CWC: WRAP-UP FOR JUNE 23 TO JULY 3, 2009

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000411

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: WRAP-UP FOR JUNE 23 TO JULY 3, 2009

REF: A. THE HAGUE 410

B. THE HAGUE 368

C. THE HAGUE 402

D. THE HAGUE 371

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

This is CWC-37-09

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


1. (SBU) Senior Washington experts Tom Hopkins
(Principal Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological
Defense Programs) and Bob Mikulak (ISN Director of
Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction)
visited The Hague June 23-25 to discuss the U.S.
program for destroying its chemical weapons
stockpile with a wide array of representatives from
other national delegations and the OPCW Technical
Secretariat. Refs A and B detail those
conversations on demilitarization issues. This
cable includes other topics that were discussed
during those meetings, including the U.S. and UK
recovered chemical weapons (CW) in Iraq and the
selection of a new Director-General (DG).


2. (C) Delreps called on the OPCW Legal Advisor
July 1 to discuss both the 2012 deadline issue and
questions about the U.S. and UK recovered CW in
Iraq (ref C).


3. (SBU) Executive Council Chairman Lomonaco
(Mexico) chaired an informal meeting on the
Verification Implementation Report (VIR) on June

24. Along with the expected discussion of comments
on the report, the South African delegate inquired
about information on the CW recovered by the U.S.
and UK in Iraq.


4. (SBU) The Western European and Others Group
(WEOG) completed its series of meetings with the
current DG candidates, with Ambassador Benchaa Dani
(Algeria) on June 23, and with Deputy Director-
General (DDG) John Freeman (UK) on June 30. WEOG
also nominated Nikolas Granger (U.S. Del) as
facilitator for financial matters to succeed Yuki
Kitigawa (Japan),and Mike Byers (Australia) as
facilitator for the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG)
on Terrorism to succeed Annie Mari (France). Mari
hosted a large luncheon on July 1 to discuss the
future of the group.

--------------
U.S. AND UK RECOVERED WEAPONS IN IRAQ
--------------


5. (C) Several delegations have recently returned
to the issue of U.S. and UK recoveries of chemical
weapons (CW) in Iraq. The South African delegation
has been most active in pursuing this issue with
the U.S. delegation. Newly-arrived Ambassador
Peter Goosen went so far as to ask one of the
candidates for Director General what he thought of
the U.S. and UK actions and their compliance with
the Convention. During a June 25 bilateral meeting
with U.S. reps Mikulak and Hopkins, Goosen raised
the issue, stating that there appeared to be a gap
in the Convention that did not envision the
recovery of chemical weapons in a combat situation.
Claiming interest in preserving the Convention by
establishing "rules of the game" for future
situations, Goosen suggested the U.S. and UK would
be best placed to provide input to such a
discussion. Goosen was not specific about what
kind of product he expected from any consideration
of the recoveries, but made it clear he intends to
raise it during the July 13 destruction informals
and during the EC session.


6. (C) In the senior U.S. reps' meeting on June 24,
Russian Ambassador Kirill Gevorgian also raised the
issue of the recoveries. He noted that Russia
still has questions about this and that, based on
discussions with other delegations, he fully
expects it will come up at the upcoming EC.
Although Russia is likely to have instructions this
time that simply state that Russia is still
considering the issue, Gevorgian emphasized the
importance of joint discussions to find a legal
framework for U.S. and UK actions.

-------------- --------------
OPCW LEGAL ADVISOR ON U.S. DEADLINE AND RCW IN IRAQ
-------------- --------------


7. (C) On July 1, Delreps met with OPCW Legal
Advisor Santiago Onate to seek his views on 2012
and continued interest in U.S. and UK actions in
Iraq. On 2012, Onate stated that non-compliance
cannot be linked to the announcement recently made
by the U.S., nor can such a judgment be based on
future updates. A decision from CSP-11 established
the final deadline for U.S. destruction as April

2012. From a legal standpoint, the U.S. has
neither missed the deadline, nor has it requested
further extension of its deadline, which the
Convention does not provide for. The U.S. has
simply provided projections of its current
destruction program. Onate also referred to one of
the operative paragraphs of the CSP decision that
refers to the EC "taking necessary measures to
document progress" -- into which category Onate
said the detailed updates by the U.S. and the EC
visits could fall. Referring to Albania's having
just missed its final destruction deadline in 2007,
Onate said that when the point is reached where the
U.S. is no longer in compliance with the CSP
decision, it will be up to the policy making organs
to take or recommend measures to redress the
situation. He also pointed out that one could make
the case that not every situation not clearly
envisaged by the CWC is necessarily non-compliance.


8. (C) Also on the recent U.S. announcement of its
projected destruction schedule, Onate said he'd
heard several delegations express concern about the
currently scheduled gaps in activity between 2012
and 2014, and 2017 and 2019.


9. (C) On the recovered chemical weapons (RCW) in
Iraq, Onate said that in his view all the TS has is
a statement from the U.S. (in the form of a letter)
about "suspected CW" and "munitions suspected to be
filled with CW." The U.S. has not declared
possession of CW in Iraq, and is therefore not
bound to a defined process, which is why, he said,
he advised against a declaration. If a State Party
wants to challenge the U.S., they will need to
assert that the U.S. possessed CW in an area under
its jurisdiction or control and therefore should
have declared the CW and agreed verification
measures with the TS. Onate said that some could
certainly argue that the U.S. had
jurisdiction/control, as there would otherwise have
Qjurisdiction/control, as there would otherwise have
been no need for a formal return of sovereignty to
Iraq. However, there is no direct obligation
outlined in the CWC because the situation was
not anticipated when the Convention was drafted.
Therefore, in Onate's view, the TS is not in a
position to advise on compliance and this matter
could more appropriately be clarified between
States Parties.

10. (C) When Delreps mentioned the South African
suggestion to put in place procedures for future
situations, Onate said that it is up to SPs to make
proposals to address situations not covered by the
Convention, but also that it is worth considering
whether South Africa and others were really
interested in an amendment process or simply
keeping the issue alive for political reasons.

--------------
SEARCH FOR THE NEXT DIRECTOR-GENERAL
--------------


11. (SBU) In the senior U.S. reps' meeting with EC
Chairman Lomonaco (Mexico) on June 23, Mikulak
inquired about the South African paper proposing
procedures for the selection of the next DG.
Lomonaco responded that some delegations, including
Iran, were demanding discussion of all details;
others want rules proposed so that they can agree
or object. He said there was not time for
consensus on the rules as well as on a person.
When Lomonaco invited proposals for rules, everyone
disappeared except South Africa. He believed the
South African paper was intended for discussion,
not their final proposal, but that their underlying
goal was an open-ended working group. Lomonaco had
consulted all the regional groups and heard a lot
of opposition to the paper. The Asian group was
divided; Iran expressed no opinion other than to
insist on an open-ended working group, a demand
from Pakistan as well. Lomonaco intended to
propose a small group meeting to discuss the issue,
key delegations as advisors to the Chairman.


12. (C) During Mikulak's and Hopkins' June 25
bilateral meeting, South African Ambassador Goosen
made a concerted effort to convince U.S. reps of
the value of South Africa's paper on procedures for
selecting the next Director General. Goosen said
that his delegation has already heard that "a
candidate" (assumed to be Algerian Ambassador
Benchaa Dani) planned to contest the selection
process if he was not part of the final group of
candidates. Goosen reminded U.S. reps that Dani is
likely to have African Union and possibly Islamic
Conference support that could easily turn a vote at
the Conference of States Parties in his favor. He
also expressed surprise that there were concerns
about the paper, and said that his delegation was
simply trying to clarify an area they believe lacks
transparency.


13. (C) Goosen said that his recent conversation
with EC Chair Lomonaco had not given him confidence
in the Chair's ability to conduct a transparent,
predictable process, and that this left the door
open for candidates who may enjoy very little
support to claim discrimination in the selection
process. He added that South Africa intends to
raise this during EC-57; Delrep later learned from
South African delegate van Schalkwyk that his
delegation expects to agree tQrocedures at the
EC-57 session.

--------------
WEOG - JUNE 23

--------------


14. (SBU)Q June 23, WEOG met with the Algerian DG
candidate, Ambassador Benchaa Dani. Unlike other
candidates who presented prepared remarks on their
vision for the OPCW and their qualifications to be
Qvision for the OPCW and their qualifications to be
DG, Dani instead tried to engage WEOG in a
dialogue, and he posed more questions than answers.
Dani cast himself as one of the few "inside"
candidates and tried to use this as one of his
biggest selling points. Multiple times Dani
stressed that he knows all of the TS well,
particularly the DG, DDG and all nine directors.


15. (SBU) During Dani's brief, 10-minute
presentation, he mentioned a long list of
challenges with little indication of how he would
address them -- destruction deadlines, non-
proliferation, assistance and protection, economic
cooperation, the "Iraqi challenge," continuing the
tradition of consensus. In response to a French
question on where he would take the OPCW post-2012,
he argued that the destruction deadline represents
the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) and thus it is important for all States
Parties to respect it. He acknowledged that
possessor states are doing their best to meet the
deadline but believes that the issue is not for the
DG to decide, but rather for States Parties. In
response to a question from the Luxembourg
Ambassador, Dani stated that nonproliferation poses
the biggest challenge following destruction.
Responding to other questions, Dani contended that
the role of the DG is to build consensus, that a
zero-nominal growth budget is the best option for
all States Parties, that improved transparency
measures will make it politically more acceptable
to increase inspections of other chemical
production facilities (OCPFs),and that more
intervention by the international community is
needed to bring about full universality of the CWC.
On promoting economic and technological
development, Dani maintained that the OPCW is not a
development organization but also said that the
issue should be steered away from the North-South
divide that currently plagues it.

---
VIR
---


16. (SBU) On June 24, EC Chairman Lomonaco chaired
a consultation on the 2008 Verification
Implementation Report (VIR),his first official
meeting as EC Chairman. Anna Roccatello (Senior
Policy Officer, Policy Review Branch) introduced
the VIR, highlighting changes from the previous
year's report. She also noted that the UK and the
U.S. were the only countries to provide comments to
the TS. After Roccatello's introduction, Lomonaco
went through the VIR, section-by-section. There
were relatively few interventions, with South
African delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk speaking
most often. He made a number of requests,
including that the VIR be made available on CD-ROM
and that the information in Table 3 on inspections
per region be put in context by including the total
number of inspectable sites per region.


17. (SBU) Van Schalkwyk's most notable intervention
was a question on whether the TS had received any
declarations in 2007 about CW destroyed by the U.S.
or the UK in Iraq. The DG responded that the TS is
still waiting for information from Iraq and that
there was no information to include in the VIR.


18. (SBU) Following the consultation, Delrep met
with Roccatello to go over previously-submitted
U.S. comments. Roccatello indicated which comments
and changes will be incorporated in the first
corrigendum (to be released before EC-57); she said
that the TS was open to discussing all other
comments and changes for possible inclusion in a
Qcomments and changes for possible inclusion in a
second corrigendum, to be released later.

--------------
MEETING WITH THE DG
--------------

19. (C) During their June 23 meeting with Director-
General Pfirter to discuss the U.S. CW destruction
schedule, U.S. Reps Mikulak and Hopkins also
inquired about the DG's recent trip to Hong Kong.
Pfirter said that the trip was very successful,
with a cooperative atmosphere and broad
participation by officials not only from customs
and other related areas, but also police and
intelligence. He noted that better oversight of
Taiwan remains a significant goal; to this end he
visited Macao last year and, in the course of the
visit, stated to China's Deputy Director General of
Non-Proliferation that the current lack of OPCW
oversight of Taiwan is not acceptable. Pfirter
also addressed the issue of North Korea, and later
followed up with the Chinese Ambassador in The
Hague to express concern that North Korea is
somehow being given a special status and not seen
as an appropriate goal for universality. Mikulak
informed the DG that U.S. bilateral discussions
with China on CWC implementation continue.


20. (SBU) On Iraq, the DG said that the TS has
offered two possible dates in early July for an
initial visit to Iraqi chemical weapons storage
facilities. He added that the TS is waiting for
Iraq to provide additional information, and that TS
personnel would need to look to the U.S. for
support with security while in Iraq. Pfirter also
informed U.S. Reps that the "Goodwill Technical
Visit" to Israel this week was going well, and that
Egypt had accepted an offer for a similar visit.
In closing, Pfirter requested that the U.S. make
every effort to find a suitable applicant for the
position of Industry Verification Branch Head
(currently held by Amcit Bill Kane); the position
is being re-advertised for 30 days (with a
possibility of extending for a further 30 days) due
to a lack of qualified applicants following the
initial vacancy notice.

--------------
WEOG - JUNE 30
--------------


21. (SBU) On June 30, WEOG met with the final DG
candidate, current DDG John Freeman (UK). Freeman
gave a clear, structured presentation -- entirely
without notes -- on why he should be the next DG,
his outlook on priorities for the OPCW and views on
the role of WEOG in the Organization. On the first
point, he mentioned his deep concern for the CWC
and multilateral arms control, citing his extensive
pre-OPCW experience as well as his experience as
DDG.


22. (SBU) Speaking at length on the priorities for
the future of the OPCW, Freeman touched on a number
of topics, summarized into three themes:
commitment to the Convention, continuity and good
management, and cooperation. On commitment to the
Convention, he highlighted destruction, which he
characterized as paramount, and non-proliferation,
which he described as an increasingly core
priority. On non-proliferation, Freeman said that
the verification regime needs to be carefully
calibrated to balance between being a sufficient
deterrent without being excessively intrusive. The
idea of balance, Freeman said, applies to the
entire Convention, which needs to be viewed
holistically. On continuity and good management,
Qholistically. On continuity and good management,
Freeman said that next DG will play a large role in
maintaining the success story of the OPCW, which
will require commitment and effort and will benefit
from stability and predictability. On the last
theme, Freeman described the time required to
engender cooperation and said that the hard work
required to achieve consensus is worth the effort
because it results in authoritative outcomes.
Freeman's final point in his presentation was that
WEOG plays a vital role in the success of the OPCW.
He observed that WEOG delegations -- individually
and as a group -- have a great deal of authority,
but with that comes responsibility.


23. (SBU) In response to a French question on his
vision for handling 2012 and the challenge of
States Parties missing the deadline, Freeman
expressed a sentiment that he echoed repeatedly:
the TS is servant to its masters, the States
Parties. In this regard, he said that the TS role
would be modest, with States Parties responsible
for dealing with situation and agreeing on a
solution. Freeman went on to observe that a member
state would not be non-compliant until actually
non-compliant, using the analogy of a murderer not
being guilty of a crime until actually committing
it. He concluded that until 2012, the Organization
should focus on the Convention and encourage
expeditious destruction.


24. (SBU) Swedish delegate Jan Lodding asked for
more information on Freeman's view of the industry
verification regime. Freeman replied that outreach
to industry is vital to achieving a balanced
regime; he also said that outreach to the
scientific community is also needed for the
verification regime to stay real and grow. Italian
delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia asked if the structure
of the TS and the resources available to it are
sufficient to face future challenges; Freeman
responded initially that member states do not seem
to want to expand either the size or the budget of
the TS. He continued, saying that in order to
deliver efficiently, the TS has to prioritize and
that re-prioritization allows shifting of resources
to maintain core activities. Touching on tenure,
Freeman observed no desire among member states to
change status quo, and he said that knowledge
transfer is key to successfully implementing any
tenure policy.


25. (SBU) Irish delegate Michael Hurley asked how
the TS can take forward attempts to achieve
universality. Freeman responded that the TS knows
nothing about non-member states and that it needs
to be careful to focus on the right places and to
constantly work and engage with member states. He
reiterated that member states, supported by the TS,
will play the most instrumental role in promoting
universality. Delrep asked how long a zero-nominal
growth (ZNG) budget can be sustained, to which
Freeman responded that the TS does not seek ZNG but
instead focuses on core objectives. He said that
ZNG could be sustained -- though not aimlessly --
through constant reevaluation of the Organization's
operation and by reprioritizing and reengineering
processes.

--------------
BRAINSTORMING FOR OEWG ON TERRORISM
--------------


26. (SBU) On July 1, the facilitator for the Open-
ended Working Group (OEWG) on Terrorism, Annie Mari
(France),hosted a brainstorming session to discuss
ideas for the future of the group. Mari departs
The Hague in August and will likely be succeeded in
QThe Hague in August and will likely be succeeded in
the chair by Mike Byers of Australia. In addition
to Byers, participants in the luncheon included
delegates from Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, India,
Pakistan, Algeria, Poland, Japan, South Africa,
Mexico, UK, Italy, Sweden (new EU president),U.S.
Delrep and OPCW Ambassadors from Germany and the
Netherlands. Unlike some of the private
discussions of the OEWG, this gathering was polite
and constructive, emphasizing common points of
agreement including the reaffirmation of action
against terrorism in the Second Review Conference,
the limited mandate of the OPCW with regard to
terrorism, the importance of OPCW's coordination
with other counter-terrorism organizations
including the UN, and the usefulness of exchanging
views and best practices. Delegates noted a
variety of ongoing activities, including the
planned ASSISTX 3 exercise in Tunisia in 2010 with
its links to Article X, the recent Australian
workshop for Asian and Pacific nations, a proposed
table-top exercise in Poland for response to a
chemical disaster, and a proposed workshop in Tokyo
on chemical safety and security for Asian nations
(for which Japan is soliciting co-sponsors). When
asked about the planned seminar in Algeria, the
delegate replied that due to his recall to the
capital, the planning had been put on hold but that
his successor in The Hague would likely take it up.


27. (SBU) The Russian delegate asked pointedly who
is responsible for safety and security of chemical
industry. Others replied that it is clearly the
responsibility of states under the Convention. The
Iranian delegate echoed this point in highlighting
the central role of governments on counter-
terrorism, not multilateral organizations like the
OPCW. The Japanese delegate cited his country's
national paper for the Second Review Conference on
chemical security, which discusses a number of
ideas, some of which are relevant to counter-
terrorism. The German Ambassador stated that his
government did not want to expand the mandate of
the OPCW or to support "mission creep" but that
there is a useful role for exchange of views at the
OPCW, given its range of expertise. U.S. Delrep
noted the central role of private industry in the
U.S. and other countries in providing security for
their facilities and the importance of involving
industry in discussion of best practices. The
Polish delegate, facilitator for Article X,
suggested closer coordination of the OEWG with the
facilitations on Article X, XI and VII so as not to
compete or overlap but to expand the range of
discussion.


28. (SBU) Mari informed the group that she is
drafting a national paper for EC-57 that will trace
the history of the working group's activities and
some ideas for the future. She thanked everyone
for their participation in the brainstorming and
wished her successor well.


29. (U) BEIK SENDS.

FOSTER