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