CWC: CONSULTATIONS ON THE SELECTION OF A NEW

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000518 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, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO) NSC FOR LUTES WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/31/2019 TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: CONSULTATIONS ON THE SELECTION OF A NEW DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR THE OPCW REF: A. SECSTATE 89818 ¶B. THE HAGUE 00451 Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) This is CWC-49-09 -------------- SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Dr. Robert Mikulak, ISN/CB Director and U.S. Representative to the Executive Council (EC), visited The Hague August 27-28 to consult with key delegations on the selection of a new Director- General (DG) for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Accompanied by Delreps, he met with Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico),the EC Chairperson; Ambassador Werner Burkart of Germany; Ambassador Zhang Jun and Delegate Chen Kai of China; Delegates Konstantin Gavrilov and Vladimir Ladanov of Russia; Ambassador Jose Medeiros of Brazil; Delegate Jan Lodding of Sweden (representing the EU presidency); and Ambassador Peter Goosen and Delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk of South Africa. Mikulak shared U.S. analysis on the strongest three DG candidates (ref A) and inquired about other delegations' views of the candidates' strengths and how the process will unfold in the next few weeks. ¶2. (SBU) Chairperson Lomonaco was confident that delegations' earlier concerns about the process for selection have faded following agreement during the July Executive Council session to his Road Map, and he expressed optimism about narrowing the field of seven candidates before the October session of the EC. Other delegations are not yet revealing their governments' choices (many not yet determined),but they shared their analyses of the various candidates' prospects. All agreed on the importance of staying in close contact in the weeks leading up to the next Council session. -------------- MEETING WITH THE EC CHAIRPERSON -------------- ¶3. (C) Mikulak met first with Mexican Ambassador Lomonaco to discuss how the EC Chairperson plans to work through his Road Map into October. Delrep Beik and Mexican delegate Blanca Polo also participated in the meeting. Lomonaco noted that August is really a vacation month with very few �0A;delegations in town and even less activity. He believed the process questions that preceded the July EC have been settled; he said South African Ambassador Goosen feels he has accomplished what he set out to do on the DG search and will now turn his attention to other issues he considers of more importance (the deadlines for CW destruction). ¶4. (C) Lomonaco said he sees a kind of reversal of roles -- prior to July, everyone was pursuing him, now he must solicit information from all the delegations, many of them reluctant to reveal their preferences among the candidates. He was well aware that many countries would not make an early decision on a single candidate, but said he would seek preferences at both the top and bottom of the list in order to identify the candidates with less support. He was optimistic that the field of seven could be narrowed before the EC session in October, but said he would convene a consultation in mid- September if necessary to put pressure on QSeptember if necessary to put pressure on delegations to provide him with information. Two of the strong candidates (he did not name the two) are likely to have other prospects and may drop out for that reason. Lomonaco thought he knew the weakest candidate and possibly "number six" but needed to confirm those hunches through consultations. ¶5. (C) By October, Lomonaco would like to reduce a field of four to two through informal sessions, using secret ballots as needed. He hopes to return to the OPCW "spirit of consensus" when it reaches the final round during the Council meeting, but realized that it may not be possible. He said that Ambassador Dani (Algeria) will likely not withdraw, since Dani believes he has lined up solid support through the endorsements of the African Union and Arab League. Lomonaco did not believe that support for Dani would hold up in a series of straw polls. He feels Dani has assured that he will stay in the race, but that he has not garnered enough support to win. Delrep noted that Dani himself has a vote in the EC and could block consensus on any other candidate. Lomonaco envisions a late night session at the end of the EC, using OPCW's array of experience (informal sessions, small groups, etc.) to hammer out a consensus. ¶6. (C) Lomonaco then asked for the U.S. "confession" of preferences, stating that he will hold everyone's declarations of support in strictest confidence. Using points from the guidance (ref A),Mikulak explained the U.S. choice of the top three candidates (Freeman/ UK, Gottwald/ Germany, Uzumcu/ Turkey) but that no decision has been made. Dani (Algeria) and Thalmann (Switzerland) have the least support in Washington, he said, although no candidate has been ruled out. Mikulak also noted that we are urging Germany and the UK to work things out between their candidates. ¶7. (C) With regard to other issues at the Executive Council, Lomonaco said that the budget is the only other agenda item that requires a decision. Destruction issues will arise and he expects Iranian "trouble" on the report of the EC visit to the U.S. destruction facilities, but he does not mind whether the report is noted by the Council or not. The DG decision is of greater importance to most delegations than the budget, and he expects a repeat of last year's budget debates, likely ending in the same or a similar compromise on the numbers of inspections of other chemical production facilities (OCPFs). -------------- MEETING WITH GERMAN AMBASSADOR -------------- ¶8. (C) Ambassador Werner Burkart, Germany's Permanent Representative to the OPCW, invited Mikulak and Delrep Beik to lunch on August 27. Although Germany obviously supports Peter Gottwald, their own candidate, Burkart said that he finds most delegations in agreement with the U.S. analysis of the top three contenders. He thought the Swiss candidate might well drop out early, but was not sure whether the Finnish candidate would do so. He said Germany had received support for Gottwald from about five countries, including Russia, with another telling his government that Gottwald was their second choice. Mikulak asked whether Germany and the UK would meet to sort out Qwhether Germany and the UK would meet to sort out their mutual candidates; he said they had not discussed the competition among close allies and would likely not do so until late in the process. Neither the previous nor current EU presidencies had addressed the three competing EU candidates and Burkart did not believe they would do so. ¶9. (SBU) On destruction issues, Burkart said that the deadlines would remain an active issue in the Council for political reasons, although he thought the DG search would dominate the EC in October. He said Russia would likely meet the 45% deadline for destruction, but said it was becoming increasingly apparent that they could not possibly finish by ¶2012. Germany is considering assistance to Iraq for the destruction of its remaining chemical weapons, including the possible use of robots to take samples inside the bunker. Mikulak suggested that Germany and the U.S. could usefully meet to coordinate offers of assistance, and Burkart agreed -- proposing sometime after the German meeting with the Iraqis in Amman in October. ¶10. (SBU) Burkart agreed that it would be useful to discuss the impasse over schedule 2A/2A* low concentrations at the Berlin meeting of close allies at the end of September to try to persuade the UK to be flexible. New ideas would be needed on the other outstanding industry consultations (frequency of inspections and OCPF site selection methodology),and Burkart did not foresee anyone wanting to take them on. -------------- MEETING WITH CHINESE AMBASSADOR -------------- ¶11. (SBU) Mikulak met with Chinese Ambassador Zhang Jun on August 27; Delreps Beik and Granger and Chinese delegates Chen Kai and Li Dong also participated in the meeting. Zhang, recently returned from extended leave in China, told Mikulak that he had not yet discussed the DG selection with Lomonaco but wants to do so soon. Noting that China has been keen to have rules and a clear procedure in place to avoid any messy situations, Zhang said that he is happy with the Road Map proposed by Lomonaco in July and that there is no need for more technical discussions on procedure. ¶12. (C) Zhang noted that Beijing has not decided on "the one" to support but that China would like to see someone not only with disarmament expertise but also with capabilities to handle issues skillfully and diplomatically. Citing the need for the next DG to be balanced in his approach, Zhang said that Japanese abandoned chemical weapons (ACW) in China should receive as much attention as other destruction efforts. Zhang also said that destruction needs to be balanced with non- proliferation, including counter-terrorism, and that international cooperation and assistance needs appropriate attention. ¶13. (C) Observing that there is not a clear North- South divide in CW disarmament, Zhang said that it should not be assumed that China automatically will support a candidate from a developing country. Zhang also noted that there is no need for other candidates to join the race late as the current seven candidates offer a good choice. He shared his view that the Indonesian candidate, while being strong in some respects, has less expertise than others. Zhang said that China is open to considering all candidates and noted that some (without naming who) have visited Beijing already. He expressed his desire to coordinate with the QHe expressed his desire to coordinate with the U.S., saying that the key players in the OPCW need to coordinate their positions. Zhang asked Mikulak if he had heard that Russia is rumored to have problems with the Turkish candidate; Mikulak responded that he had not heard that. He shared with Zhang the current U.S. thinking on the top three candidates, noting that there is no single favorite yet. ¶14. (SBU) Mikulak and Zhang also discussed the budget, agreeing that it would be best to avoid a drawn-out battle on it like last year. Zhang said that China was not ready for a sharp increase in OCPF inspections. Mikulak, agreeing that there should not be a sharp increase until other issues relating to OCPFs are addressed, observed that the DG has proposed only a slight increase for 2010. Zhang stated that the Chinese government is under pressure from Chinese industry on inspection numbers and that a delegation is set to visit The Hague to discuss the matter. -------------- MEETING WITH RUSSIAN DELEGATION -------------- ¶15. (SBU) Mikulak and Delreps Beik and Smith met with Russian delegates Konstantin Gavrilov and Vladimir Ladanov on August 27. Gavrilov opened with a dismal forecast for the DG selection, voicing concern over the number of candidates and projecting that consensus would not be reached by October. Feeling that unilateral withdrawal by DG candidates would be unlikely, Gavrilov shared a strong preference for the use of straw polls as a selection tool because the anonymity of these straw polls would enable individual delegations to stray from the candidates that might have their regional or organizational support. ¶16. (C) With regard to specific candidates, Gavrilov reiterated his view that the United States supports the UK candidate, Freeman, based on the U.S./UK "special relationship." He stated that NAM countries do not support Freeman, and Moscow has "real problems" with Freeman. He also projected that Freeman may be lobbying to keep his DDG position and would be unlikely to withdraw without confirming his retention of that position. Gavrilov also predicted U.S. support for the Turkish candidate, Uzumcu, calling this the "Trojan horse." Yet his perception is that this candidate is well qualified and he noted that Uzumcu had traveled to Moscow to request the support of the Russian Federation for his candidacy, the only candidate to do so to date, although the Indonesian candidate was due to visit Moscow next month. ¶17. (C) Gavrilov predicted that the final three candidates would include Freeman, Uzumcu, and one of the NAM country candidates, the last to be determined by straw poll. Gavrilov and Delrep discussed the perceived support for Dani, noting that the African Union and the Arab League pledged their support for Dani only, while the Organization of the Islamic Conference endorsed both Uzumcu and Dani (before the Indonesian candidate was nominated). Delrep said the NAM support for Dani may be more shallow than the endorsements would suggest. Gavrilov emphasized the importance of U.S./Russian coordination on the DG selection over the coming weeks. ¶18. (SBU) Gavrilov stated that the Russian Federation is interested in changing their reputation within the organization and wants more of a presence, particularly in key positions. He complained that the U.S. and UK have substantial Qcomplained that the U.S. and UK have substantial influence and hold inflated numbers of key positions, stating that the U.S. has personnel in 31 key positions. When Mikulak challenged his figures, Ladanov replied that this might include American "sympathizers." -------------- MEETING WITH BRAZILIAN AMBASSADOR -------------- ¶19. (SBU) Mikulak and Delrep Smith met with Brazilian Ambassador Jose Medeiros on August 27. Medeiros stated that he had not yet received instruction from capital regarding a preference for DG candidates. He shared his personal view that the Indonesian candidate was not impressive and notm]j(QjBD}DG selection, Medeiros alerted Mikulak that the Iranian delegation is actively consulting with other delegations to encourage that the EC visit report not be noted in the next EC session. He expressed that this was ludicrous and shared his frustration over the erroneous understanding of the Iranian delegation of the term, and action, of "noting" a document. ¶21. (C) At the close of the meeting Mikulak inquired about Medeiros' view of the United States destruction deadline discussions. Medeiros suggested that the EC mandate consultations be made by the EC Chair on this matter, indicating that this mandate would "strengthen his hand." Mikulak stated that he did not feel that a mandate from the EC was necessary and that this may actually lead to the EC discussing the matter substantively rather than empowering the Chair to lead the process. Medeiros stated that his interest is procedural only and he believed this would be "the issue" following the DG selection. -------------- MEETING WITH SWEDISH DELEGATION -------------- ¶22. (C) Mikulak and Delrep Granger met with Swedish delegate Jan Lodding, representing the EU presidency, on August 28. Lodding mentioned that Sweden is still formulating its national position, like most other EU members, in advance of it being discussed at the September 4 meeting of the EU's Disarmament Working Group. Based on the seven candidates' presentations at the July EC session, Lodding said the Indonesian's position has weakened, the Turk's position has strengthened, and all three EU candidates remain strong. Lodding noted that Turkey and the UK were the first countries to start actively campaigning. He portrayed the UK candidate as representing continuity, contrasting him with the Turkish candidate who was brave enough to question a number of the OPCW's "sacred cows" -- e.g., implementation of the tenure policy -- that other candidates shied away from. ¶23. (C) When Mikulak mentioned the U.S.' top three candidates, Lodding agreed but was adamant in including the Finn among the strongest four contenders. Lodding agreed with EC Chairperson Lomonaco's approach to determine the least likely candidates as a way to narrow the field. When Mikulak suggested that the Swiss likely will drop out of the race soon, possibly followed by the Indonesian and Finn, Lodding responded that he agreed on the Swiss and the Indonesian but Qagreed on the Swiss and the Indonesian but disagreed on the Finn, viewing him as being as electable as the German. Mikulak and Lodding discussed the mechanics of straw polls and how they could be used to narrow the field further before the final recommendation is chosen by consensus. -------------- MEETING WITH SOUTH AFRICAN AMBASSADOR -------------- ¶24. (C) On August 28, Mikulak and Delreps Beik and Smith met with South African Ambassador Peter Goosen and delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk. Goosen said the July Executive Council went well; South Africa had had a number of "irons in the fire" but got through them all. He said the DG candidates' presentations were "fine" and he was satisfied with the Road Map process outlined by the Chair, but thought that Lomonaco could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had followed Goosen's suggestion of issuing a statement on his plans as Chair from the beginning. Beyond the African Union's support for Dani, Goosen felt his government was seriously considering the candidates' presentations as it makes its decision, but that the decision may be for reasons other than "the well being of the OPCW." Goosen has asked Pretoria for a priority list of the candidates. ¶25. (C) Mikulak responded that the U.S. is looking at the candidates' leadership qualities and authority, and noted the three strongest candidates as Freeman, Gottwald and Uzumcu. Goosen said that he was impressed with Freeman's presentation as being "head and shoulders above the rest." He was also impressed with the Turkish candidate, who had clearly worked hard and shown himself as knowledgeable about the Organization as Freeman without having been in it. However, he was "not impressed" by Gottwald; he and van Schalkwyk had found him patronizing in his references to his African postings -- a minefield for Africans. Goosen was disappointed by Sudjadnan (Indonesia) whom he knows well from Geneva. He found Sudjadnan's presentation "disappointing" and noted that Sudjadnan had not been prepared for the question from the African group (about the direction of future resources after destruction of weapons is completed). The African Group had deliberately asked the same question of all the candidates, and Sudjadnan was the only one who failed to answer it (ref B). ¶26. (C) Goosen gave a lively account of a lunch hosted by the Polish Ambassador the week before for which the purpose appeared to be promoting Krzysztof Paturej as Deputy Director-General. He noted that would only be possible if the Indonesian or Algerian candidates were elected, as the Non- Aligned Movement would not tolerate a WEOG DG with an Eastern European (and EU) DDG. Delrep noted that the DDG choice will not be with the members of the Executive Council, but determined by the new Director-General. She also noted that the balance between the DG and DDG positions between developed and developing countries was the only part of the PrepCom gentlemen's agreement that had broad support this past spring, even as many countries rejected the agreement's plan for the DG position to rotate this time to the developed nations. Qto rotate this time to the developed nations. ¶27. (C) Goosen said he had proposed to the Chairperson at the Polish lunch that he adopt a scoring system for EC members' top choices (3, 2 or 1 points for preferred candidates and 0 for those not mentioned),and asked Mikulak to help promote the idea to give more concrete proof to the Chair's conclusions about the strongest and weakest candidates. Some of the ambassadors at the lunch had liked the proposal. Mikulak responded that, from his conversation with Lomonaco the day before, he seemed to have taken that idea on board, although perhaps not with numerical scoring. Goosen and Mikulak agreed that, although some observer states have strong views, Lomonaco should only be counting the choices of EC members. ¶28. (C) On other EC issues, South Africa had sent representatives to two meetings of the "like minded" called by Iran on the EC visit to the U.S. destruction facilities. Iran wants to declare the U.S. out of compliance, but there was no unity among the group, and South Africa noted that it had participated in the visit. Van Schalkwyk said he had told the group that the report stands, but that South Africa has draft report language that will follow previous visit reports. Goosen advised Mikulak that, while discussion of the deadline is needed, he himself is cautious of any approach that would try to extend the deadline. ¶29. (SBU) On the consultations regarding chemical weapons destroyed during combat, Goosen emphasized the forward-looking nature of his approach and said that the language proposed by the UK, and agreed by the U.S., was broader than he would have drafted and may lead to a discussion of what occurred in Iraq. He was pleased that South Africa was able to bring the Africa Group "along" on these issues, modifying some more radical positions. ¶30. (SBU) One other issue that Goosen plans to pursue is South Africa and Iran's objection to the DG's stance on publishing information about the national origins of TS staff. They have received the information they requested in private, but Goosen feels it should be made public, and that the DG's "emotional" defense at the July EC means that he is "hiding something." Goosen warned that he intends to find out what that is. -------------- DEL COMMENT -------------- ¶31. (C) These meetings with the Chinese and South Africans confirmed Chairperson Lomonaco's view that the procedural questions have dissipated and that delegations are focusing on the choice of an individual for Director-General rather than the process. Having won the support of the EC for his Road Map, Lomonaco seems determined to complete the choice in October and he relishes the challenge. Lomonaco will need to maintain his optimism and keep up an intensive pace of consultations to narrow the field from seven to two in a mere seven weeks. ¶32. (C) The Turkish candidate appears to have impressed several key delegations, and may well surface among the top choices of quite a number of delegations even though not as first choice. In this round of meetings, there were fewer negatives expressed about Uzumcu than for either Freeman or Gottwald. Del will continue canvassing opinions as delegations return en masse from the August recess. End Comment. ¶33. (U) Dr. Mikulak returned to Washington before clearing this cable. ¶34. (U) BEIK SENDS. LEVIN