CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR THE 14TH CONFERENCE OF THE

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000719

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: 11/26/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL EIND OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR THE 14TH CONFERENCE OF THE
STATES PARTIES, NOVEMBER 30-DECEMBER 4, 2009

REF: A. THE HAGUE 632

B. THE HAGUE 659

C. THE HAGUE 706

D. SMITH-ISN/CB E-MAIL 11/13/09

E. GRANGER-ISN/CB E-MAIL 11/27/09

F. GRANGER-ISN/CB E-MAIL 11/24/09

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

This is CWC-69-09

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


1. (SBU) The 14th Conference of the States Parties
(CSP) should smoothly wrap up the year's worth of
activities of the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),as intended in the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This year,
unlike many in the past, the Executive Council (EC)
completed its preparatory work for the CSP on time,
including the critical issues of recommending a
consensus candidate, Ahmet Uzumcu of Turkey, to
become the next Director-General of the
Organization, and forwarding the draft 2010 Program
and Budget to the Conference to approve (ref A).
Iran's participation, as always, could play a wild
card in the Conference, with the most likely
disruptive intervention centering on criticism of
prospective delays in the U.S. chemical weapons
destruction program.


2. (SBU) With the visit of Assistant Secretary of
Defense Andrew Weber November 30 - December 1, the
U.S. Delegation will pursue progress on critical
issues outside of the Conference plenary sessions,
including briefings on the U.S. chemical weapons
destruction program and meetings on Iraq's future
destruction.

3.(SBU) In the weeks leading up to the CSP, Dr.
Robert Mikulak, ISN/CB Executive Director and U.S.
Representative to the EC and CSP, visited The Hague
November 10-11 and met bilaterally with a number of
delegations in advance of the CSP. The CSP General
Committee met on November 11 and 26 to discuss
preparations for the CSP. Delreps participated in
a meeting of Close Allies on November 18 as well as
a number of bilateral meetings with other
delegations and with the Technical Secretariat
(TS). Regular weekly meetings of the Western
European and Others Group (WEOG) were held
throughout November to discuss current issues.


4. (SBU) Unresolved issues for the CSP include
draft decisions on Article VII (National
Implementation) and Article XI (Economic
Cooperation and Assistance). As one WEOG wag
expressed it, with the major issues of the DG
selection and the budget resolved, there has been
perhaps too much time to devote to details of the
Article VII and XI decisions before the CSP.
In contrast, the annual decision on Universality
found consensus language during a single
consultation on November 13.


5. (SBU) Details on the status of these issues on
the eve of the CSP follow, as well as notes on some
broader issues from the Close Allies meeting.

--------------
IRAN
--------------


6. (SBU) On November 26, Iranian Delegate Hassan
Vejdani told Delreps that Iran plans to propose
report language on destruction deadlines during the

CSP. He did not yet have the language to share but
said that they planned to provide the draft to the
U.S. and other delegations shortly. Delreps
responded that the earlier we could see the draft
language, the better, and that it should be general
for all destruction; we would not accept language
singling out the United States.


7. (C) In a private meeting later that morning,
the Director-General told Delreps that the Iranian
delegation had also informed him that they would
have report language on the destruction deadlines.
He advised them to offer the draft early and to
consult widely with other delegations, to avoid the
confrontational final session of last year's
Conference. (Del Note: In the 2008 CSP, Iran was
totally isolated in its efforts to introduce report
language on the destruction deadline, resulting in
a Chairman's Report when Iran would not join
consensus on that paragraph. End Note.)


8. (SBU) Who will represent Iran is still an open
question, as the new Permanent Representative to
the OPCW has not yet presented his credentials, and
the Iranian government filed applications late for
visas for delegates from Tehran.

--------------
ARTICLE VII
--------------


9. (U) Facilitator Rami Adwan (Lebanon) convened a
series of consultations during November to discuss
a draft decision on national implementation for the
CSP. However, in stead of getting down to drafting
the decision, Iran questioned the need for a
decision saying that report language indicating the
current status of things would be sufficient.
While Iran was the only delegation explicitly to
reject a draft decision, support among many other
delegations was contingent on the decision tracking
closely with that from last year. During the
consultation on November 12, the South African and
Iranian delegations each tabled new language on
indicators contained in the annual TS report on
Article VII implementation (ref D). The South
African proposal aimed to limit the indicators to
those directly related to Article VII, thereby
removing existing indicators on submissions of
annual declarations, etc. The Iranian proposal --
which was presented as complementary to the South
African proposal but actually appeared to be
contradictory -- called for more detailed
information on what member states have done to
bring their regulations and legislation in line
with Article XI Paragraph 2(e).


10. (SBU) After not making any progress in the
previous two meetings, Adwan's third consultation
on November 17 was more productive and focused on a
draft text prepared by Adwan, going paragraph-by-
paragraph through the text. Throughout the
consultation the Iranian delegate was usually the
first to speak on each paragraph, often insisting
that all language match exactly that in the
previous year's decision (C-13/DEC.7). Aside from
a few constructive comments by the Cuban delegate
to move the process along, Iran was only delegation
from the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) to take the
floor. The three-hour consultation turned into a
Qfloor. The three-hour consultation turned into a
debate between Iran and WEOG delegations, with a
few interventions by the Russian and Japanese
delegates.


11. (C) With the South African delegation's
absence, Adwan chose to postpone discussion on the
South African proposal to limit indicators in the
TS annual report only to those in Article VII. The

Iranian Delegate seized the opportunity to postpone
discussion on the Iranian proposal to add an
indicator on Article XI Paragraph 2(e),claiming
that it was related to the South African proposal
and should be considered concurrently. At the
close of the meeting, Adwan promised to circulate a
new draft reflecting comments from the
consultation. The next consultation was scheduled
for November 23. (Del Comment: Adwan finally
seemed to realize who his friends and enemies were
during the consultation. While he previously
seemed inclined to accommodate all Iranian
requests, Adwan started pushing back, particularly
when Iran objected to congratulating Lebanon, among
others, for establishing a national authority. End
Comment.)


12. (SBU) During the final consultation before the
CSP on November 23, Adwan went through his revised
draft text paragraph by paragraph, successfully
removing brackets from all but five portions: the
title, the preambular paragraph on progress made in
designating/establishing national authorities since
last year's decision, the preambular paragraph on
the contribution to universality, and operative
paragraph on proving the full text of national
legislation, and the penultimate operative
paragraph on the annual TS report. Positions on
the draft decision's title were split between those
delegations wanting to repeat last year's title and
those delegations supporting Adwan's lengthier
title taken from the 2006 (CSP-11) decision.


13. (SBU) The Iranian delegation held up agreement
on the preambular paragraph on designation/
establishment of national authorities because of
objections to referencing last year's decision,
despite the decision being referenced specifically
in the first two preambular paragraphs. The
Iranian delegation also voiced the only objection
to including the UK-proposed preambular paragraph
on the link between universality and Article VII
implementation, despite the language having been
agreed in the Article VII Action Plan and the
Second Review Conference.


14. (SBU) Legal Advisor Onate explained that the
report of the First Review Conference as well as
the Article VII Action Plan provided the basis for
requesting updates from member states when amending
implementing legislation/regulations as well as the
full text of national implementing legislation.
The Iranian delegation, initially opposed to
including the paragraph, went on to insist that a
reference to Article XI Paragraph 2(e) be added.
The South African and Indian delegates suggested
that relevant portions of the Action Plan
(paragraphs 14(c) and 15) could be inserted
verbatim.


15. (SBU) The remaining point of contention
involved the request to the TS to produce its
annual report on Article VII implementation. WEOG
delegations spoke in support of a generic request
for annual reports in order to avoid having to re-
authorize the TS each year to produce its report.
Delegates also discussed the South African and
Iranian proposals on which indicators to include in
the annual report. The South African delegate
Qthe annual report. The South African delegate
initially refused to be drawn into commenting on
the Iranian proposal but finally admitted that he
did not see a contradiction between the two
proposals; he explained that -- even though his
proposal limited indicators to those related to
Article VII paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 -- the Iranian
proposal could be accommodated because a previous
decision (the Action Plan) specifically mentioned
Article XI Paragraph 2(e). With no agreement in

sight, Adwan closed the meeting and announced his
plan to continue consultations during the CSP, most
likely starting on December 1. (Ref E contains
latest draft text.)

--------------
ARTICLE XI
--------------


16. (SBU) Facilitator Chen Kai (China) held three
rounds of consultations on his draft decision on
Article XI. The first consultation on November 11
was short and efficient, with delegations actively
commenting on the draft text circulated by Chen
(ref F). During his consultation on November 17,
Chen presented a new draft. Discussion focused on
the operative paragraphs, specifically those
dealing with the proposed workshop. WEOG
delegations pushed to remove redundancies
throughout the text; Iran and Cuba were the only
NAM delegations to engage, the latter more
constructively than the former. When the Iranian
delegate insisted on the word "agreed" appearing in
reference to the arrangements for the workshop, the
Brazilian delegate responded that the decision
should focus on authorizing the workshop instead of
fixating on agreeing all of its aspects.


17. (SBU) During the November 23 consultation,
delegations progressed through Chen's revised draft
text leaving only two points open at the end of the
meeting. While agreement was reached on most
outstanding issues, the Iranian delegation
surprisingly threw on the brakes near the end of
the meeting, informing Chen that they needed
instructions from Tehran and would not be able to
resume discussions for at least a week. The
Iranian delegation took exception to the reference
in the fifth preambular paragraph to the Chairman's
Report from CSP-13, ostensibly because they
continue to question the report's legitimacy. The
Iranian delegation also objected to a proposal to
reference, in the same preambular paragraph, the
Cuban national paper (from EC-54) which formally
suggested holding the Article XI workshop. The
Iranian delegation also continued to insist on some
form of the word "agree" in the third operative
paragraph addressing arrangements for the proposed
workshop. (Ref G contains latest draft text.)


18. (C) Del Comment: Iran seems to have come to
accept holding a workshop in 2010 but is still wary
about what the workshop will include and how it
will be arranged. In the words of the Brazilian
delegate, Iran is "fixated" on spelling out every
aspect of the workshop and making sure that member
states will be able to veto any aspect with which
they object. The approach of the facilitator and
of other NAM delegations indicates their
realization that progress on Article XI is
implicitly linked to concomitant progress on
Article VII. While Chen's facilitation is more
advanced than the Article VII facilitation and
seemed on the verge of completion before the
Iranian delegation halted it, there is a general
understanding that an Article XI decision at the
CSP will only be possible if there is a parallel
agreement on an Article VII decision. End Comment.

--------------
UNIVERSALITY
--------------


19. (U) On November 13, Facilitator Lee Litman (UK)
Q19. (U) On November 13, Facilitator Lee Litman (UK)
convened a brief consultation to discuss his
proposed draft decision on Universality for the
CSP. At the beginning of the meeting, Polish
Delegate Warminska gave a report on meetings held

in October on the margins of the UN First Committee
in New York by Director-General Pfirter and Polish
Permanent Representative Rapacki. While all seven
non-member states were invited to meet with Pfirter
and Rapacki, only Burma, Egypt, Israel and Syria
accepted. Warminska reported that Burma signaled
its political will to ratify the Convention but
admitted that it is not a top priority for the
government. Egypt and Syria both linked their
accession to the regional security situation,
specifically saying that Israel would have to join
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) first.
Israel announced its intention to participate in
the CSP and also noted the link made by other
countries between the CWC and the NPT and regional
security issues.


20. (U) Turning to the draft decision, Litman asked
for reactions from delegations. The Iranian
delegate was the first to speak, raising Iran's
usual objection to the word "non-proliferation",
saying that it does not exist in the Convention and
is usually used specifically in the nuclear
context. Delrep, along with German and Italian
delegates, spoke in favor of retaining the word
"non-proliferation". The Iranian delegate relented
after the German delegate suggested specifying that
the decision's reference to non-proliferation was
only in the context of the CWC. The only other
modification to Litman's draft text was a
suggestion made by Delrep to include "relevant OPCW
meetings and events" in the list of activities to
which non-member states could be invited in order
to highlight the useful outreach conducted during
regional workshops and seminars.


21. (U) After reaching agreement on the modified
draft decision, Litman said he would forward the
draft to the CSP for consideration and adoption.
(Del Note: The draft decision has been issued
officially as a Conference Room Paper, C-14/DEC/
CRP.8. End Note.)

--------------
QUAD LUNCH
--------------


22. (C) Delreps Smith and Granger attended a
working lunch for Close Allies (France, Germany,
the UK and the U.S.) hosted by the UK Delegation on
November 18. UK Delegate Karen Wolstenholme,
German Ambassador Werner Burkart and Delegate Ruth
Surkau, and French Delegates Raja Rabia and Edouard
Meyrat also attended. After discussing the current
status of consultations and preparations for the
CSP, Burkart and Delrep raised how to energize
Article VI industry consultations. While Sudanese
Ambassador Idris (the Executive Council Vice-Chair
for Industry Issues) has put out a call for a
facilitator to take on outstanding issues related
to other chemical production facilities (OCPFs) and
to annual Article VI inspection numbers, Delrep
said that Idris should be encouraged to chair a
consultation himself to get things moving. And,
while Article VI issues are important to WEOG
delegations, Surkau noted that WEOG delegations
already provide the bulk of facilitators; it was
agreed that a non-WEOG facilitator may be best
suited to lead consultations on contentious
industry issues. Given Brazilian re-engagement on
Qindustry issues. Given Brazilian re-engagement on
industry issues, including Ambassador Meideros'
chairing of an OCPF workshop on November 25, it was
suggested that the Brazilian delegation be
approached to take on the open industry
consultation. Rabia noted the current absence of
any Russian facilitators and suggested having a
Russian co-facilitator to assist Brazil.


23. (C) Burkart and Delrep also raised the issue of
who from WEOG could be the next Executive Council
(EC) Chairman to succeed current Chairman Lomonaco
(Mexico) when his term ends in May 2010. Of the
ten WEOG members, Burkart said that the ambassadors
of Luxembourg and Denmark are the only
possibilities. Among the Close Allies, Burkart
will be leaving during the summer of 2010;
Wolstenholme said that new UK Ambassador Arkwright
is not interested in the OPCW; Rabia said that
French Ambassador Blarel has categorically refused
to take on the role. Burkart said he had spoken to
the Italian and Spanish ambassadors, neither of
whom wanted the role. Burkart also said that the
Canadian ambassador will be leaving during the
summer of 2010 and posited that the Turkish
ambassador should be excluded. Burkart noted that
the Luxembourgish Ambassador is engaged in OPCW
issues and served on the Security Council when he
was Permanent Representative in New York and
Luxembourg was a rotating member.


24. (C) Wolstenholme announced that the UK
Delegation has firm instructions from London not to
deal with the Iranian Delegation due to the recent
conviction of local staff from the UK Embassy in
Tehran. Rabia followed by saying that local staff
from the French Embassy in Tehran are currently on
trial; she said that the issue is extremely
sensitive but unresolved.


25. (C) Moving to the issue of designated
laboratories, Rabia said Paris has suggested two
modifications to the draft agreement tabled by the
TS. The first modification would allow the TS to
use an alternative laboratory if the first
laboratory is unable to conduct the analysis and/or
to accept a representative of the inspected state
party to observe the analysis. The second
modification would allow laboratories to report
results of analysis to the TS and in conformity
with national regulations, which could include
providing information also to a National Authority
or other government body. Burkart responded that
Germany supports the first French modification but
not the second. He explained that there is strong
German industry scrutiny on the issue of sampling
and analysis; while he might not be concerned about
the French National Authority receiving the results
of an analysis of a German sample, the same might
not be true in China or other countries. Burkart
also stated that Berlin is reviewing the draft
agreement to see if previous concerns raised by
German have been addressed.


26. (C) Delrep and Burkart then raised a proposal
made by Director-General Pfirter during a lunch he
hosted the previous day for WEOG representatives.
Pfirter, claiming to speak "off the cuff,"
suggested that one way to deal with Article VI
inspections could be for national authorities to
conduct their own industry inspections and for the
TS to regularly audit them, including spot checks.
He suggested this as a way to augment the current
number of industry inspections. While there was
some surprise at Pfirter's remarks, he told UK
Ambassador Arkwright after the lunch that China was
QAmbassador Arkwright after the lunch that China was
on-board. Delrep said that India had raised a
similar suggestion during bilateral consultations
on the margins of the last EC session in October.


27. (U) BEIK SENDS.

GALLAGHER