Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09THEHAGUE410
2009-07-08 15:45:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CWC: MEETINGS OF SENIOR U.S. EXPERTS IN THE HAGUE

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO9386
OO RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHTC #0410/01 1891545
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 081545Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3002
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 1871
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 1480
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 1794
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 4739
RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE PRIORITY 1139
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITY 0507
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 0318
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1826
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 1888
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 2072
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA PRIORITY 0404
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 11 THE HAGUE 000410 

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: 05/22/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: MEETINGS OF SENIOR U.S. EXPERTS IN THE HAGUE
ON U.S. CW DESTRUCTION

REF: A. STATE 64170

B. STATE 51992

C. THE HAGUE 368

D. THE HAGUE 352

Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)

This is CWC-36-09.

-------
SUMMARY
-------

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 11 THE HAGUE 000410

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: 05/22/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: MEETINGS OF SENIOR U.S. EXPERTS IN THE HAGUE
ON U.S. CW DESTRUCTION

REF: A. STATE 64170

B. STATE 51992

C. THE HAGUE 368

D. THE HAGUE 352

Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)

This is CWC-36-09.

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (SBU) During their June 23-25 visit to The
Hague, Robert Mikulak (ISN/CB Director and U.S.
Representative to the OPCW's Executive Council
(EC)) and Tom Hopkins (Principal Deputy Assistant
to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical
and Biological Defense Programs) briefed
representatives of the Technical Secretariat (TS)
and a broad spectrum of other delegations on the
U.S. program for destroying its chemical weapons
(CW) stockpile (refs A-C),including projected
operating schedules that go beyond the 2012 treaty
deadline. Ref C gave an overview of the meetings
held and highlights of reactions to the message
conveyed during the visit. This cable provides
more detailed reporting on each meeting. END
SUMMARY.

--------------
MEETING WITH OPCW DIRECTOR-GENERAL
--------------


2. (SBU) On June 23, U.S. Representative to the
Executive Council Robert Mikulak, Principal Deputy
to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,
Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs Tom
Hopkins and Delreps met with OPCW Director-General
(DG) Rogelio Pfirter to discuss initial feedback
from the recent Executive Council (EC) visit to the
U.S. and political management of the current U.S.
chemical weapons destruction schedule. Mikulak
opened by explaining the purpose of this visit of
senior U.S. officials to The Hague in advance of
the EC visit report being distributed, and listed
several of the key delegations with whom the U.S.
would meet later in the week.


3. (C) Pfirter commended the U.S. for proactive
diplomatic management of the destruction deadlines
issue, and advised the U.S. to speak with the
delegations that had participated in the EC visit
as soon as possible. He noted that the current
draft report seemed balanced, and had even been

skewed a bit too favorably toward the U.S. to allow
room for negotiation amongst the visit
participants. Pfirter then provided a bootleg copy
of the draft report, and pointed out several key
paragraphs, including one he had recommended, which
clearly referred to safety as a requirement of the
Convention.


4. (C) Pfirter went on to say that the U.S. plan to
reach out to delegations was consistent with his

THE HAGUE 00000410 002 OF 011


own strategy to stay in close touch with
ambassadors and maintain an accurate sense of key
views on the issue. He emphasized the importance
of the U.S. appointing an ambassador to the OPCW as
soon as possible, noting that the combination of
2012, no U.S. Ambassador, and late payment of
assessed contributions could seriously undermine
U.S. credibility at the OPCW. He also acknowledged
that an inability to meet its final destruction
deadline could have broader implications for the
moral authority of the U.S. on other non-
proliferation issues. For the Secretariat,s part,
Pfirter said that he has instructed TS officials to
respond to inquiries about 2012 by stating that
they will not be able to fully assess the issue
until the deadline of April 29, 2012, has actually
been reached.


5. (C) Pfirter also shared his personal opinion
that it will be critical to create and maintain a
context where the 2012 deadline is important, but
not perceived as the ultimate goal of the
Convention. He noted that it seems a bit
paradoxical that States Parties that have been
members of the CWC from the beginning will in some
respects be judged more harshly than those that
come in later, for which deadlines can be
established by the Executive Council. He added
that Libya is not making good progress, and that
Iraq will of course be a separate case ) just two
examples of the broader destruction context that
exists. In any case, he stressed that U.S.
commitment is clear, a fact that should be
emphasized in any discussion. Pfirter noted that
he had sensed a strong commitment to the OPCW and
the CWC in conversations with Ellen Tauscher,
Under-Secretary-of-State-designate, and with Gary
Samore at the National Security Council, and had
suggested that Tauscher visit The Hague at the
earliest possible opportunity.

--------------
MEETING WITH EC CHAIRMAN AMBASSADOR LOMONACO
--------------


6. (C) Following the meeting with the DG, Mikulak,
Hopkins and Delreps called on the new Chairman of
the Executive Council, Mexican Ambassador Jorge
Lomonaco. Mexican delegate Blanca Hernandez Polo
also sat in. Lomonaco advised that the visiting
EC delegation was actively engaged in editing the
report and thought it would be ready in a week or
ten days. He thanked the U.S. experts for coming
and briefing delegations as the EC group did not
want to become the messenger for the news of U.S.
delays beyond the 2012 deadline. For that reason,
the group had kept the draft report in close hold.
Qthe group had kept the draft report in close hold.
He described the EC group's approach to the draft
as "practical" with "constructive criticism" in the
group's conclusions.


7. (C) Lomonaco said that the U.S. "time to come
clean" on the destruction dates was well chosen,
but that it is not yet time for discussion of
missing the deadline. He expected strong rhetoric

THE HAGUE 00000410 003 OF 011


on the deadline issue but not action, except
perhaps procedural, on the part of delegations at
this next Council. He noted that Brazil had called
for discussion of deadlines twice in its national
statement but that the ambassador had not discussed
details or timing of such a discussion. He did not
foresee extensive discussion of the EC
representatives' report and said the group would
strongly oppose any effort to revise the text of
the report.

--------------
QUAD LUNCH
--------------


8. (SBU) Also, on June 23, Mikulak and Hopkins
hosted a lunch for the French, German and UK
delegations. In addition to Delreps, the lunch was
attended by UK Ambassador Lyn Parker, UK delegate
Karen Wolstenholme, German delegate Ruth Surkau,
French delegate Annie Mari and French National
Authority rep Franc Tecourt. Mikulak and Hopkins
outlined the purpose and general schedule of their
visit to The Hague and invited questions and
initial thoughts on political management of the
U.S. destruction deadlines issue.


9. (SBU) The conversation was collegial and
constructive, with UK and German reps emphasizing
later that their more probing questions were
presented to assist the U.S. in preparing for
interactions with less friendly delegations.
Surkau in particular focused on immediate handling
of the issue in the coming weeks and at EC-57. She
also suggested looking at the broader context, as
well as stressing accomplishments to date and not
dwelling on 2012. Mari reiterated several
questions from the French demarche made in
Washington and The Hague several weeks ago (ref D),
including how the U.S. intends to deal with the
legal aspects of missing the deadline, whether an
extension will be considered and the possibility of
lifting the transportation ban.


10. (SBU) Of all participants, Parker offered the
most long-term and strategic thoughts on how the
issue might be perceived and managed closer to

2012. On the legal options, Parker described an
amendment to the Convention as "unachievable" and
also was hesitant to recommend a technical change
to the Annex with the deadlines. Parker suggested
that calling a special conference to deal with the
deadline issue would be premature before 2012 and
noted that timing of the conference will be key.
He also stressed the need to consider carefully
what the desired result of such a conference would
be before calling it. Parker noted that the
dynamic will depend on whether the U.S. is the only
focus or if it is broadened to include Russia. In
the end, Parker said that selling a further nine
Qthe end, Parker said that selling a further nine
years after 2012 will be difficult and that the way
forward might include two parts: first, agreeing
to increased, serious scrutiny of post-2012
destruction efforts, and second, overwhelming
reaffirmation of commitment to the Convention.

THE HAGUE 00000410 004 OF 011



--------------
WEOG PLUS MEETING
--------------


11. (SBU) On June 24, Hopkins and Mikulak briefed
delegations from WEOG, the non-WEOG EU, Japan and
Korea on the U.S. schedule, program history and
current efforts. The reaction was relatively mild,
although Dutch Ambassador Pieter de Savornin Lohman
reminded the U.S. of the need to strike a balance
between its international obligations and local
considerations; he also noted the broader deadline
issue with other states likely not to meet their
deadlines, and the impact on non-member states that
may possess CW. For the most part, delegations
seemed most interested in the legal and technical
aspects of the delayed timeline and what they could
do to help the U.S. manage the issue politically.
Several delegates (France, Netherlands and the UK)
had questions about U.S. legislation that prevented
the transport of CW across state lines and asked if
these laws could be changed and what impact
transport of CW would have on the new timeline
projections. The Czech delegate suggested the U.S.
increase confidence building measures post-2012.
The Irish delegate stated that it would be
preferable to discuss this issue without specific
reference to a breach of the CWC, at least not
until 2012. The Italian delegate also warned that
the U.S. should be prepared to deal with this
matter at the next EC, while also preparing for
longer-term implications.

--------------
INDIA
--------------


12. (C) Mikulak, Hopkins and Delrep met with newly
arrived Indian Ambassador Manbir Singh on June 24,
congratulating him on India's successful completion
of its chemical weapons destruction. Singh stated
that India had gone to great lengths to set up its
National Authority under the Cabinet Secretary. He
appreciated the opportunity for India's expert from
Delhi to participate in the EC visit to the U.S.
and expressed his thanks for this visit by U.S.
senior officials in advance of the Council meeting
and their efforts to meet with delegations. After
Mikulak and Hopkins briefed him on the new
projected schedules and reasons for delays in the
program, Singh asked about the political
complications in the U.S., how these could
supersede treaty obligations. He stated that the
announcement of the U.S. delays presents a
difficult situation; the OPCW has been functioning
well in a non-discriminatory matter, but a country
not meeting international obligations that it had
signed is not a good precedent. He asked what the
U.S. plans to do about this and noted that his
QU.S. plans to do about this and noted that his
government felt a "bit of pressure" might help the
U.S. government deal with its local and
environmental concerns. He said India would be
constructive but that it would be helpful if the
U.S. could accelerate the process. Mikulak

THE HAGUE 00000410 005 OF 011


responded that the Obama administration had
increased funding already. Hopkins added that
Congress had already requested the Department of
Defense to find ways to accelerate the program; he
noted the importance of the deadline in enabling us
to reach where we are today.


13. (C) Singh, who had served in the Soviet Union
as it disbanded, inquired about Russian progress on
destruction. Mikulak replied that Russia had a
late start but was working very hard to complete
destruction with assistance from other countries.
Singh also noted Chinese complaints about abandoned
Japanese weapons. Mikulak noted Japan's delay in
starting operations but also the technical
difficulty in finding the buried CW, and the
deterioration of those weapons.


14. (C) Singh inquired how India could help.
Mikulak replied that we would appreciate ideas as
the discussions continue, continuing the important
OPCW tradition of consensus in solving problems
that arise in the Convention.

--------------
CHINA
--------------


15. (SBU) On June 24, Hopkins, Mikulak and Delreps
met with Chinese Deputy Head of Delegation Chen Kai
and Chinese delegate Li Dong. In response to the
information U.S. Reps provided, Chen Kai expressed
appreciation for the transparency, and said that he
personally had no doubt about the U.S. commitment
to complete destruction of its chemical weapons.
He noted that Beijing would need time to digest the
news, and that he fully expected China would have
specific questions and concerns. As an initial
reaction, he asked how the U.S. believed the delay
would be characterized; i.e. would it still be
considered a breach of the Convention in 2012,
despite demonstrated U.S. commitment? Chen Kai
also wanted to know what measures the U.S. planned
to take to redress the situation, both in the
period leading up to 2012 and from 2012 until the
end of the U.S. destruction program. He also
reminded the U.S. that China has unique concerns
because of Japanese Abandoned Chemical Weapons
(ACW) on its territory, and expressed concern that
the U.S. delay would impact Japan's efforts to
destroy the ACW.


16. (C) Mikulak assured Chen Kai that the U.S.
shares concerns about the impact of U.S. delays on
other States Parties with destruction obligations.
In response to a question about whether/when the
U.S. would formally notify the Executive Council,
Mikulak reminded the Chinese delegation that the
U.S. dates are projections, and that the U.S. is
working very hard to improve the pace of
destruction. Chen Kai clarified that his concern
Qdestruction. Chen Kai clarified that his concern
about a formal notification stemmed from his belief
that the issue should be addressed before 2012, as
opposed to waiting for the deadline to pass.
Mikulak noted that the Council might consider

THE HAGUE 00000410 006 OF 011


informal discussions in the period before 2012.
Chen Kai responded that a forum for discussions may
be valuable in venting some of the political
rhetoric that will accompany any discussion of the
U.S. (or other) destruction deadlines. In closing,
Chen Kai recommended scheduling a bilateral meeting
on the margins of EC-57.

--------------
RUSSIA
--------------


17. (C) On June 24, Hopkins, Mikulak and Delreps
met with Russian Ambassador Kirill Gevorgian and
Russian delegate Konstantin Gavrilov. Following
the information U.S. Reps provided, Gavrilov, who
participated in the EC visit to Pueblo and
Umatilla, explained that there had been some
confusion on the date of completion of the U.S.
program. During the visit, he had understood that
both Pueblo and Blue Grass would complete
operations in 2017, in accordance with the
Congressionally-mandated deadline. Given this
internal deadline, Gavrilov noted that the news of
the current projection of completion in 2021 was
particularly problematic, and asked whether the
U.S. would require an extension of this domestic
deadline.


18. (C) Gevorgian acknowledged the tremendous
efforts the U.S. has made in destroying its
chemical weapons, but noted that the political and
legal aspects of missing the 2012 deadline by so
many years were not positive. He pointed out that
Blue Grass, despite holding a stockpile of only 475
metric tons, had symbolic significance because of
its very late completion date. He expressed
particular concern that the U.S. inability to
complete destruction by 2012 would adversely affect
the efforts of Russian officials to convince the
Russian government to maintain CW destruction by
2012 as a top financial priority. Hopkins agreed
that it was critical to sustain a sense of urgency
about CW destruction, and noted that the treaty
deadline itself has already facilitated far more
progress world wide than might otherwise have been
achieved.


19. (C) In closing, Gevorgian stressed the
importance of preserving the reputation of the CWC,
and of maintaining an awareness of possible
implications of U.S. delays for the broader
disarmament dialogue.

-------------- --------------
LUNCH WITH EC OFFICIALS AND REGIONAL COORDINATORS
-------------- --------------


20. (SBU) On June 25, Mikulak and Hopkins hosted a
lunch for regional group coordinators and EC
leaders, including former EC Chairperson, Amb.
Oksana Tomova (Slovakia),former African Vice-
Chair, Amb. Benchaa Dani (Algeria),current African
QChair, Amb. Benchaa Dani (Algeria),current African
Vice-Chair, Amb. Abuelgasim Idris (Sudan),current
WEOG Vice-Chair, Amb. Pieter de Savornin Lohman

THE HAGUE 00000410 007 OF 011


(Netherlands),Eastern European Group coordinator,
Reen Liivat (Estonia),and Asian Group coordinator,
Kehkeshan Azhar (Pakistan). The tone of the
meeting was positive and collegial, with all
participants noting their appreciation for U.S.
transparency and information to give a real picture
of the situation.


21. (SBU) While Idris said that the information has
been talked about in the corridors for a while and
is not news, he noted the importance of it being
formally acknowledged now, although in an informal
manner. Delreps responded that the informal nature
of the information is due to its being based on
projections and that this will remain the case
until 2012. Azhar said that how delegations
respond to the information will depend on whether
the setting is informal or formal, suggesting that
positions on the floor of the EC or CSP might have
a different flavor.
Idris also raised the need for serious discussions
on how missing 2012 will affect other States
Parties. De Savornin Lohman also noted that the
issue is broader than the United States and
suggested having a special conference to look at
the role of the OPCW post-2012, to include
remaining destruction, non-proliferation, etc.
Azhar noted the need to handle the political
aspect, particularly the question of compliance.
Tomova raised the need to prepare the Organization,
and the new DG from mid-2010, to deal with the
issue.

--------------
BRAZIL
--------------


22. (C) In the bilateral meeting with Brazilian
Ambassador Jose Medeiros and delegate Marcelo
Ramalho, Medeiros asked Mikulak and Hopkins how
the U.S. intends to announce the delayed completion
of destruction. Mikulak replied that the U.S. is
providing information on the projections and will
continue to update the Executive Council. Hopkins
explained the differences between the incineration
program that is currently destroying CW and will be
completed by 2012, and the two facilities under
construction that will use new technology,
extending their schedules beyond 2012. Medeiros
inquired about the Congressional 2017 deadline;
Hopkins responded that the legislation clearly
stated the 2012 treaty deadline, but that if that
were not possible, "at least by 2017." Medeiros
responded that the news of progress is good but
that the problem for OPCW is how to "multi-
lateralize" it. He stated that his government had
no question of U.S. commitment to total destruction
but that it is important to preserve the
Organization. Brazil understands the complexities
of democracy, even if "some others don't."
Qof democracy, even if "some others don't."


23. (C) Noting his recent national statement at the
last Executive Council with regard to discussion of
the deadline issue, Medeiros said he had no pre-
determined objectives. He thought discussion would

THE HAGUE 00000410 008 OF 011


have to cover the U.S. timetable and to
"compatibilize" the deadline with the objectives of
the Organization. He suggested that beginning this
discussion would likely be postponed until after
the new Director General is selected in December.
Noting that non-proliferation -- which has no
deadlines-- is also an important objective of the
Convention, he thought the discussion could turn
into a positive one on the future of the
Organization. He expressed appreciation for the
Obama administration's statements on the importance
of multilateral organizations and diplomacy and
looked forward to working with the U.S. and others
in a future discussion of the destruction
deadlines.

--------------
JAPAN
--------------


24. (C) On June 24, U.S. Reps met with Japanese
Ambassador Minoru Shibuya and Japanese delegates.
Shibuya noted that the OPCW community has been
expecting for some time that the U.S. and Russia
would miss 2012, and expressed appreciation for
U.S. transparency. He added that this will
undoubtedly be controversial at the OPCW, asked how
the U.S. intends to handle the subject at EC-57,
and suggested that appropriate report language
might need to be agreed.


25. (C) Shibuya then asked how the U.S. views the
issue of non-compliance with the treaty deadline.
Mikulak replied that non-compliance does not occur
until 2012, and that the U.S. is reaching out to
many countries to develop a sense of possible
solutions. There is no simple solution, and the
legal options of an amendment conference or
technical change have significant drawbacks.
Japanese delegate Takayuki Kitagawa asked whether
the U.S. believes a special session of the
Conference of States Parties, as suggested by the
Director General, would be appropriate. Mikulak
stated that the U.S. would be open to considering
this, but that the desired outcome would need to be
clear.


26. (C) Shibuya did mention the challenge Japan was
facing in destruction of ACW in China, but did not
go into detail on Japan's schedule for destruction.
In response to questions about others with whom the
U.S. had met, Mikulak replied that the U.S. was
consulting with many delegations from the EC,
including members of the Non-Aligned Movement
(NAM),as well as the Director General. Shibuya
asked whether the issuance of the EC visit report
would be considered an "official announcement" of
the U.S. dates. Mikulak emphasized that the
current U.S. schedule is a projection, and that the
U.S. is doing everything possible to accelerate
destruction.

--------------
Q --------------
EU (CZECH REPUBLIC AND SWEDEN)
--------------

THE HAGUE 00000410 009 OF 011




27. (C) Mikulak, Hopkins and Delreps met with Czech
Ambassador Petr Mares and delegate Jitka Brodska
and Swedish Ambassador Hans Magnusson and delegate
Jan Lodding on June 24, as outgoing and incoming
representatives of the EU presidency. Mares had
participated in the EC visit to the U.S. on behalf
of the Eastern European regional group. He advised
the U.S. reps that the report was nearly completed,
with the conclusions still pending. Mikulak
briefed the EU reps on the ongoing discussions,
noting that it is too early for a formal discussion
of missing the deadline. Hopkins detailed the new
technology in the two facilities that will be
destroying CW after 2012. Lodding (recently of the
TS staff) inquired whether the U.S. announcement is
formal or informal, and that questions will arise
on when it will be time for a formal discussion.
Mikulak responded that it would be premature at
this time, but developing a consensus approach
through informal discussion would be important in
the months ahead. Lodding inquired about options
for the Organization in 2012 -- amending the
convention, technical extensions, or the "Albanian
solution." Mares noted that after 2012 it would
likely not just be about the remaining U.S.
stockpile, but others as well, and the future of
the OPCW. Mares also noted that the EU reaches
into three of the official regional groups, WEOG,
Eastern Europe and Asia (Cyprus) which could prove
useful for future discussions and coordination.


28. (C) Czech delegate Brodska followed up on the
morning's WEOG-Plus meeting in which she had
inquired about the transportation options, a
question many delegations do not understand.
Hopkins replied that it had become clear in their
meetings this week that more details on the
rationales behind some of the planning decisions on
issues like transportation would help with
delegations' understanding of U.S. constraints.
Mares noted that information is a powerful tool,
with his Swedish colleague advising not to rush
discussions. All agreed to work together as the
deadline issue unfolds.

--------------
NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT (CUBA AND MALAYSIA)
--------------


29. (C) On June 25, U.S. Reps met with Cuban
Ambassador and current Head of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) Ambassador Oscar de los Reyes, Cuban
delegate Justo Quintero Mendez, and Malaysian
delegate Mohamad Razdan Jamil (in Malaysia's
capacity as former Head of the NAM). In response
to the U.S. presentation, de los Reyes stated that
Qto the U.S. presentation, de los Reyes stated that
he was comforted by the confidence the U.S.
expressed in completing destruction of its
stockpile, but noted that there is still a treaty
deadline to face, and that current projections mean
that in 2012, only 70% of the world's chemical
weapons will have been destroyed. He expressed
concern that the U.S. might miss the deadline by
nine years, but said that it was wise to wait until

THE HAGUE 00000410 010 OF 011


after the deadline had passed to make any judgment
about compliance. De los Reyes also reminded U.S.
Reps that destruction was a core obligation of the
CWC.


30. (C) The Malaysian Rep asked how the U.S.,
keeping its potential breach of the Convention in
mind, planned to offer assurances that it was doing
everything in its power to fulfill its destruction
obligations. Mikulak replied that the U.S. will
continue to be transparent and to provide detailed
updates on its destruction progress. He also noted
that the ultimate goal of the Convention is
complete destruction of all chemical weapons, a
goal that will be achieved, and that it will be
important to work together to maintain the
Convention's credibility after April 2012.


31. (C) De los Reyes expressed his hope that the
current global financial situation would not
adversely affect the ability of the U.S. to
accelerate and complete its destruction program.
He asked how the U.S. expected the issue to be
handled at EC-57, and wanted to know how other
delegations had reacted to the U.S. news. Finally,
he told U.S. Reps he would report the meeting in
detail to the NAM.


--------------
IRAN
--------------


32. (C) On June 25, U.S. Reps met with Iranian
delegates Hassan Vejdani and Ali Gholampour, who
stated that they had not received official
clearance to participate in the meeting, but wanted
to fulfill their earlier commitment to Delreps to
meet with U.S. officials. Upon hearing the U.S.
information, Vejdani and Gholampour thanked U.S.
Reps for their transparency, and said that they
would send the information to Tehran for
reflection. They reminded U.S. Reps that Tehran
attaches great importance to the destruction of
chemical weapons, particularly in light of Iranian
experience as a victim of chemical warfare.

--------------
SOUTH AFRICA
--------------


33. (C) On June 25, U.S. Reps met with South
African Ambassador Peter Goosen and delegate
Marthinus van Schalkwyk. Because van Schalkwyk had
participated in the EC visit to Pueblo and
Umatilla, Goosen was well informed on the visit and
the current U.S. schedule. His first question was
how the U.S. saw Russia's situation; Mikulak
replied that Russia had gotten a late start with
its destruction program, but that the political
commitment to complete destruction was there.
Goosen then stated that, given the complexity of
the U.S. destruction program, delays were
understandable and there was no doubt as to the
commitment of the U.S. to complete destruction of

THE HAGUE 00000410 011 OF 011


its stockpile. However, the question of how to
deal with 2012 and the integrity of the treaty
remained.


34. (C) In considering the way ahead, Goosen said
that he did not believe further extension of the
deadlines would be healthy for the Organization.
In his view, discussions held in a positive
atmosphere and proper management of the issue can
prevent any possible crisis in 2012. Mikulak noted
that many delegations had asked what the U.S.
believes should happen, and added that it is not
too soon to begin carefully considering the matter.
Goosen stated that the EC will need to closely
monitor destruction to ensure the pressure after
2012 to complete destruction is not lessened.


35. (U) Robert Mikulak and Tom Hopkins did not have
an opportunity to clear this cable before their
departure from The Hague.


36. (U) BEIK SENDS.

FOSTER