CWC: DESTRUCTION INFORMALS, DONOR COORDINATION

S E C R E T THE HAGUE 000628

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: 10/20/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: DESTRUCTION INFORMALS, DONOR COORDINATION
MEETING, AND IRAQI ASSISTANCE DISCUSSION (EC-58)

REF: A. THE HAGUE 617

B. THE HAGUE 627

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

This is CWC-62 -09

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


1. (SBU) On October 12 before the formal opening of
the 58th Session of the Executive Council (EC-58),
the EC Chairman, Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco
(Mexico),convened the customary informal
consultations on chemical weapons (CW) destruction
issues. In addition to the usual presentations by
the Technical Secretariat (TS) and by Russia, the
U.S., Libya, Japan and China, there was a new
series of presentations on donor activity from the
UK, the U.S., Canadian and German delegations.


2. (SBU) Also on October 12, Delreps participated
in the Donor Coordination Meeting (hosted by the
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs) during which
delegations from Russia, the U.S., the UK and
Germany briefed on the status of their cooperative
efforts. On the same day, a trilateral discussion
was held between the U.S., the UK and German
delegations related to potential cooperation with
the Government of Iraq on future assessment and
destruction activities.


3. (SBU) Copies of the TS and donor presentations
were sent to ISN/CB; a copy of the text of the
Libya destruction informal statement was also sent
to ISN/CB. The remainder of the country
presentations were not distributed as hand-outs.
Detailed notes on all the presentations and
discussions follow.

--------------
PRESENTATIONS BY THE TS
--------------


4. (SBU) Horst Reeps, Director Verification
Division, briefed on verification activities since
the last informal session in July. He noted that
as of September 30, 2009, 51.7% of Category 1 and
52% of Category 2 chemical weapons had been
destroyed (not including Libya and Iraq).
Currently there are 7 Chemical Weapons Destruction
Facilities (CWDFs) in operation: 4 in the United
States (Tooele, Pine Bluff, Anniston and Umatilla)
and 3 in the Russian Federation (Maradykovsky,
Leonidovka and Shchuchye). Libya's reloading of
declared Category 2 precursors is planned for later
this year. Between July 13 and October 11, there
have been 5 inspections of Chemical Weapons
Production Facilities (CWPFs),4 of CW Storage
Facilities (CWSFs),3 of Abandoned Chemical Weapons
(ACW),and 3 of Old Chemical Weapons (OCW). Of the
208 Article VI inspections scheduled for 2009, 169
have been completed, with 50 inspections occurring
between July 13 and October 11, including two
Schedule 2 inspections with sampling and analysis.


5. (SBU) Stephen Wade, Head Declarations Branch,
presented data on CW and Article VI information
submitted to the TS between July 14 and October 7,

2009. The TS received amendments to initial
declarations from China, Japan, Iraq and the U.S.;
90-day reports on CW issues from Libya, the U.S.,
Russia, Japan and China; and new OCW discoveries
and destruction in Italy, Canada, France and the
UK. Libya submitted a request for an extension of
intermediate and final deadlines for the
destruction of Category 1 CW.



6. (SBU) Dominique Anelli, Head Chemical
Demilitarization Branch, briefed on progress in CW
destruction. Only items not previously covered by
Reeps or Wade are highlighted here. Currently
88.6% of the 70 declared CWPFs have been converted
or destroyed, with 4 left to be destroyed, 3 to be
converted (Rabta 1 and 2 in Libya and
Novocheboksarsk in the Russian Federation) and 23
under verification. Operations at CWDFs include:

- United States: Tooele, H/HD destruction;
Anniston, HD/HT mortars, projectiles, OTCs
destruction; Umatilla, HD destruction; Pine Bluff,
on-going HD/HT destruction. Pine Bluff Explosive
Destruction System plans to resume operations in
early November 2009.

- Russian Federation: Maradykovsky, thermal
treatment and cutting of mutilated munitions bodies
and incineration of hydrolysate reaction mass,
destruction of sarin aerial bombs on train 2, final
engineering review of new processing building for
destruction of aerial munitions filled with
mustard-lewisite mixture; Leonidovka, draining of
hydrolysate reaction mass from aerial munitions,
final engineering reviews for the processing line
for the destruction of 9-EK-3264 modules and for
the new processing building for the destruction of
aerial munitions; Shchuchye, destruction of 122 mm
rocket warheads filled with GB using both
processing lines in building 1A.

- Thirteen States Parties have declared OCW with
seven OCW sites in seven States Parties under
verification. Four States Parties have declared
ACW (China, Italy, Poland and Panama). China has
33 ACW
sites.


7. (U) No questions or comments were raised to the
TS presentations.

--------------
U.S. PRESENTATION
--------------


8. (SBU) Dr. Arthur Hopkins (Deputy Assistant to
the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs),briefed that the
United States had, as of September 23, 2009,
destroyed 65.4% of Category 1 CW, including 85.3%
of chemical rockets, 96.6% of nerve agent and 100%
of binary weapons.


9. (SBU) As examples of U.S. commitment to the
obligations of environmental protection and
facility safety under the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC),Dr. Hopkins described the
flourishing natural environment at the former CWDF
at Johnston Atoll and the absence of any lost work
days at the current CWDFs in the last 18 months.


10. (SBU) The U.S. brief triggered the only comment
from the floor. The Iranian delegation, noting the
U.S. facilities to be completed after the extended
destruction deadline, indicated that the U.S.
"premature announcement of non-compliance" in no
way lessened its obligation to complete destruction
by 2012, and that failure to do so strikes "a
deadly blow to the OPCW". Iran insisted the U.S.
must take immediate measures to complete
destruction by 2012.

--------------
RUSSIAN PRESENTATION
--------------


11. (S) Viktor Kholstov of Russia's Ministry of
Industry and Trade presented Russia's report orally
with no slides or handouts. He stated that
Russia's main effort currently is to reach its 45%
deadline on 21 December 2009, and that Russia had
destroyed 41.5% (16,596 MT) as of October 12, 2009.
Maradykovsky has destroyed 4,685 MT to date, with
the train for aerial munitions with sarin fill
destroying 38 MT of agent since July. Destruction
of aerial munitions filled with mustard-lewisite
mix will begin in the fourth quarter of 2009.


12. (S) Leonidovka has destroyed 3652 MT of VX to
date. Destruction of 9-EK-3264 VX modules began in
April, with 280 MT of agent neutralized in 16,528
modules. However, the TS has verified the
destruction of only 181 MT and 10,200 modules. In
the fourth quarter of 2009, Leonidovka will launch
a second train for the destruction of sarin aerial
munitions. (Del note: In a bilateral discussion,
the Russian delegation clarified that Russia
initially deformed the modules with a single hole
punch, but the TS insisted on two holes, which
Russia is now doing. Russia will go back and punch
a second hole in the approximately 6,000 modules
with just one hole and claim destruction credit for
them at that point. End note.)


13. (S) Shchuchye, as of October 12, 2009, had
destroyed 766 MT of sarin (255,000 munitions).
Kholstov noted that construction is ongoing at
Pochep and Kizner, but he provided no specific
completion dates.

--------------
LIBYAN PRESENTATION
--------------

14 (SBU) Mr. M. Tamtam Abulkasam, National
Committee for the CWC, focused on Libya's request
for an extension of the final deadline for
destruction of its Category 1 CW to May 15, 2011.
The Libyan delegation maintained that the
relocation of its Rabta CWDF construction site led
to considerable local and environmental group
opposition to the destruction effort, in turn
causing the civil contractor to withdraw from the
site. Libya reportedly launched an awareness
campaign to overcome public opposition and convince
the "friends of the environment" that
demilitarization operations are safe and
considerate of the environment. These issues were
resolved by late September, too late to allow for
meeting the established intermediate and final
destruction deadline. Abulkasam also outlined a
construction schedule for the destruction facility:
completion of facility infrastructure by April 30,
2010; testing and commissioning of basic equipment
by June 30, 2010; completion of the plant by
September 30, 2010; and plant commissioning and
systems testing by October 15, 2010. Abulkasam
emphasized that Libya will arrange for as many TS
visits to the destruction site and storage area as
necessary.


15. (SBU) The Libyan delegation further noted the
requirement to retain the sandbag wall at Rabta to
protect single-purpose, sensitive equipment, and it
has therefore changed the sandbag wall designation
from specialized to standard equipment.

--------------
ACW: CHINESE AND JAPANESE PRESENTATIONS
QACW: CHINESE AND JAPANESE PRESENTATIONS
--------------


16. (SBU) Chinese Ambassador Zhang Jun's
presentation was highly critical of the Japanese
progress in recovering and destroying ACW in China,

noting casualties to Chinese workers as a result of
leaking ACW. Zhang highlighted the inadequacy of
funds from Japan, the unsatisfactory pace of work
at the Nanjing mobile destruction facility, the
lack of urgency and sincerity with 2012 approaching
and no ACW destruction to date. He reiterated the
frequency of injuries to Chinese nationals from
Japanese ACW.


17. (SBU) The Japanese delegation did not react to
the Chinese criticisms. Mr. Morio Ito (Director-
General for ACW Issues) gave Japan's presentation
covering the scope of ACW recoveries made to date
to "protect the Chinese people". Ito updated the
current progress of construction and recovery
efforts at the largest abandonment site, Haerba-
Ling, and at the mobile destruction facility in
Nanjing. Current efforts include infrastructure
development at the two sites (access roads, ground
preparation, etc.),equipment procurement, ground-
penetrating radar surveys, and agreements on
detailed operating procedures. Ito reported the
visit of a TS inspection team to three temporary
ACW storage locations. He closed his brief by
expressing Japan's gratitude to China and the TS
for their support to the ACW program.

--------------
DONOR PRESENTATIONS
--------------


18. (SBU) EC Chairman Lomonaco then opened the
floor to all delegations. As pre-arranged, the UK,
the U.S., Germany and Canada briefed on their
assistance to Russia's CW destruction efforts.


19. (SBU) The UK started off with an overview of
the EUR 80 million in projects it has managed for
multiple donors at Shchuchye -- EUR 20 million of
which was contributed by the UK.


20. (SBU) The United States followed up with a run
down of the $1.1 billion it is investing in four CW
destruction projects: $30 million to construct a
Central Chemical Weapons Destruction Analytical
Lab; $20 million to install site security
enhancements at two CWSFs; $46 million to
demilitarize two former CWPFs, and $1.0392 billion
for the design and construction of the Shchuchye
CWDF.


21. (SBU) Canada stated that it has contributed 100
million Canadian dollars (C$) to the following
projects at Shchuchye: the railway from the
storage depot and inspection stations,
communications equipment, and destruction process
equipment for the second main destruction building.
For Kizner, Canada has contributed C$100 million
for four destruction process lines, two metal parts
furnaces and catalytic reactors.


22. (SBU) Germany provided an overview of the EUR
340 million it has allocated to three CWDFs since
1993: EUR 56 million for equipment and buildings
at Gorny, EUR 150 million for equipment at Kambarka
and EUR 140 million for equipment and buildings at
Pochep.


23. (SBU) Russia took the floor at the end of the
donor presentations to thank the donors for all
their contributions, concluding that Russia hoped
all the projects would run on schedule and be fully
implemented.

--------------
DONOR COORDINATION MEETING
--------------


24. (U) Dutch Ambassador Pieter de Savornin Lohman
chaired the semi-annual Donors Coordination meeting
on October 12 to discuss CW destruction assistance
in Russia. Due in large part to the completion of
most assistance efforts and the attention being
placed on the concurrent straw poll for the
selection of the next Director-General (DG),the
usual updates and progress reports were limited to
presentations by Russia, the U.S., the UK and
Germany. Dr. Hopkins gave a brief overview on U.S.
efforts at Shchuchye characterizing U.S. assistance
as moving from what has been direct assistance to
an operational role now that Shchuchye is up and
running. He further highlighted the value of the
trilateral partnership and how such collaboration
has led to reduced management costs toward
operations. Dr. Hopkins also indicated that the
U.S. is finalizing the remaining work to be done at
building 350 at the CWPF in Novocheboksarsk and,
upon completion, the building will be destroyed
(razed).


25. (U) Ms. Elena Rodyushkina of the Russian
Ministry of Industry and Trade provided a general
overview of the status of their destruction efforts
as well as efforts by donors. This included a
brief update on Shchuchye, Pochep and Kizner. On
Shchuchye, Russia gave high marks to the U.S. and
the UK for expediting the completion and start up
of the Shchuchye CWDF noting the financial
contributions made by both. Rodyushkina then noted
overdue shipments from the UK on work related to
the access railroad. Germany and Switzerland also
received high marks for their efforts at Pochep,
with the Germans funding Building 11 which is
expected to begin trial runs during the first half
of next year, and the Swiss completing
installations of power supply/electrical parts.
Russian reps also noted assistance from Canada and
Italy at Kizner.


26. (U) The German delegation provided a brief but
detailed summary of their assistance efforts at
Pochep since the last Donor's meeting in April

2009. Construction at Building 11 (Pochep) has
advanced significantly and is almost complete.
Installation work by German contractors and Russian
subcontractors is ongoing but almost complete.


27. (U) Canada reported completion of its projects
at Shchuchye, with the final delivery of equipment
occurring in September 2009. Canada is working
with the Russians on Kizner. Sweden completed
support through the UK project and provided 25,000
Euros to Green Cross this year. France had nothing
to report. Finland had no new data to report. The
Netherlands contribution to the UK has been spent.
The EU funds that were donated also have been
expended.


28. (U) In a final note of interest, the UK
delegation reminded delegations of the 13th Annual
International CW Demilitarization Conference in
Prague, Czech Republic in May 2010. The next
donors' meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2010,
preceding the Executive Council's 60th Session.

--------------
IRAQI ASSISTANCE COORDINATION
--------------


29. (SBU) On October 12, officials from the U.S.,
Q29. (SBU) On October 12, officials from the U.S.,
the UK and Germany met to discuss coordination of
plans for assistance to the Government of Iraq.


30. (SBU) Dr. Andreas Pfaffernoschke (Head of
Division, Disarmament Cooperation/Global
Partnership Project Implementation, German Federal

Foreign Office) described the results of an early
October meeting with Iraqi officials in Amman,
Jordan. He stated that he had provided the Iraqi
delegation with a concept for potential German
assistance, but that there was no guarantee of
funding and this was in the notional stages of
development. The proposal for an assessment
included a two-step process, taking air
measurements from within the bunkers followed by
mapping the contents if possible. It was described
as an iterative process whereby each step would
identify the feasibility of the next step being
performed. The proposal also included the
provision of equipment by Germany and training to
be conducted in Germany, with efforts carried out

in Iraq by local personnel. The proposal also
included involvement of TS observers.


31. (C) Pfaffernoschke provided his impressions of
Iraq's ability to perform this assessment and
stated that he believed the government to be
immature in terms of formation and clear decision
authority with a severe lack of coordination
between and amongst relevant ministry offices. He
stated that he believed the Iraqi officials to lack
sufficient information on the status of their
assets (i.e., storage bunkers) targeted for
assessment and destruction operations. (Del note:
Ministry of Defense official Brigadier General Ali
Kadhim Mohaisen Al-Saeedi was permitted by his
leadership to attend the coordination meeting with
the German delegation in Jordan, however he was not
granted permission to attend a similar coordination
event with U.S. officials in Washington, DC days
later. End note.)


32. (SBU) James Harrison (Deputy Head of Counter-
Proliferation, Counter-Proliferation and Security
Cooperation Division, UK Ministry of Defence)
stated that the UK is considering assistance and
may offer relevant training activities for Iraqi
officials. He briefly discussed the National
Authority training plans and queried whether this
may be an appropriate venue for follow-up on
assessment preparations. However, the group opined
that the ministries represented at the National
Authority training event differ from the ministries
involved in the destruction operations.


33. (SBU) Delrep Lynn Hoggins provided a short
description and handout with information on the
present status of the bunkers at Muthanna. Delrep
Deborah Ozga described a U.S. concept paper on
performing an assessment that was discussed with
Iraqi officials in Washington the previous week.
She clarified that this was not a funded proposal,
but was merely an informational aid for the Iraqis
to use in reviewing their options. The group
discussed whether there is a valid requirement to
perform an assessment based on the present status
of the assets and stated that considerations should
include verification of actual treaty requirements,
proliferation risk, and environmental hazard risk.


34. (SBU) All participants expressed that further
coordination is called for amongst potential
donors, the Iraq delegation and relevant officials,
and the Technical Secretariat.
Qand the Technical Secretariat.


35. (SBU) DEL COMMENT: The destruction informal
presentations did not elicit substantial questions
or comments on the U.S. program, with the exception
of a lone comment by the Iranian delegation;
however, this topic figured prominently in formal
sessions of the EC and consultations on the
margins. Additionally, attention to donor activity
and further coordination was more apparent in this
session and this trend will likely continue as

States Parties consider new opportunities for
cooperation and assistance at the invitation of the
Iraq Delegation. END COMMENT.


36. (U) BEIK SENDS.

LEVIN