CWC: EC CHAIR ON MEETING THE 2012 DEADLINE FOR CW

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000021 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: 01/13/2020 TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC SUBJECT: CWC: EC CHAIR ON MEETING THE 2012 DEADLINE FOR CW DESTRUCTION REF: A. 09 THE HAGUE 632 ¶B. MIKULAK-BEIK EMAIL (01/12/10) Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) This is CWC-02-10. ¶1. (U) This is an action request: see para 9. ¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY: Delreps called on Executive Council (EC) Chairman Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico) on January 12 in advance of Lomonaco's first round of informal consultations on issues related to meeting the 2012 deadline for destruction of chemical weapons (CW) stockpiles. Lomonaco shared his thoughts on how to address the issue. He plans to discuss his ideas with Director-General (DG) Pfirter later in the week and welcomed feedback from Delreps and colleagues. Lomonaco plans to hold two rounds of consultations during the remainder of his tenure -- the first on January 21 in advance of the February EC session (EC-59) and the second sometime in March before the April EC session (EC-60) -- before handing over to his successor in May. END SUMMARY. ¶3. (SBU) On January 12, Delreps Beik and Granger and Embassy Legal Counselor John Kim met with EC Chair Lomonaco and his deputy, Blanca Polo, to discuss Lomonaco's intentions for his first round of consultations (scheduled for January 21) on issues related to meeting the 2012 CW destruction deadline. Lomonaco's primary consideration is to follow the mandate given to him by the EC during its October session (EC-58),but this discussion will clearly extend into the next year beyond his chairmanship. He plans to hold a first round of consultations and to report to the Council in February, and to hold a second round of consultations before EC-60 in April, the last session he will chair. Lomonaco intends to begin the process in as positive a direction as he can before handing the main work to his successor (yet to be chosen from the Western European and Others Group, WEOG). ¶4. (SBU) Lomonaco shared points he had considered to guide discussion during the January 21 meeting. He plans to raise the points with DG Pfirter before the meeting to get his input and to enlist the support of Technical Secretariat (TS) for potential 
requests for papers or reports on specific topics. He welcomed U.S. feedback. Lomonaco divided the points into two categories: a. How and when to initiate discussions by the EC (the mandate from EC-58 for the EC Chair's consultations) - timing for the discussions - legal considerations - long-term/strategic considerations - political considerations - the possibility of convening a Special Conference b. OPCW adjustments post-2012 - reduction in Verification income - redundancy of Inspection personnel ¶5. (C) Under practical considerations (the second category),Lomonaco suggests a focus on organizational adjustments resulting from the draw- down and eventual completion of destruction activities, including the redundancy of inspection personnel and the reduction in income from possessor states for TS verification of destruction. Lomonaco observed that these real and pressing considerations could provide a positive focus for delegations' energy and discussions Qfocus for delegations' energy and discussions rather than falling into hypothetical debate on non-compliance. He recalled a previous meeting in November with U.S. Representative to the EC and ISN/CB Executive Director Mikulak on this issue and reiterated his personal view that it would be best to contain and minimize a political discussion, which would inevitably become more contentious the longer it went on. Instead, Lomonaco prefers to focus on practical issues first before moving to other, more political considerations closer to the deadline. Delrep said the U.S. had not been thinking in terms of the budget and personnel implications for this consultation but that a discussion of the practical organizational impact of the deadlines (met or not) could be productive and provide useful background for the incoming Director-General and his new senior management. ¶6. (C) Referring to the EC's mandate for the consultations (Ref A),Lomonaco said that the other set of issues relate to how and when to initiate discussions by the EC on not meeting the 2012 deadline. These issues range from the timing for such discussions to legal, strategic and political considerations. Lomonaco also included the possibility of a special conference, as suggested several times by the Director-General, but he agreed that timing and the agenda for such a conference would be extremely sensitive and would have to be planned carefully. He noted that there will be a political price to pay for missing the 2012 deadline but predicted that it would be better to deal with all affected possessor states together rather than only focusing on the U.S. now and letting other states "avoid the heat" but reap the benefits of any agreed solution. ¶7. (SBU) Lomonaco also shared with Delreps a paper he is drafting with thoughts on facilitating the work of the Conference of the States Parties (CSP) based on his experience from the Second Review Conference and the last two CSP sessions. The paper focuses primarily on a more representative and transparent composition of small drafting groups (draft paper being scanned and sent separately to ISN/CB). Lomonaco plans to introduce the paper informally during either EC-59 or EC-60 to stimulate discussion, without aiming for a "noted" report or decision but to provide some concrete suggestions for the future. He asked for thoughts and feedback to incorporate into what he sees as a contribution to improving the working methods of the policy-making organs. ¶8. (SBU) DEL COMMENT: Lomonaco used similar techniques in leading the process for selection of the new Director-General, with great effect (Ref A). He has a thoughtful plan but will listen to feedback, allowing ventilation of views in an open meeting but keeping the process under control. With the transition of leadership this summer from DG Pfirter to his successor, Ahmet Uzumcu (Turkey), Lomonaco's approach of focusing on organizational issues seems a productive one that could help the OPCW transition, both on the highly toxic deadline issue and for the working methods of the political bodies. END COMMENT. Qbodies. END COMMENT. ¶9. (U) ACTION REQUEST: Del requests feedback on Lomonaco's notional points in advance of the January 21 meeting, and any response or suggestions to his draft paper on improving CSP procedures. ¶10. (U) BEIK SENDS. LEVIN