CWC: LIBYA'S REQUEST TO EXTEND THEIR DESTRUCTION

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000638

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: 10/22/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC LY
SUBJECT: CWC: LIBYA'S REQUEST TO EXTEND THEIR DESTRUCTION
DEADLINE AT EC-58

REF: A. THE HAGUE 632

B. STATE 100809

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

This is CWC-65-09

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


1. (C) The Libyan request to extend their
intermediate and final deadlines for the
destruction of their declared chemical weapons (CW)
was approved by the Executive Council (EC) on
October 16, but only after questions were raised
privately by the U.S. and the UK, and publicly by
the European Union (EU). The Technical Secretariat
(TS) expressed grave doubts to U.S. and UK
delegates about Libya's commitment to destroy its
chemical weapons, a clear indication that
continuing scrutiny of Libya's actions will remain
necessary.


2. (SBU) Details of the Council deliberations and
sidebar meetings follow.

--------------
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL DISCUSSION
--------------


3. (SBU) The Libyan request for extension of the
intermediate and final deadlines for the
destruction of its Category 1 CW (EC-58/NAT.5) was
considered and approved during the Council's 58th
Session (October 13-16) after scrutiny and
discussion in the plenary session and on the
margins. The EU joint statement during general
debate called for "clear and unambiguous
information about Libyan plans, intentions and
projections for CW destruction." Upon introduction
of the agenda item, Iran intervened to voice
concern with the deadline extension request and
demanded that this be the "final, final" extension.
The Libyan delegation prepared an addendum to the
original request which included additional
information to satisfy the Council members'
concerns. The EC approved the deadline extension
request following distribution of this additional
paper.


4. (C) DEL COMMENT: Delrep Smith, UK Delegate
Wolstenholme and Italian Delegate Cornacchia
discussed the notion of an EU statement on the
Libyan request on September 28, concluding that
this approach would be more effective than verbal
opposition from individual member states,
particularly in light of limited attention from
WEOG members on the topic in advance of the EC.
The EU's public joint position forcibly
strengthened the continuing private dialogue on
transparency measures which the U.S. and the UK
have had with Libyan representatives. END COMMENT.

--------------
U.S.-UK-LIBYA TRILATERAL
--------------


5. (SBU) On October 13, the Libyan, U.S. and UK
delegations held a trilateral meeting on the
margins of EC-58 to discuss the Libyan deadline
extension request and attention to transparency
measures called for in U.S. and UK non-papers on
the subject (ref B). Delreps Smith, Weekman and
Peterson and UK Delegates Clive Rowland, James

Harrison and James McGilly met with Libyan
Delegates Ahmed Hassan Walid, Tajouri Sharradi from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ahmed El-
Hesnawy and M. Tamtam Abulkasam of the National
Committee for the CWC in Tripoli.


6. (SBU) The U.S. and UK delegations stressed that
they both would require continued transparency
measures in return for supporting the Libyan
extension request, such as releasing the
destruction informals briefing, providing hardcopy
reports including photos of the destruction
facility progress and meeting with the U.S and the
UK in advance of future OCPW meetings. Delrep
requested a copy of the narrative statement
delivered at the destruction informals the previous
afternoon which Hesnawy provided to meeting
participants. UK delegates further requested a
national paper to be released during EC-58
outlining the rationale and progress plans behind
the specific deadline extension request. Hesnawy
agreed and produced a paper later in the week in
the form of an addendum to the original deadline
extension request (EC-58/NAT.5 Add.1). Hesnawy
also stated that Libya is open to TS site visits to
the destruction facility and temporary holding area
to provide transparency, but he expressed
frustration with the TS and disparaged the TS's
capability. Hesnawy also mentioned the possibility
of bilateral or trilateral visits by the U.S.
and/or UK.


7. (SBU) Hesnawy admitted that three EC members had
asked him to extend Libya's deadline request to
2012, but he insisted that consultations with
contractors -- including the Italian firm SIPSA --
indicated that the requested deadline of mid-2011
already includes 4.5 months of contingency time.
Requesting an extension to 2012 at this point would
"insult" the contractors.


8. (SBU) On the deadline extension request, Hesnawy
explained that Libya needed an extension to the
destruction deadline because Libya had
underestimated how long it would take to deal with
local and environmental protests to the Rabta
destruction facility. However, as of September 25,
the Libyan government had resolved the issues
raised by protesters through a series of awareness
workshops and negotiations on parameters for
transporting the agent and precursors from the
temporary holding area to the destruction facility.


9. (SBU) Responding to a question on the temporary
holding area and precursor destruction, Hesnawy
stated that the corroded tanks which cannot be
safely transported to Rabta destruction facility
will be hydrolyzed on site either in a stainless
steel reactor or in a holding basin. Libya may also
begin destroying Category 2 precursors on site
early next year.


10. (SBU) After reloading the sulfur mustard, there
is 2200 kg of heel left in plastic 20L containers.
Libya intends to incinerate the entire containers
in a rotating solid waste furnace rather than
remove the heel.


11. (SBU) On the construction of the Rabta
destruction facility, the Libyan delegation stated
Qdestruction facility, the Libyan delegation stated
that the construction schedule outlined in the
destruction informals allows for a delay of 1-2
weeks. Destruction must start in November 2010,
however, according to Hesnawy. Ninety-five percent
of the units for the destruction facility are

coming from Italy and will be pre-assembled. The
incinerator, which has yet to be ordered from
Germany, will be assembled on site. The
incinerator will take 6 months to be delivered from
the time of order. Hesnawy said that he had spent
considerable time reviewing shipping options,
stating that the vast majority of items will be
shipped from Italy to Tripoli, but that
arrangements at an alternative harbor were already
completed as a back-up option.


12. (SBU) As to the conversion of the production
facility, Hesnawy stated that the Rabta conversion
project is on time, and he expects the TS to verify
conversion in late December.

--------------
TS IMPRESSIONS
--------------


13. (SBU) On October 15, the U.S. and UK
delegations met with TS representatives to discuss
the state of Libyan efforts to destroy its CW
destruction stockpile. Delreps Smith, Weekman and
Peterson and UK Delegate McGilly met with Horst
Reeps (Director of Verification),Dominique Anelli
(Head of Chemical Demilitarization Branch),Yaugen
Ryzhyka (Senior Chem-Demil Officer) and Susan Atego
(Senior Policy Officer).


14. (C) Reeps showed pictures from the TS visits to
Rabta in April and July 2009. He clearly was
concerned about Libya's lack of serious effort to
destroy its CW stockpile and was unsure whether
Libya will be able to meet the self-imposed
deadline of November 1, 2010, for starting CW
destruction. According to the TS, currently there
is no infrastructure or equipment yet in place at
the CW destruction facility.


15. (C) Anelli reported that every time TS
representatives meet with Libyan officials -- in
contrast to Libyan meetings with U.S. and UK
officials -- they begin with a political statement
along the lines of "Libya agreed to give up its WMD
program in December 2003 and received absolutely
nothing in return from the U.S. and the UK; why do
we need to disarm?" The statements imply, but stop
short of saying, that Libya will retain its CW
stockpile. In a January 2009 statement to the TS,
the Head of the Libyan National Authority stated
that only Libya is sticking up for the
Palestinians. He accused the Europeans in the room
of doing nothing to help the Palestinians and said
that there is a lack of interest in Libya to
destroy its CW stockpile on time. Delreps asked
for a copy of the Libyan statements, but TS
officials replied that there are no written copies
as the Libyans only deliver verbal statements.


16. (C) Reeps suggested that the German and Italian
delegations might be able to work with local
commercial contractors employed on the Libyan
destruction activity, who could potentially provide
contractual data, procurement records and shipping
transactions. This would allow for greater
transparency into prospects for Libya meeting their
new deadline.

--------------
DEL COMMENT
--------------


17. (C) Libya may have hoped that in the
distraction of the Executive Council's selection

of a new Director-General, consideration of the
OPCW's budget and other issues (ref A),and by
sending the fast-talking Dr. Hesnawy to make the
case, they might get a pass on their extension
request. They did not. Most Council members
considered that Libya is not yet at the final
deadline (April 2012) set in the Convention and
were willing to allow more time for the completion
of destruction. However, the European Union's
skeptical stand provided a reality check in the
Council, and reinforced private efforts by the U.S.
and the UK to insist on transparency and progress
on the ground. Del hopes that the Libyan
government will begin to live up to its promises.


18. (U) BEIK SENDS.

LEVIN