CWC: WRAP-UP FOR SEPTEMBER 1-11, 2009

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000557 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: 09/14/2019 TAGS: PARM PREL AORC CWC SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR SEPTEMBER 1-11, 2009 REF: A. THE HAGUE 549 ¶B. THE HAGUE 526 ¶C. THE HAGUE 518 ¶D. STATE 89303 ¶E. STATE 89818 ¶F. STATE 90697 Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) This is CWC-52-09 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has returned to work in full force, with delegations and Technical Secretariat (TS) staff alike back from the August recess. The Geneva Group met September 4 with a briefing by Mary Blanca Rios (U.S.) on that week's meeting of the Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF). The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) started regular weekly meetings on September 8 after nearly two months off. Consultations on the budget began September 9 with meetings scheduled twice weekly through September. ¶2. (SBU) The two active facilitations in the Industry Cluster took place September 8 and are reported separately in Ref A. ¶3. (SBU) Meanwhile, the U.S. Delegation continues consultations on the selection of a new Director General, meeting privately with the UK, Turkish, Dutch, French and Italian delegations, as well as with many others on the margins of official meetings and social events. -------------- UK VIEWS ON CURRENT ISSUES -------------- ¶4. (C) Delreps met with UK Deputy Permanent Representative Karen Wolstenholme on September 2 to discuss a range of issues. Since the UK delegation was not available during Dr. Mikulak's visit to The Hague August 27 (ref C),Delreps outlined the U.S. position (ref D) on the Director-General candidates, and inquired how the UK sees the prospects for British candidate John Freeman and whether the UK would be meeting with the German government to work things out between their candidates. Wolstenholme said that British "ministers" view Freeman as leading the other DG candidates, having given the best presentation at the July Executive Council and offering the greatest prospects for continuity within the OPCW (nearly all the directors will be due to leave at the same time as the DG and DDG). ¶5. (C) The UK places Uzumcu (Turkey) second in the DG race, with Gottwald (Germany) third; the latter two recently reversed positions, Wolstenholme said, in HMG's estimation of their support. Delrep asked about the rumors of other job options for some of the candidates. Wolstenholme said Freeman does not have "any other irons in the fire" and will play this candidacy out. She had heard, but not directly, that Thalmann, the Swiss candidate, is being considered for Ambassador to the UK and might prefer that position to the DG. ¶6. (C) The UK is discussing internally "when to have the conversation" with Germany over their candidates. Wolstenholme thought the close allies meeting in Berlin at the end of September might be the best time for that discussion, but no decision has been made. ¶7. (SBU) Delrep also raised the need for political compromise on Schedule 2A/2A* low concentrations (Ref E) and said that the U.S. would like to discuss the issue at the Berlin meetings. (Del note: Before the industry cluster, UK and U.S. experts met to discuss the issue further, as reported in Ref A. End note.) ¶8. (C) Delreps advised Wolstenholme that Libya would be requesting an extension for its destruction deadline and offered to share a copy of the draft Libyan paper after it is translated from Arabic. Delrep inquired whether the UK views Libya as slowing down on its WMD commitments and whether there would be any shift in policy after the recent fall-out from the Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya. Wolstenholme said she would ask for an assessment of Libya's intentions on chemical weapons (CW) destruction. ¶9. (SBU) On Iraq, Wolstenholme said the TS team had completed its review of the UK documents related to recovered CW in Iraq; she later sent a copy of their draft report. Delreps replied that a TS team was currently in Washington for the same purpose. They also noted plans for an Iraqi visit to Washington in October to discuss possible assistance with CW destruction. -------------- TURKISH CHARGE ON THEIR DG CANDIDATE -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Delrep called on Turkish Charge Hakan Cakil and OPCW Delegate Haldun Ererdem on September 2 to pass a copy of Secretary Clinton's letter (Ref F) in response to the Turkish Foreign Minister's letter promoting the candidacy of Ahmet Uzumcu. Delrep noted that while the U.S. has not chosen a candidate, Uzumcu is among the top group under consideration. Ererdem said that Turkey feels they have strong support for Uzumcu, but said commitments are not firm. Uzumcu is traveling extensively and plans to come to the EC in October. Turkey will have a new ambassador arriving officially in mid-September, and the Charge agreed to stay in touch with the U.S. delegation as the selection process moves forward. -------------- DUTCH VIEWS ON THE DG SELECTION AND DEMIL -------------- ¶11. (C) Delreps called on Dutch Permanent Representative Pieter de Savornin Lohman on September 4 to exchange views on the DG process and on demilitarization issues coming up before the Executive Council in October. Lohman said that the Netherlands, as host country, has no official choice in the DG selection and would not be taking an active part in the "bargaining." He did, however, convey his personal views that the Indonesian candidate had made the weakest presentation in July, and that he and his colleagues have strong views opposing Ambassador Dani (Algeria). In response to Delrep's description of the top three candidates under consideration by the U.S. (ref D),Lohman said that he would add a fourth, the Finn. The EU will not pick among their three strong candidates, he said. He thought the Non-aligned Movement countries might support Uzumcu (Turkey) over the three EU candidates, and added that Uzumcu made a much Qcandidates, and added that Uzumcu made a much better presentation to the EC than in his earlier meeting with WEOG. The African Union and Arab League endorsements for Dani mean nothing, Lohman said, but he agreed with Delrep that Dani will probably not withdraw voluntarily due to those endorsements. Lohman and Delreps agreed to stay in touch as the DG contest continues to unfold. ¶12. (SBU) Lohman, who is the EC Vice Chair for demilitarization issues, expected Iranian efforts to introduce report language on the EC visit to the U.S. destruction facilities. However, he said the EC representatives would defend their report and that it was too early for any discussion of non- compliance with the 2012 deadline. A discussion of destruction deadlines will come, but he thought it best after the DG selection is settled and after it is known whether the Russians will make their 45% interim deadline. Delreps informed him of Libyan plans to request an extension at the next EC; he agreed that would complicate an already-full agenda in October. They also noted that the TS was reviewing the documents in the U.S. and UK on destruction of CW in Iraq prior to its joining the Convention and there would be a report to the Council on that review. Lohman noted that he had volunteered to facilitate discussion by interested parties on the guidelines for inspection of converted Chemical Weapons Production Facilities and asked if the U.S. were an interested party. Delrep replied that the U.S. has no such facilities but if it would be helpful to reaching consensus, we could participate in discussion. -------------- FRENCH AND ITALIAN VIEWS -------------- ¶13. (SBU) Delreps called on French Ambassador Jean- Francois Blarel and Delegate Raja Rabia on September 10 to exchange views on the DG selection process and on issues to be raised during the upcoming Berlin meetings. Blarel said that he had spoken the previous day to EC Chairperson Lomonaco, who reported the main views among ambassadors he had consulted are convergent. Blarel told Delreps that France's preferences are the same as those of the U.S.; as an aside, he admitted embarrassment at having to choose between the UK and German candidacies and expressed his desire that the UK and Germany work out a solution between themselves. Blarel agreed with Delrep that the Finnish candidate, while having good technical qualifications, lacks the style and leadership qualities of the other top contenders. ¶14. (SBU) Rabia said that she will attend the Berlin meetings, along with colleagues from Paris, and she asked what other issues would be discussed. Delrep highlighted Schedule 2A/2A* low concentrations and the 2012 destruction deadline. She also noted that the next EC Chairperson is to be selected from WEOG and will likely have a key role in the deadline debate. While he has not heard of any interest yet in the chair, Blarel agreed that it will be important for WEOG to focus on whom it will choose to succeed Lomonaco. Blarel also noted that it will be his turn to host the next P-5 meeting and said he will try to find a suitable time between the Berlin meeting and EC-58. ¶15. (SBU) Delreps met with Italian Delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia on September 11 to discuss the DG selection process and industry issues. Cornacchia said that Italian views on top candidates match the preferences of the U.S. He Qcandidates match the preferences of the U.S. He indicated that during his discussions with other delegations the issue of which countries will get other top management positions is already coming into play, including the possibility of more than one Deputy Director General. While selecting the next DG has been the main focus of attention so far, it seems increasingly likely that linkages will be made to promises for appointing other positions in exchange for supporting certain candidates. Cornacchia's views on industry issues were reported septel (ref A). -------------- PACIFIC VIEWS -------------- ¶16. (SBU) At a lunch hosted by the Del for the ad hoc Pacific Rim group (China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada),delegates discussed possibilities for pursuing chemical safety and security issues through the Open Ended Working Group on Terrorism (newly chaired by Australian delegate Mike Byers),the proposed Article XI workshop (facilitated by Chinese Delegate Chen Kai),and other programs, including the Southeast Asia regional workshop Japan will be hosting with the OPCW in November. All agreed that coordination of efforts in these different areas would contribute to raising awareness and that including industry representatives would be important. ¶17. (SBU) In a private conversation with Delrep, Byers noted the challenges he faces in the OEWG on Terrorism, with opposition from South Africa and others to OPCW's Office of Special Projects and its Director Krzysztof Paturej. The Indian delegation, he said, is quite eager to participate in work on chemical security but Paturej appears to be now walking away from those efforts. ¶18. (C) On the DG selection, Byers confirmed to Delrep that Australia's top choices are the same as those of the U.S. He said Australia was under pressure from Indonesia to support a candidate from their region, but the Indonesian had made the weakest presentation at the July EC and there are "some other concerns" about the candidate from his previous postings. Byers feels the "non-candidate countries" in WEOG should play an active role in narrowing the field of western candidates. ¶19. (C) After the Chinese delegates left, U.S. Delreps asked the Japanese about prospects for destruction of the Abandoned Chemical Weapons in China. Departing Japanese Delegate Takayuki Kitagawa said that his government is projecting completion of destruction of the 40,000 excavated munitions by the agreed 2012 deadline, barring significant new delays. That destruction will begin in 2010. Japan plans to negotiate with China on a new deadline for the estimated 300,000 weapons still underground. Kitagawa said the Japanese realize it is unlikely that China will agree to any extension of the current Memorandum of Understanding, but they will hold the discussion. Japan is fully committed to the destruction agreed in that MOU, but they cannot meet the 2012 deadline for the weapons that have not yet been excavated. Kitagawa said Japan will be following closely how the Council deals with deadline delays for other states, including the U.S. and Russia. Delreps noted that Libya will be requesting an extension at the next EC, an action likely to launch the broader discussion of destruction deadlines. -------------- WEOG BEGINS AGAIN -------------- ¶20. (SBU) On September 8, Coordinator Ruth Surkau (Germany) chaired the first meeting of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) following the summer recess. Italian Delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia, facilitator for Schedule 2A/2A* low QCornacchia, facilitator for Schedule 2A/2A* low concentrations, said that he is cautiously optimistic that a decision will be reached by the end of the year; he reiterated the need for compromise on all sides in order to conclude. Cornacchia also announced his plan to propose holding a consultation on October 6 to see if any progress can be made before EC-58. ¶21. (SBU) Budget Co-Facilitator Martin Strub (Switzerland) said that he and Costa Rican Ambassador Francisco Aguillar will alternate chairing consultations, with Strub taking the first consultation on the Verification Division on September 9. Strub noted that the TS has improved the 2010 budget's key performance indicators over the 2009 budget. He expressed his fear that the main point of contention will be the number of industry (Article VI) inspections and that the same discussions and arguments from last year will be dragged out again. Australian Delegate Mike Byers said that South African Delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk plans to go after Director Krzysztof Paturej's Office of Special Projects (OSP). (Del note: Van Schalkwyk had raised objections to OSP's lack of concrete activities and budget justification last year and appears intent to continue the campaign more forcefully this year. End note.) -------------- GENEVA GROUP -------------- ¶22. (SBU) Dutch Delegate and Geneva Group Co-Chair Diana Gosens hosted a meeting of the Group on September 4 to discuss the draft 2010 budget. The Advisory Body for Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF) had completed its fall meeting the day before, and new Chairperson Mary Blanca Rios (U.S.) briefed the Group on ABAF's consideration of the draft budget. Martin Strub (Switzerland),co- facilitator for the budget negotiations outlined plans for the consultations, with meetings twice a week through September, concluding ten days before the Executive Council to leave time for final discussion of language for the decision. Delegations expressed the hope that, in light of the DG selection, the budget negotiations might be more quickly resolved this year than last, but acknowledged that the controversy over numbers of industry inspections will be largely the same. ¶23. (SBU) In response to a question on implementation of IPSAS (International Public Sector Accounting Standards),Rios explained the importance of timely EC and CSP approval of IPSAS as the accounting standard for OPCW since the UN is falling behind schedule on IPSAS implementation. In response to a question about the impact of the worldwide economic crisis on the payment of dues, Rios reported that the percentage of paid assessments to date is only slightly below last year and that major contributors have indicated they will pay in full this year, so there should be no impact on OPCW operations. -------------- BUDGET CONSULTATIONS BEGIN -------------- ¶24. (U) On September 9, Budget Co-Facilitator Martin Strub (Switzerland) chaired the first consultation on the draft 2010 budget. DDG John Freeman gave brief introductory remarks, including an overview of changes to the budget format. Indian Delegate Pankaj Sharma announced that India plans to circulate a non-paper on performance management specifically focused on key performance Qmanagement specifically focused on key performance indicators (KPIs). He gave an oral preview of the non-paper, noting that while the annual performance report is a useful tool, it presents a fragmented view making it difficult to judge overall organizational performance. South African Delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk described KPIs as "a work in progress", noting that there is still room for improvement despite the marked improvement in their formulation from last year. The new Iranian Deputy Permanent Representative made his OPCW debut by referring to himself as the Vice-Chairman for Administrative and Financial Matters before reiterating Iran's long-held view that International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA) programs should not include Article VII activities but rather focus only on articles X and XI. Freeman explained that ICA Director Mworia would address that point during her presentation at the appropriate budget consultation (scheduled for September 17). ¶25. (U) Moving straight into the Verification Division's budget, Director Horst Reeps said that his division is investigating the possibility of introducing electronic declarations and transfer of information similar to the system used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On CW destruction-related (Article IV/V) verification, Reeps said destruction activity is expected to peak in 2010-2011, and destruction of Japanese abandoned CW in China will start in 2010, requiring additional resources. On bio-medical analysis, he reported that the OPCW Lab is working with the Dutch National Laboratory (TNO) on developing bio- sampling options; Reeps confirmed that the OPCW still plans to outsource any bio-sampling to qualified labs rather than creating in-house capabilities. ¶26. (U) Chinese Delegate Li Dong raised the issue of industry (Article VI) inspections and stated that, based on last year's consultations, the issue is a matter of policy best discussed in a forum other than the budget consultations. Freeman responded that while the final decision is up to member states, the DG is required to make a judgment call on how many Article VI inspections to conduct, and the number in the draft 2010 budget represents that. ¶27. (U) On September 11, Budget Co-Facilitator Ambassador Francisco Aguillar (Costa Rica) chaired the consultation on the budget for the Inspectorate Division. Acting Director Renato Carvalho gave a brief overview on the Inspectorate's planned activities for 2010 and noted that only two additional short-term contract (SSA) inspectors will be needed to cover the additional Article IV/V activity; the number of full-time inspectors will remain the same. Carvalho announced plans to recruit around 30 new inspectors in one batch in 2010 rather than two batches as in 2009 in order to better utilize training resources and to make sure that all inspectors are available to be deployed by April. The DDG confirmed that 30 inspectors left the OPCW in 2008 and 28 are expected to leave in ¶2009. ¶28. (U) Indian Delegate Sharma started the discussion on Article VI inspection numbers by stating that the increase in inspections at other chemical production facilities (OCPFs) and the decrease in inspections at Schedule 3 facilities go against the decision reached on the 2009 budget at Qagainst the decision reached on the 2009 budget at CSP-13 in December 2008. Sharma said that India cannot accept the DG's current proposal for Article VI inspections and that the issue will need further discussion. The Iranian Delegate joined the Indian criticism of the DG's proposal for industry inspections and referred to the CSP-13 budget decision, claiming that it limited discussion of Article VI inspection numbers in the Industry Cluster. The Chinese Delegate agreed with the Indian and Iranian comments against increasing OCPF inspections. ¶29. (U) Swedish Delegate Jan Lodding responded that the increase in OCPF inspections is modest and in keeping with the CSP-13 budget decision and the French non-paper (circulated on behalf of the EU) detailing the EU's understanding of last year's budget agreement. Delrep raised the U.S. non-paper also circulated during CSP-13 detailing the U.S. understanding of last year's budget agreement. Delrep and Irish Delegate Michael Hurley supported calls for the industry inspection regime to be discussed in the Industry Cluster or other fora but noted the practical need to agree to a number for inspections in the 2010 budget absent any agreement on inspection numbers elsewhere. Hurley, who stated that Ireland would prefer to see more OCPF inspections than proposed by the DG, said that the 0.1% increase in OCPF inspections hardly represents a shift in policy. ¶30. (U) BEIK SENDS. LEVIN