CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 57TH

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000402 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: SCENE-SETTER FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 57TH SESSION, JULY 14-17, 2009 REF: A. THE HAGUE 362 ¶B. THE HAGUE 371 ¶C. THE HAGUE 352 ¶D. THE HAGUE 288 This is CWC-35-09. ¶1. (U) This is an action request, see para 19. -------------- SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION -------------- ¶2. (SBU) As for the previous two Executive Councils (EC),the selection of the next Director-General (DG) for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will likely dominate EC-57, with the presentation of all of the candidates to the Council scheduled on July 15. At the informal meeting on the EC-57 agenda on July 3, Non-aligned Movement (NAM) countries lined up in support of a joint statement calling for open meetings on the procedures for the DG selection process. Western nations, the European Union (EU) in particular, generally opposed an open-ended process but supported ongoing consultations by the EC Chairman, Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico). This polarization recalled the dynamics of the April 2008 Second Review Conference that had been largely absent since. ¶3. (SBU) The draft program and budget for 2010 will be introduced on July 10 ahead of the Council meeting. Although it has not been discussed in the past at the first EC session after its introduction, early budget questions or positions might be introduced at this session. The EC-57 agenda is extensive with quite a number of routine reports to consider. An innovation by the new Chairman is annotation of exactly how many times items have been previously deferred. Some of the items that may be controversial are detailed below. ¶4. (SBU) For the United States, the July 13 informal meeting on destruction will probably see questions raised on the schedule for completion of destruction after 2012, and legal and procedural questions on the U.S. and UK destruction of CW in Iraq prior to its accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The formal EC-57 agenda items most likely to spark discussion are the Report on the visit of EC representatives to the Pueblo and Umatilla chemical weapons destruction facilities in June. Questions on CW recoveries in Iraq could also be raised in conjunction with the U.S. 90-day destruction report or under Any Other Business. Specific guidance on this issue is requested below (see para 19). -------------- NAM BACK IN ACTION -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The July 3 agenda consultation provided an unwelcome return of NAM activism on a key issue, the search for the next Director-General. In what is normally a procedural meeting with few interventions, the Cuban Ambassador presented a prepared statement on behalf of the NAM States Parties and China. The Ambassador stated that it is time for States Parties to hear each others' views in an "open and frank" discussion and called for a consultation for this purpose. He specifically noted that more information on the procedures for the candidates' presentations to the EC, particularly the questions and answers, is needed. Chairman Lomonaco replied that he is still working on the methodology and will present it to member states in due course. The Swedish delegate responded on behalf of the EU, fully supporting the Chairman's mandate to conduct consultations and an open and transparent process. ¶6. (SBU) The South African Ambassador expressed full support for Cuba's statement and then called for an open-ended working group with broad participation. NAM delegations followed in greater than usual numbers, with many ambassadors present to support the Cuban statement (India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran, Sri Lanka, Sudan, China, Lebanon as an observer). ¶7. (SBU) Western countries had few ambassadors present but countered with statements of support for the Chairman's efforts and the transparency of the process to date, with the Australian delegate noting that there were other national papers on the DG selection (referring to Australia's),not just the South African paper. Delegates from France, Italy, the Netherlands and Ireland supported the EU and each other's positions. The WEOG members with national candidates did not participate in the debate. U.S. Delrep stated support for an open discussion of specific issues under the Chair's leadership at an appropriate time but not an open- ended working group. Japan echoed western support for the Chairman. ¶8. (SBU) Latin American (GRULAC) delegates tried to take a middle course, some expressing support for the Cuban statement (as NAM members) but also support for the Chairman (Peru, Colombia). The Brazilian Ambassador agreed with the need for an exchange of views on procedures but said that it should wait until after EC-57 to codify the process after the candidates' presentations, not compete for scarce time in the next two weeks. The Tunisian Ambassador expressed support for the Chairman but noted that guidelines might help him in his efforts. The Russian delegate stated that it was clear from this discussion that an exchange of views was necessary and that all should work toward consensus and avoid "complications." ¶9. (SBU) The Cuban Ambassador spoke to clarify that in the agreed NAM text there was nothing but praise for the Chairman and that the open discussion was intended to assist the Chairman; he also noted that the NAM joint statement did not prevent individual member states from expressing their views. Chairman Lomonaco attempted to close the debate after it had gone on for over an hour, noting that he had consulted 78 States Parties, individually and in groups, many more than once. He noted the openness of the morning's discussion that included substance as well as procedure, and broad agreement that consultations should take place -- the question was timing. He asked delegations with strong views to consult with one another on when such an open meeting would best take place, and that he was willing to accommodate the majority view. The South African Ambassador took the floor to contradict the Chair on his summation of the meeting. ¶10. (SBU) DEL COMMENT: This discussion echoed the NAM tactics and North-South polarization that characterized the open-ended working group before Qcharacterized the open-ended working group before the Second Review Conference. The NAM is not as unified as their joint statement would appear, with GRULAC holding different views from many of the others, but there are clear efforts to resurrect the NAM as a strong bloc, not a welcome development for the DG process or other important issues. END COMMENT. -------------- NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK -------------- ¶11. (SBU) The Iranian delegation has been quiet and polite, still awaiting a new Ambassador and a new Deputy for the OPCW. Del expects they are receiving few if any instructions from Tehran, in light of the recent turmoil over the election. The Iranians may well defer any potentially controversial documents for lack of instructions, including the EC visit report to the U.S. destruction facilities. The Iranians have not signaled views on the DG process beyond their position in February that late candidates should be considered. ¶12. (SBU) Newly-arrived South African Ambassador Peter Goosen has entered the fray with an unwelcome flourish. In his first informal Council meeting (July 3),he managed to lock horns with both the Cuban Ambassador over the NAM position, and with the Chairman over procedure. He gratuitously insulted the Irish delegate, referring to his "too early, too late" description of the South African paper as "eloquent but wrong." The Irish delegate did not use his "too early, too late" comment in these informals but had expressed that view at an earlier WEOG meeting (Goosen did not say how he had knowledge of the WEOG discussion). Goosen informed the Chairman several times that the normal procedures he was following for OPCW meetings did not meet the standards at "other" international organizations, such as the IAEA in Vienna. He also privately has offended other delegations with his arrogance and dismissive responses to their views. Goosen will likely replace the Iranian delegation for this EC as the leading antagonist on a number of issues. -------------- SEARCH FOR THE NEXT DIRECTOR-GENERAL -------------- ¶13. (SBU) Despite the NAM battle-lines drawn, the discussion at the EC-57 agenda meeting did not provide any specifics on what NAM states would like to see in the procedures for winnowing down the number of candidates to a consensus choice. The NAM statement did not endorse the South African paper, although Goosen presented it on behalf of the African Group. The procedural issues will undoubtedly arise in some fashion, through continuing pressure for a consultation (even during the packed week of the EC) or through report language, as happened in the previous two EC sessions on this topic. ¶14. (SBU) The candidates' presentations will take all day on July 15 with standing-room-only interest among delegations and likely greater numbers of observer states than usual. Control of time and the question period are the challenges the Chairman has kept as his responsibility. All of the candidates have been making the rounds of the regional groups. WEOG has met with all seven, and delegates from other groups have said they also have had meetings with all or nearly all the candidates. Lunches, dinners and receptions have been ongoing, but the Del has not received any invitations to that type of event for any of the candidates during the week of the EC. Concentration Qcandidates during the week of the EC. Concentration seems to be on the formal presentations to the Council. -------------- EC VISIT REPORT -------------- ¶15. (SBU) The Chairman and EC representatives on the visit kept tight control of the draft report and were instructed not to share it before they all agreed to the text. South African delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk served as secretary for the group, correcting the English and editing the final draft. The TS and group members do not foresee any changes or editing to the final report. Other delegations who met with Dr. Mikulak and Dr. Hopkins during their visit in June (ref A) seem pleased with the advance information; some may ask questions in the Council but Del expects more of the questions about the schedule dates will be private than public. ¶16. (SBU) At the agenda informal July 3, the Iranian delegate inquired when the visit report would be available. The Iranians may defer the report for its late distribution or due to lack of instructions from Tehran. -------------- RECOVERED CW IN IRAQ -------------- ¶17. (SBU) It has become increasingly clear over the past several weeks that several "interested delegations" have every intention of returning to the issue of U.S. and UK recovered chemical weapons in Iraq. While the Russian delegation has simply laid a marker that it will mention its intent to raise the subject in the future, the South African delegation has been far more active (ref B). Ambassador Goosen spoke at length about the issue during a meeting with Robert Mikulak and Tom Hopkins on June 25 (ref A),and his delegate made clear last week that South Africa will raise the issue at EC-57. Goosen also has raised this issue with the Swedish Ambassador (Sweden took over the rotating EU Presidency on July 1). South African delegate van Schalkwyk shared his delegation's plans to raise the issue not only during the destruction informals (where it was first briefed) but also during the formal Council session, although South Africa is apparently searching for the appropriate place in the agenda to do so. ¶18. (SBU) Del has also spoken with OPCW Legal Adviser Santiago Onate on the matter. As reported after EC-56, Onate still maintains that delegations wishing to raise the issue would need to have the political will to do so under Article IX if they are actually interested in pursuing it in the legal framework of the Convention. At this more recent meeting, Onate also made a point of telling Delreps that this is a situation not envisioned by the Convention, and that the Secretariat can therefore offer only limited advice. In his view, it is for this reason that it is more appropriate for delegations to seek clarification bilaterally from the U.S. or UK, as opposed to asking the Secretariat for its position on the legality or compliance of actions taken. ¶19. (SBU) REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE: Given the nature of discussions with the Legal Adviser and other delegations, Del requests guidance on the following points: a.) Whether the U.S. would be willing to discuss "rules of the game" for future recoveries with South Africa on the margins of EC-57; b.) Whether the U.S. took possession of chemical weapons in Iraq; c.) Whether the U.S. had jurisdiction or control of the territory on which the weapons were recovered. -------------- CONVERSION OF CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES -------------- ¶20. (SBU) At the July 3 agenda meeting, South African Ambassador Goosen inquired as to the process for discussion of the TS note on general guidelines for continued verification measures of converted CW production facilities ten years after conversion. The Chairman proposed that interested parties consult, but Goosen insisted on a process being outlined. Ambassador de Savornin Lohman (Netherlands),as Vice-Chair for CW issues, offered to informally chair a discussion; time and place have yet to be determined. The UK delegate requested withdrawal of both the guidelines and the decision on the Portreath converted facility, in light of new information that will be forthcoming in a letter from the UK that would require revisions to the Portreath document and should affect the proposed guidelines. -------------- ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL REPORTS -------------- ¶21. (SBU) While the DG will formally present his draft 2010 budget and program of work before the EC, there is usually little or no discussion on the document during the Council session. However, some delegations, notably South Africa, might choose to score points by criticizing the budget or by holding up other financial and administrative reports. According to the Swedish Ambassador's report of his meeting with the South African delegation, Goosen particularly is displeased with the DG's report on tenure implementation and plans to take issue with it during the Council session. South Africa previously had asked for detailed staffing information to see the geographic distribution of TS jobs and could well insist on greater information from the DG. ¶22. (U) BEIK SENDS. GALLAGHER