CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 58TH

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000604 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: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL AORC OPCW CWC SUBJECT: CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 58TH SESSION, OCTOBER 13-16, 2009 REF: A. THE HAGUE 601 ¶B. THE HAGUE 597 ¶C. BEIK-MIKULAK E-MAIL 10/02/09 (SOUTH AFRICAN PROPOSAL FOR NEW AGENDA SUB-ITEM) ¶D. SMITH-MIKULAK E-MAIL 09/28/09 (DRAFT EC REPORT LANGUAGE: DEADLINE CONSULTATIONS BY CHAIRMAN) This is CWC-59-09. ¶1. (U) This is an action request -- please see paras 16-18. -------------- SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION -------------- ¶2. (SBU) While the selection of a new Director- General is consuming all the attention of delegates (ref A),the agenda for Executive Council 58 (EC- 58) is quite full and contains some potential landmines for the U.S. The budget is not yet resolved (ref B),and although new rounds of facilitations on Articles VII, X, XI and Universality have only just begun, all of them may have decision or report language to negotiate. ¶3. (SBU) The South African initiative (ref C) is moving forward rapidly on an Open Ended Working Group to discuss "Security and destruction of chemical weapons in situations not foreseen by the Chemical Weapons Convention" -- purported to be future-oriented but many delegations would prefer to discuss U.S. and UK destruction of CW in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. The Iranians held open from the last EC the report on the EC representatives' visit to the Pueblo and Umatilla destruction facilities in the U.S. and have been trying to convince other delegations of strong language against the U.S. for non-compliance with the Convention deadline. The U.S. 90-day report may also raise future compliance issues with its publication, for the first time, of projected dates after the final deadline in 2012. Libya's extension request will likely also raise discussion, both privately and publicly. Brazil has drafted language on a future discussion of the destruction deadlines under the Chairman (ref D), which some delegations welcome but others find premature. ¶4. (U) All these topics and multiple discussions and possible rounds of voting for the DG will make this EC a very long week indeed. -------------- DIRECTOR-GENERAL SELECTION -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The first straw poll to determine support of the seven candidates for DG took place on October 5 (Ref A). The Chairperson left open the possibility of candidates with less support dropping out voluntarily. They had shown no inclination to do so when he first approached them after his confessional meetings. Now the entire Council has seen the spread of initial support, but it remains to be seen if the candidates will now withdraw or will remain in the race until the Council mandates their elimination. Del expects one or more additional straw polls in the next week as the Council opens, and possibly formal voting if candidates fail to heed the early warnings. -------------- PRE-EC AGENDA MEETING -------------- ¶6. (SBU) At the October 2 informal consultation on the agenda for EC-58, South African Ambassador Goosen opened the session by proposing a new agenda item 5 "Security and destruction of chemical weapons in situations not foreseen by the Chemical Weapons Convention." Sudan supported the proposal. Delrep countered that this would more appropriately be discussed under Any Other Business as the Council had not yet made a decision. Goosen expressed "surprise" that the U.S. would object to the agenda item after it had been consulted on the issue. Chairperson Lomonaco noted that the informal meeting would not make a decision on the agenda, but that the Council would do so as its first item of business on October 13. (Del comment: South Africa clearly intends to pursue this issue actively, with or without agreement by the U.S. and UK. End comment.) ¶7. (SBU) The Dutch Vice Chairman requested deferral of the agenda item on the conversion of former CW production facilities after ten years, noting that consultations are still underway. The facilitators for Articles VII and XI both noted that they had begun consultations but would continue meeting, with possible drafting of decision language. The facilitator for low concentrations (Schedule 2a/2a*) stated that there might also be a draft decision after the industry cluster meetings on October 6. ¶8. (SBU) The Swiss co-faciltator for the budget also noted ongoing consultations. When the South African and U.S. flags went up for the report of the Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial Issues (ABAF),Secretary Khodakov quickly intervened to state that the document would be available in English shortly and in all other languages the following week. (Del comment: In fact, quite a few Council documents were not yet issued at the time of this meeting, only ten days before the session is to start. End comment.) The South African Ambassador took the last word to opine that the Council needs to explore more accurate verbs than "noting" for the actions that it takes. -------------- BUDGET -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Since concluding the scheduled series of budget consultations last week (ref B),co- facilitators Amb. Francisco Aguillar (Costa Rica) and Martin Strub (Switzerland) have held two "informal informal" meetings of interested delegations (Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, South Africa, Sweden, the UK and the U.S.) on September 30 and October 5; another meeting is scheduled for October 8. The meetings have focused solely on the number of industry (Artcle VI) inspections and the related issue of the draft budget decision. ¶10. (SBU) China, India and Pakistan have all stated they want to keep the 208 inspections agreed last year for the 2009 budget (including the spread of 11 Schedule 1, 42 Schedule 2, 30 Schedule 3 and 125 OCPF) due to the lack of progress on resolving outstanding industry issues. Iran claims to be less interested in numbers and more in principle, insisting that the number of inspections needs to Qinsisting that the number of inspections needs to be discussed as a "matter of policy" in Industry Cluster consultations first. The Iranian delegation has insisted that language agreed in last year's budget decision be copied verbatim in this year's decision. South Africa has indicated flexibility -- even disinterest -- in the number of OCPF inspections but insists that Schedule 3 inspections not be reduced from 30. WEOG countries have supported the DG's proposal in the draft 2010 budget but individual delegations have indicated varying degrees of flexibility on inspection numbers. All WEOG countries acknowledge the importance of ensuring this year's budget decision is less ambiguous and more successful in moving the perennial debate on inspections out of the budget and into more relevant consultations. -------------- DESTRUCTION ISSUES -------------- ¶11. (SBU) After persistent pressure from the Iranians, the report of the EC visit to the U.S. destruction facilities in June will be discussed in an open meeting chaired by Ambassador Lohman (Netherlands) on October 8. The South African delegate who participated in the visit and took a leading role in final drafting and editing of the report also drafted EC report language for the July EC which his Ambassador is planning to introduce again in this Council. Iran reportedly has alternative language critical of the United States, but several delegations, including South Africa and India who participated in the visit, have told Delreps that they did not agree with the Iranian initiative. Del expects Iran to introduce problematic language in the Council, with or without support from others. ¶12. (SBU) The U.S. 90-day destruction report of June 30, on the agenda for this session of the Council, is drawing questions due to its publication for the first time of the projected dates of operation for the Pueblo and Blue Grass facilities. Most recently, the Swedish delegate followed earlier inquiries from China and South Africa in asking why the U.S. had chosen now to publish those dates after resisting so long to include future projections in the 90-day historical reports. The published dates may encourage Iran to renew its efforts to differentiate the U.S. report from the others or to attempt additional criticism of the U.S. failure to meet the (future) deadline. -------------- LIBYAN EXTENSION REQUEST -------------- ¶13. (SBU) Delegations are discussing Libya's request for an extension for its destruction deadline with varying degrees of skepticism, but Delreps have not heard that any delegation will challenge the extension. Most consider that Libya has additional time before the final deadline and that the EC and CSP can legally extend its current deadline. Del expects that, despite the minute attention normally given to U.S. deadlines, Libya will gain approval for its extension with minimal discussion in the preoccupation with the DG race. -------------- NEW INITIATIVES -- SOUTH AFRICA AND BRAZIL -------------- ¶14. (SBU) South Africa's pre-emptive move (Ref C) to add a new agenda item on "Security and Qdestruction of chemical weapons in situations not foreseen by the Chemical Weapons Convention" is receiving mixed reactions among Council members. In the October 6 WEOG meeting, several delegations expressed their opposition to the procedural move to create an agenda item before the issue is discussed and a working group is (or is not) approved. Other delegations are reluctant to open an over-burdened agenda with a procedural fight and have asked the U.S. and UK to try to resolve the issue privately with South Africa. The Dutch Ambassador (Vice Chair for demilitarization issues) expressed his willingness to chair informal discussions on the issue, if asked, but will not volunteer himself. (Del comment: We would appreciate consideration and guidance on the Dutch Ambassador's offer. While the U.S. will have some support on the procedural question, there is broad confusion on the issue itself, what the working group is intended to do, and whether or not it will be addressing the recent history of CW destruction in Iraq. Whoever chairs that discussion will be critQl to keeping it contained. End comment.) ¶15. (SBU) A second initiative by Brazil (ref D) appears to be an effort to find a compromise solution to the growing questions on destruction deadlines by putting consultations in the hands of the Chairperson. The Brazilian delegate told Delrep that his delegation sees the language as something to offer late in the session; they would like to have these consultations consider alternatives the Council might consider in dealing with the deadline issue. In a P-5 discussion on October 6, both the Chinese Ambassador and the Russian delegate voiced their views that the Brazilian proposal is "premature." -------------- ACTION REQUESTS -------------- ¶16. (SBU) Specific guidance on the South African proposal will be needed for the EC session and for the trilateral meeting with South Africa and the UK on October 12. The procedural issue of the agenda item and whether to support the Dutch Ambassador to take the lead on any consultations need to be addressed, as well as the larger issue of a working group, its scope and outcome. ¶17. (SBU) Guidance on the Brazilian proposal and its timing will also be needed for the EC session. If there are specific comments or suggested changes to the Brazilian draft, it would be useful to pass those to the Brazilian delegation before the Council begins, as they have not yet broadly distributed the draft. ¶18. (SBU) Specific guidance on the acceptable number of industry inspections will be necessary for the EC session and going into budget negotiations. Any agreement on numbers (whether last year's compromise, this year's DG proposal, or a compromise of the two) will be tied to language in the budget decision, so clear guidance on that will also be needed. ¶19. (U) BEIK SENDS. LEVIN