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