not met. Establishing a new deadline would be difficult as the CWC does not allow any flexibility in this regard. Until 2012, Uzumcu also conceded that the balance toward more OCPF inspections over CW destruction likely will not change, although more resources will have to be devoted to OCPFs as a priority in the future. ¶10. (SBU) Following Uzumcu's presentation, WEOG coordinator Ruth Surku (Germany) then moved onto the Executive Council's (EC) recent visit to U.S. destruction facilities at Pueblo and Umatilla. Before Dutch Ambassador and WEOG Vice Chair Pieter de Savornin Lohman reported on the visit, Delrep addressed the group to share details of recently published destruction time lines, including the projected end dates of 2017 for Pueblo and 2021 for Blue Grass. Delrep also announced that a senior delegation from Washington would be visiting The Hague the week of June 22 and offered a WEOG Plus meeting on June 24. ¶11. (SBU) Lohman then took the floor to report on the EC visit to the United States, conceding that the U.S. Delegation had already provided the biggest news of the visit. He shared how the visit participants, at least while in the United States, expressed an interest in approaching the deadline issue constructively. Members of the visiting delegation agreed that the clear signs of U.S. commitment to destruction, including spending approximately $36 billion before the process is over, must be taken into account. Moreover, they agreed that this issue should not be considered U.S.-specific but rather viewed in a broader context, as the U.S. was not the only possessor state needing to complete its destruction. Several others could or will miss the final deadline in ¶2012. Finally, Lohman said that participants understood from the visit that safety and environmental concerns remained a priority for the United States. ¶12. (SBU) In response to a UK question on perceived reactions to the U.S. announcement, Amb. Lohman said that U.S. projections of completing 90% destruction by 2012 should be recognized by the EC, and that missing the 2012 deadline is partially attributable to Congressional legislation. Moreover, Amb. Lohman reminded WEOG that there are still three years until the deadline, and a lot can happen in the meantime. The Italian delegate stated that the U.S. news was significant in that it marks the first time this is out in the open and admittedly changes the entire situation at the OPCW because it could call into question the credibility of the Convention. Amb Lohman responded that the EC representatives had asked during the visit if increased funding could help speed up destruction but were told that funding levels are irrelevant at this point due to technical and legal restrictions. He added that WEOG should ask the visiting U.S. QHe added that WEOG should ask the visiting U.S. delegation during the special WEOG plus meeting in late June whether any U.S. CW could be moved from Blue Grass to Pueblo to save time. ¶13. (SBU) Moving on to the latest EC Bureau meeting held, Amb. Lohman took the floor again as the WEOG Vice-Chair. He stated that the upcoming EC agenda looks similar to EC-55, with Wednesday's session being devoted to the DG candidates' presentations. There is currently enough room for eight candidates to present, should one more come forward in addition to the current list of seven, but any more and the EC may have to be prepared to work evenings to accommodate the full agenda. Additionally, the agenda for CSP-14 was presented, also similar to last year's. Amb. Lohman confirmed that the portfolios for the regional Vice-Chairs were formally agreed upon by everyone, with Iran assuming leadership of Administrative and Financial issues. China was formally announced as facilitating for Article XI, and the Costa Rican Ambassador and Swiss delegate have agreed to co- facilitate budget negotiations. Finally, Amb Lohman provided the tentative dates for upcoming OPCW meetings, asking delegations to get back to him with any conflicts: - EC-59: February 16-19 - EC-60: April 20-23 - EC-61: June 29-July 2 - EC-62: October 12-15 - CSP-15: November 29-December 3 ¶14. (SBU) Following WEOG, the Italian and French delegates approached U.S. Delreps about the destruction time line. The Italian asked for clear points that the U.S. wants WEOG delegations to emphasize in helping to manage the political fallout from this news. The French asked why CW could not be moved from one destruction facility to another to save time, and also regretted that this news had to surface before the DG election because of its possible impact on the selection. -------------- WEOG - JUNE 10 -------------- ¶15. (SBU) On June 10, WEOG held a special meeting with EC Chairman Amb. Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico) to discuss the appointment of the next DG. Lomonaco raised the South African non-paper proposing rules and procedures for selecting the next DG, describing it as the only formal proposal in circulation. He said he had promised the South African delegation to give the paper a fair hearing and asked for WEOG reactions. WEOG delegations unanimously spoke against considering the South African paper formally in the EC and raised concerns and objections to the timing and substance of the non-paper. A number of delegations noted it was strange to discuss rules after the process has already started; others, referring to the non- paper's replication of rules from the IAEA, noted the differences between the IAEA and the OPCW. Delegations also stressed that the EC should recommend only one candidate to the CSP, rejecting the South African suggestion that two names might be sent forward. ¶16. (SBU) Amongst the general objections to letting the South African non-paper go further, delegations suggested that Lomonaco could use some of the tools proposed (e.g., straw polls or elimination voting). Lomonaco did not have feedback from other groups but plans to meet with them in the following days. However, he noted that he was unsure whether the South African non-paper would find unanimous support within the African Group. Lomonaco also noted that a number of GRULAC (Group of Latin America and Caribbean) delegations had extremely negative reactions to the non-paper. Lomonaco stated that in the absence of any meaningful, cross-group support, he does not see any reason to Qcross-group support, he does not see any reason to take the non-paper to the EC for more formal discussion. ¶17. (SBU) Turning to his note on DG candidates' presentations at the EC session in July (EC-57), Lomonaco said that most delegations saw the usefulness in having time for questions and answers following each presentation. However, he said that he had left the specifics around questions and answers ambiguous because he is still considering what structure to impose. Lomonaco said that he plans to issue an informal paper with more details immediately before EC-57. -------------- FRENCH DEMARCHE ON U.S. DESTRUCTION -------------- ¶18. (SBU) On June 10, French delegate Annie Mari shared with Delrep the demarche that was delivered earlier in Washington. Mari stressed that while France has no doubts about the commitment of the U.S. to complete destruction, U.S. delays do have serious implications for the OPCW and non- proliferation in general. France is particularly concerned that Iran and others will use the recent U.S. announcement for political gain, to the possible detriment of WEOG DG candidates. France is also concerned that this development will undermine attempts to focus on non-proliferation aspects of the Convention, as Iran and others are likely to insist on focusing primarily on disarmament as long as the U.S. and others have chemical weapons left to destroy. Mari noted that France does not believe Russia will be able to meet the 2012 deadline, and that an extension of deadlines will be necessary. ¶19. (SBU) Mari asked how the U.S. plans to legally address the fact that it will be out of compliance with the Convention, and what the U.S. is doing to address its internal legal constraints, such as the transportation of chemical weapons across state lines. In closing, she noted that the continued lack of a U.S. Ambassador will send a particularly negative signal at a time when States Parties will be looking for clear signs of U.S. commitment to the CWC. -------------- WEOG - JUNE 12 -------------- ¶20. (SBU) On June 12, WEOG held an additional meeting for the introduction of Indonesia's candidate for Director General. Amb. Saudjadnan Parnohadiningrat spoke at length about Indonesia's efforts in the areas of non-proliferation and disarmament, as well as its under-representation in UN organizations, and complete lack of representation at the OPCW. He then laid out the areas Indonesia views as most important for the OPCW: progress in Universality; full implementation of all CWC provisions; strengthening confidence building (particularly through verification/on-site inspections); and the promotion of international cooperation and assistance. Parnohadiningrat stated that these principles would guide him if he were to be appointed Director General. ¶21. (SBU) As opposed to directly reviewing the aspects of his CV that qualified him for the position, Parnohadiningrat outlined several competencies and attributes that the Director General should have. On managerial principles, he noted that the DG should be able to manage operations, and stated that while he himself did not have a management background, he was the Secretary General of Foreign Affairs for Indonesia. QSecretary General of Foreign Affairs for Indonesia. During this time, he was responsible for the oversight of over one thousand people. ¶22. (SBU) Parnohadiningrat then stated that the DG should have in-depth knowledge of the principles, objectives, and Articles of the Convention; and should understand the specific obligations of States Parties. Here, he highlighted his experience as a facilitator for Old and Abandoned Chemical Weapons issues during CWC negotiations from 1989-1982. He also highlighted his broader disarmament experience, including having chaired the NPT Prepcom. ¶23. (SBU) Parnohadiningrat emphasized that member states are sovereign countries, and that the DG must know how to listen to and understand individual and collective interests of States Parties. He stated that the DG should also be prepared to provide potential solutions to complex issues, for consideration by member states. He also noted the importance of understanding efficiency, and the fact that a good DG must be a good steward of resources. The DG should clearly understand the Organization's priorities, and facilitate a step-by-step process to realize these goals. ¶24. (SBU) In the question and answer period that followed, the Dutch delegation asked whether the OPCW was living up to the expectations of the drafters/negotiators of the Convention. In answering, Parnohadiningrat contrasted the CWC with the NPT and noted the significant progress made in the CWC in universality and implementation. He acknowledged that there will be chemical weapons remaining after the 2012 deadline, but also that a tremendous amount has been accomplished in just over ten years. ¶25. (SBU) On treaty implementation, Parnohadiningrat stated that the CWC is one of the best international legal instruments in terms of its ability to systematically address a range of issues and its comprehensive on-site inspection regime. He pointed to the fact that States Parties are able to deal with breaches of the Convention through national law, and that the "tools for compliance are there." He also noted that the collective political will and effort of States Parties is necessary to put pressure on those who violate the Convention. ¶26. (SBU) On the likelihood of one or more States Parties missing the 2012 final destruction deadline, Parnohadiningrat said that a balance must be struck between the obligations of the treaty and the sovereignty of States Parties; and between full adherence and pragmatism. He offered the Secretariat as a resource to facilitate consultations among interested States Parties, and to make recommendations for consideration by member states. ¶27. (SBU) On industry inspections, Parnohadiningrat stated clearly that it is up to the DG to offer an annual program of inspections to States Parties based on the Secretariat's expert assessment of the potential risk of declared facility. In making such recommendations, the DG must bear in mind the resources available. This same consideration holds true for international cooperation, in which the DG should be able to balance the availability and willingness of developed countries with the interests of developing countries. In response to an Australian question about his views on Qan Australian question about his views on terrorism, Parnohadiningrat replied that the OPCW must be prepared to offer immediate technical assistance, but also focus on capacity building to help member states protect themselves. In closing, Parnohadiningrat told WEOG delegations that one important role he would like to play as DG would be as a bridge and consensus builder among States Parties as they strive to implement the provisions of the Convention. -------------- -------------- FEEDBACK FROM EC VISIT AND PREPARATIONS FOR FOLLOW- UP MEETINGS -------------- -------------- ¶28. (SBU) In the days following the return of the EC delegation from the visit to U.S. destruction facilities at Pueblo and Umatilla, Del has heard very positive feedback from members of the delegation. EC Chair Lomonaco, Dutch Amb. de Savornin Lohman, and South African representative van Schalkwyk have all commented on the professionalism, organization, and transparency demonstrated by the U.S. throughout the visit. All have assured the Del that their goal is a balanced report that pays tribute to U.S. efforts. In a private conversation on June 12, Amb. Lomonaco stated his intent to avoid, to the extent possible, any attempts to question or re-draft the report. He also shared his view that the substantive discussion of deadlines should be postponed until next year, although some measure of political rhetoric this year will be unavoidable. ¶29. (SBU) Del also continues preparations for the visit of senior U.S. officials June 22-26. Del has now scheduled a series of bilateral and multilateral meetings and lunches to provide an opportunity for U.S. officials to discuss the current U.S. chemical weapons destruction schedule with key delegations. ¶30. (U) ROBINSON SENDS GALLAGHER