CWC: ASD WEBER DELIVERS PRESENTATION ON U.S.

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000764 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: 12/22/2019 TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC SUBJECT: CWC: ASD WEBER DELIVERS PRESENTATION ON U.S. DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM AND MEETS WITH SENIOR OPCW LEADERSHIP ON 2012 DEADLINE REF: A. THE HAGUE 746 ¶B. THE HAGUE 738 ¶C. THE HAGUE 745 Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) This is CWC-77-09 ¶1. (U) This is an action request: see paras 12, 18 and 24. -------------- INTRODUCTION -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Senior Department of Defense representative Andrew Weber (Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs) visited The Hague November 30 - December 1 to participate in the 14th Conference of the States Parties (CSP) of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) (ref A). Weber held a broad range of productive meetings, including with OPCW Director-General (DG) Ambassador Rogelio Pfirter and newly appointed Director-General Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu, and an open meeting on the U.S. chemical weapons destruction program which was attended by a standing-room-only crowd. Weber also met bilaterally with the Iraqi and Russian delegations on matters pertaining to U.S. cooperation and requests for assistance on destruction activity, reported in Refs B and C, respectively. -------------- -------------- DISCUSSIONS WITH OPCW LEADERSHIP PRESENT AND FUTURE -------------- -------------- ¶3. (SBU) On November 30, Weber met with Director- General Pfirter to solicit the views of OPCW leadership on key strategic issues, and engage in a constructive conversation on the challenges with the U.S. destruction program as well as the status of international destruction programs. The meeting was also attended by Richard Ekwall (Chief of Cabinet),Dr. Robert Mikulak (ISN/CB Director and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the CSP),and Jennifer Smith (U.S. Delegation to the OPCW). ¶4. (SBU) Weber stated that the U.S. continues to make every effort to expedite our destruction program with the goal of completing destruction of our chemical weapons stockpile by 2012, or as soon as feasible thereafter. He added that the U.S. would like to ensure that the OPCW leadership remains confident in our commitment, political will and efforts aimed at the full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. He described U.S. transparency measures, including the open meeting to be held the following afternoon on the status of U.S. destruction efforts. Weber stated that it is important that we constructively prepare for the possibility that the U.S. will not complete destruction activity by 2012, as current schedule projections indicate. ¶5. (C) Pfirter responded that "the success of the organization should not be tied to a date" emphasizing that the key is the destruction itself. He stated that this matter requires serious "diplomatic management" and urged that the U.S. appoint an Ambassador as Permanent Representative to the OPCW as soon as possible. Weber indicated that there has been progress in this regard back in Washington and that a nomination is expected to be announced soon. Pfirter stated that, should an Ambassador be appointed prior to his departure, he QAmbassador be appointed prior to his departure, he would assist in any way possible with the transition. Weber stated that, similarly, the U.S. is interested in facilitating a smooth transition of leadership from Pfirter to his successor, and offered that a joint visit to a U.S. destruction facility might be extremely beneficial to ensure a firsthand appreciation by the incoming Director- General of the complexities of destruction activity. He proposed such a visit during the second week in February 2010. (Del note: Both Pfirter and Ekwall have concurred on a detailed itinerary for a U.S. visit February 16-19, 2010. End note.) ¶6. (C) Weber stated that the U.S. has received a request from the Government of Iraq to assist with their destruction program and that he has enlisted specialists to review the situation and make recommendations on what support, if any, the U.S. ought to provide. He indicated that this has posed a particular challenge as our current assessment is that the financial contribution required to conduct even the most preliminary assessment activities and inventory is considerable, and the risk posed to personnel and the environment in terms of safety and security is also considerable, while the proliferation risk or the actual threat from the contents of the bunkers is very limited. He stated that he would be meeting with the Iraqi delegation during his visit to discuss this matter. Weber said that he was interested in the option of entombment of the bunkers as a viable destruction strategy. ¶7. (C) Pfirter stated that he has discussed this matter with his Director of Verification, Horst Reeps, and they would be inclined to endorse this approach or something similar. He said he entirely agreed with looking for a practical application of the treaty obligations. Pfirter viewed the South African proposal on handling unforeseen circumstances as helpful in this regard, noting that the result may be guidelines or modalities of implementation and reaching a more flexible approach in these challenging situations. ¶8. (SBU) Pfirter said the Technical Secretariat recently had to postpone their visit to Iraq based on a last minute venue change by the Iraqi Government from Arbil to Baghdad. He stated that the Technical Secretariat remains ready to conduct the visit, noting that there are more qualified inspectors ready now than previously, having recently undergone training in Amman, but that they are awaiting an Iraqi invitation with an alternate date. Pfirter said that he had been working with the UN to coordinate the visit as required, and the UN had advised that this should be postponed until after the January elections based on the UN ability to support the visit. (Del note: The Iraqi delegation advised Delrep that the elections would likely be postponed to March. The postponement has since been made public. End note.) Pfirter stated that he encouraged the Iraqi Ambassador to coordinate with the UN and the U.S. to ensure appropriate security measures are met for the visit. He also stated that there is political Qvisit. He also stated that there is political pressure to conduct this activity, noting that the Iranian delegation had been in his office the week prior and inquired when this might take place. ¶9. (SBU) With regard to other destruction programs, Pfirter stated that he would be congratulating the Russian Federation for achieving their 45 percent destruction milestone during his statement to the CSP. He also stated that he believed the Libyan destruction deadline request would be approved by the CSP, but emphasized that the Technical Secretariat would be exerting increased pressure on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on their destruction progress. ¶10. (SBU) On December 1, Turkish Ambassador Ugur Dogan hosted an informal breakfast meeting for Weber with incoming Director-General Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu. Also attending were Haldun Ererdem (Turkish Delegation to the OPCW),Cem Utkan (Deputy Chief of Mission, Turkish Embassy),Volkan Oskiper (First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office in Geneva) and U.S. Delreps Mikulak and Smith. During the breakfast a cordial conversation ensued and Ambassador Uzumcu complimented Mikulak and Weber on the U.S. National Statement at the CSP the day before. ¶11. (SBU) Weber briefly described the U.S. destruction program and the challenges faced by the Department of Defense in meeting the 2012 deadline. He also invited Uzumcu to visit a U.S. destruction facility in February. Weber stated that he extended a similar invitation to Ambassador Pfirter earlier. They discussed potential dates for the visit and proposed meetings with senior U.S. government officials. Uzumcu tentatively agreed to a visit during the second week in February. (Del note: Uzumcu has concurred on a detailed itinerary for a U.S. visit in February 16-19, 2010.) ¶12. (SBU) Action requested: Del requests Washington points of contact for the coordination of the visit to a U.S. destruction facility for Uzumcu, Pfirter, and Ekwall during the week of February 14, including those responsible for preparing invitational travel orders for Uzumcu (whose itinerary will include a visit to New York City) and scheduling appropriate meetings with senior leadership from the National Security Council, State, Defense and Commerce, and possibly Senator Lugar. Del will provide coordination with OPCW leadership. -------------- PRESENTATION ON U.S. DESTRUCTION PROGRAM -------------- ¶13. (SBU) On December 1, Weber made an informal presentation on the status of the U.S. destruction program during the lunch hour of the second day of the CSP to a standing room only crowd. Del had arranged with the Technical Secretariat for the meeting to be announced at the CSP and for invitations to be distributed to all delegations for those interested in attending. Mikulak, U.S. Representative to the CSP, and Lynn Hoggins, Chief of the Chemical/Biological Branch, Arms Control Division, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, supported Weber's presentation. In his opening remarks, Weber described this as an introductory meeting to learn the concerns of the audience and indicated that he would be a regular visitor to The Hague. He stated his intention to keep the OPCW and States Parties well-informed of the status of U.S. destruction efforts. ¶14. The presentation covered: -- overall progress made (noting that 67.6 percent of Category 1 chemical weapons have been destroyed); -- site-specific achievements (including site Q-- site-specific achievements (including site closures, operations, and construction activity); -- Executive Council visits (including a proposed visit in 2011 to Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility and Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant); -- overall schedule projections (showing destruction operation scheduled for Pueblo of 2014- 2017 and Blue Grass 32018-2021); -- operational challenges (including management related issues of retaining personnel and technical issues of mercury contamination and mustard agent heels); -- and program acceleration efforts (including a review of small scale systems, mobile systems and explosive chambers to destroy rejects over overpacked leaking munitions). The presentation was approximately 30 minutes and was followed by a question and answer session where four countries posed questions: India (twice), Iran, Sweden, and Austria. ¶15. (SBU) The Indian Permanent Representative, Ambassador Manbir Singh, asked for more details on the new small-scale systems under consideration by the U.S. and to what extent the U.S. expects these systems to expedite the schedule for the program. Weber responded that this approach has only been considered in the last month and in the near-term requires funding from Congress. He stated that he believes this would allow the U.S. to begin to destroy chemical weapons at Pueblo in 2012 and he'd like to do the same at Blue Grass. He stated that it is impossible to provide a thorough estimate of how this might affect cost and schedule at this point. Hoggins informed that this approach might complete operations activity approximately 8 months earlier than currently projected at Pueblo. ¶16. (SBU) An expert from the Indian National Authority later inquired about the technical challenges in the presentation. He inquired about the cause of the mercury contamination, stating that India had not faced this problem in their destruction activity. He stated that India did face the issue of the "mustard heels" and as a result believed that they might not meet their own deadline, but noted that they were able to overcome this issue with government support. He also inquired why a bio-process, which is known to be very slow, was selected. Weber responded that the bio-process is only for treatment of secondary waste and not the primary process for destruction. He complimented India in achieving their destruction goals and stated that the U.S. would welcome India's suggestions and technical advice. ¶17. (SBU) With regard to the mercury contamination issue, Hoggins clarified that the mercury contamination may have come from the ton containers and perhaps from previous container contents. She said that a filtration system has been employed to correct the issue. The Austrian Permanent Representative, Ambassador Wolfgang Paul, inquired about the amount of contamination from mercury. Weber and Hoggins stated that they did not have this figure on hand but that a response would follow through the U.S. Delegation. ¶18. (SBU) Action requested: Del requests correspondence to the Austrian delegation in response to their inquiry. ¶19. (SBU) Swedish Delegate Jan Lodding complemented the U.S. on the progress achieved thus far and the level of transparency provided. He also expressed Qlevel of transparency provided. He also expressed gratitude for the Executive Council visits and stated that he hopes for a similar visit in Russia in 2010. He expressed concern with the schedule projections included in the briefing. He stated that he understood from the presentation that the U.S> is looking at transporting mobile systems to the sites to expedite progress and inquired if it is possible to transport the chemical weapons stockpiles from the non-operational sites to the existing sites. Weber stated that under federal and state laws transportation of these materials is prohibited. He described a past study by the Department of Defense that included this suggestion and concluded that it would require an act of Congress to change the laws, which is in itself a timely process. Weber stated that this issue also came up in the context of the Russian program as a suggestion to move chemical weapons from Kisner to Shchuchye and the conclusion was that because of the age and condition of the chemical weapons, it was deemed to risky to move them. (Del note: The Japanese delegate approached Delrep at a reception to state that they too had looked into transportation and had experienced similar legal and technical challenges that prohibited the movement of chemical weapons from one site to another. End note.) ¶20. (SBU) A representative from Iran's National Authority, Alireza Hajizadeh, mixed in a few questions within a long-winded comment. He complained that the Iranian delegation had made several requests of the U.S. Delegation in The Hague for more details on Pueblo and Blue Grass but that no information had been provided until the release of the latest EC visit report to the U.S. The Iranian noted from this EC visit report that a contract had been signed in the U.S. to complete destruction by 2012, and he therefore asked why this had changed. He also asked for an update on U.S. legislation on destruction. He then asked why no activity is planned at these two remaining sites for many years. Assuming that the U.S. government must not discriminate among the safety of its citizens from different states, he asked why the U.S. is not using the same destruction technology at these two new sites as was used in other sites. Ultimately, the Iranian wanted to know the true intention of the United States because he claimed that Iran simply cannot digest how it is possible for the U.S. to miss the deadline. The projected timelines causes Iran to question the U.S. commitment to the CWC. He concluded by contending that U.S. intentions are not clear, that the U.S. is presenting contradictory information, and that these issues need further clarification. ¶21. (SBU) Weber responded that that the delegate had raised a number of important issues, but with regard to his fundamental question, he stated that the U.S. is committed to destroying 100 percent of its chemical weapons as soon as possible. He asserted that there is not a lack of activity at the two sites (Pueblo and Blue Grass) and rather that they are working at maximum capacity at both, to the extent that additional funding would not likely speed up activity due to absorption. Weber stated that he has called for a study to review opportunities for increased efficiencies in the operations at these sites. He highlighted that Qoperations at these sites. He highlighted that with regard to schedule reporting, there are frequent reports to the Technical Secretariat, which include the referenced Executive Council visit report. ¶22. (SBU) Mikulak stated that the U.S. will be as transparent as possible, to include reports on cost and schedule. He emphasized that the schedules in the presentations are projections and that the U.S. will continue to keep all parties informed of changes and progress. (Del note: Delrep later asked Hajizadeh of his impressions the presentation. Hajizadeh said that even if he believed this presentation, he would have difficulty communicating this to people in his capital, describing that the issue for them is seen through a different lens as victims of chemical weapons. He stated that there is a sentiment in the Iranian government that the U.S. is purposely retaining a portion of its stockpile with no intention of full destruction. Until clarified by Delrep, he believed that Weber's presentation was required, and was surprised to learn that this was a voluntary transparency measure. He also expressed interest in the next Executive Council visit to the U.S. indicating that the announcement during the presentation of the next visit will be received with great interest from the Iranian government. End note.) ¶23. (SBU) Del Comment: The full attendance at this open meeting, and the expressions of concern about delays in the U.S. destruction program expressed in nearly all of the national statements during the General Debate at the CSP (ref A) reflect the widespread reservations among delegations here about the U.S. program. While Iran's aggressive interventions, especially like the rambling and inarticulate one above, embarrass other countries' representatives, many of them quietly share Iran's questions and concerns. Silence at this meeting, and others, does not indicate approval of the U.S. -- or any other country -- missing the final destruction deadline in the Convention. End comment. ¶24. (SBU) Action requested: Del requests that a standard set of talking points on the U.S. destruction program be developed, updated, fully coordinated, and provided to all members of the Delegation, including visiting TDYers. With the increased attention to the 2012 deadline and U.S. schedule projections, such information may be required at short notice of anyone representing the U.S. in any capacity. Preparations for routine destruction informal presentations would be substantially improved with resources such as likely questions to be fielded and coordinated answers to be provided. ¶25. (U) BEIK SENDS. MANN