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