CWC: WRAP-UP FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 22, 2009

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000051

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: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL KTIA OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 22, 2009

REF: A. THE HAGUE 29

B. THE HAGUE 21

C. STATE 5807

This is CWC-06-09.

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


1. (SBU) The Executive Council (EC) Chairman's
consultation January 21 on issues related to the
final destruction deadline dominated the week's
agenda as the first official meeting at the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) in the new year. Delreps met with
the Russian delegation January 20 in anticipation
of this meeting. The Western European and Others
Group (WEOG) discussed the deadline consultation
and the upcoming consultation on "situations not
foreseen" by the Convention at the weekly meeting
on January 19. Delreps also met privately with the
Irish facilitator for "situations not foreseen" on
January 22 (that meeting will be reported by
septel).

--------------
WEOG
--------------


2. (SBU) At its regular Tuesday meeting January 19,
the Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
discussed both the EC Chairman's consultations on
the 2012 destruction deadline and the "situations
not foreseen" consultation under Facilitator
Michael Hurley (Ireland),who briefed the group on
his draft paper. The UK delegate announced that
London would not permit Ambassador Arkwright to
take the Executive Council chair after the former
UK ambassador chaired the Second Review Conference.
German Ambassador Werner Burkart added that he
planned to invite ambassadors from the ten WEOG
member countries of the Executive Council to lunch
to discuss the future WEOG EC chairmanship (since
scheduled for February 4).


3. (SBU) On the deadline consultation, the Spanish
delegate (now representing the EU presidency) spoke
of the importance of the issue, cited the Director-
General's view that the deadline is a means to an
end and not the end in itself, and said he expected
a roadmap from Chairman Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico),
much as he had done for the DG search. Delrep
briefed the group on Lomonaco's plans for the
meeting (Ref B),noting that he expects to launch
the process but will hand it over to his successor,
and emphasizing that he is open to suggestions on
his notional outline of issues relating to the
mandate of the EC ("how and when" to hold
discussions) and the impact on the Organization.
German representatives weighed in against the
budget and personnel implications as being
substantive and beyond the mandate of the
consultations, which should focus on how and when
to hold discussion on the deadline. Ruth Surkau,
in her role as WEOG coordinator, inquired about
views on a special EC or Conference, or an Open-
Ended Working Group. Delrep outlined U.S. view
(Ref C) that the normal political bodies should be
able to handle this issue in the two years
remaining before the April 2012 deadline. The
Spanish rep advised keeping the process in the
hands of the EC Chairman.


4. (SBU) On "situations not foreseen" by the
Convention, Facilitator Hurley outlined his draft
paper, noting that he deliberately avoided
Convention terms, and the contentious issues of
"possession and control" of chemical weapons, and
the vague formulation of "situations not foreseen."
He emphasized the role of the Policy-Making Organs
to review and approve arrangements, and noted South
Africa's concern that information be conveyed to
the OPCW in a timely fashion, hence the 30-day
updates included in the draft. The French delegate
inquired as to the timeline. Hurley responded that
he planned to introduce the paper at the
consultation on January 27, hear reactions at the
meeting the following week (February 3),and report
to the EC. He is looking for an agreed paper
before the Conference of the States Parties (CSP).
The Spanish delegate asked about the reactions of
other delegations. Hurley said the South Africans
had initiated this, but broadly accepted his
approach; they would tighten the reporting
requirements. German Ambassador Burkart questioned
the title of the exercise, noting that this seemed
to be verification not destruction, and expressed
concern about the role of the Council. Surkau
noted that the original formulation to limit this
to non-States Parties in the future seemed to have
disappeared.

--------------
MEETING WITH RUSSIAN DELEGATION
--------------


5. (SBU) Delreps Beik and Granger met with Russian
Delegate Vladimir Ladanov on January 20 and shared
points from guidance (Ref C) on the first round of
consultations on the 2012 destruction deadline
scheduled the following day by EC Chairman
Lomonaco. Ladanov excused the absence of Russian
Deputy PermRep Konstantin Gavrilov, who was ill and
unable to join the meeting. After Delreps gave a
brief overview of Lomonaco's plan for the
consultation as he had outlined it to them (Ref B),
Ladanov said that he did not have instructions from
Moscow but that it would be important for Russia
and the U.S. to coordinate and cooperate on the
issue. He agreed with Delreps that it is too early
to talk about non-compliance and also agreed that a
Special Conference to address the issue would not
be advisable, saying that some countries would only
use it to politicize and over-dramatize the
situation.


6. (SBU) Ladanov described an amendment to the
Convention as a "non-starter," further noting that
Russia does not see an amendment as an option or
even a possibility to be discussed. On Lomonaco's
idea on how to proceed with the consultation,
Ladanov was cool on the idea of addressing
organizational and practical implications of the
deadline; he focused instead on the mandate from
the EC on how and when to initiate discussions and
expressed concern that deviation from the "how and
when" mandate would encourage some countries to
focus on why 2012 would be missed and who would be
to blame.


7. (SBU) Delreps also discussed the consultations
on "situations not foreseen" and Facilitator
Hurley's draft paper circulated the day before.
Ladanov had not seen Hurley's paper but reiterated
the Russian position as stated during the October
EC session (EC-58) and subsequently circulated as a
national paper.


8. (SBU) On the issue of continued verification
Q8. (SBU) On the issue of continued verification
following 10 years after conversion of former
chemical weapons production facilities (CWPFs),
Ladanov said that Russia and the UK had reached a
compromise on having a special regime under Article
VI for converted former CWPFs to be inspected.
(Del Note: We are not so certain this has been
agreed. The Article VI designation would ensure
that costs for inspections would be borne by the
OPCW rather than States Parties, a key Russian
concern. End Note.) However, the details still
are being worked out by the Technical Secretariat
and should be in its anticipated paper on the
topic. Ladanov confided to Delreps that Russia is
considering destroying some of its converted former
CWPFs, which are now dormant, just as the U.S. did.

-------------- --------------
EC CHAIRMAN'S CONSULTATION ON ISSUES RELATED TO 2012
-------------- --------------


9. (SBU) The first official meeting of the new year
was a display of the OPCW at its best: a positive,
constructive tone permeated almost all
interventions. Even the Iranian comments were
relatively mild for them. The meeting was a
standing-room-only event with attendance by the
Director-General (DG),Deputy DG and a large number
of ambassadors and OPCW staff as well as the usual
delegates, with everyone exchanging best wishes for
the new year. EC Chairman Lomonaco opened the
meeting by stating his expectation for an exchange
of views on organizational matters, as well as his
intention for the meeting to provide an opportunity
to explore ideas and suggestions on how to proceed.
Lomonaco said the informal consultations should
provide a forum for discussing issues related to
the destruction deadline of 2012 in parallel with
the formal sessions of the EC; he plans to report
back to the EC on the progress of consultations,
thereby avoiding repetition of discussions within
the Council.


10. (U) Speaking in his capacity as CSP Chairman,
Lithuanian Ambassador Verba set the tone for
subsequent interventions. He thanked Lomonaco for
the initiative and agreed on the value of starting
a substantive debate on the issue. Verba noted
that destruction of existing stockpiles is only one
part of the Convention and said that dialogue is
crucial for the Organization to complete
destruction and transition to a greater focus on
non-proliferation. He also stated the need to
acknowledge current realities when addressing the
issue.


11. (U) Brazilian Ambassador Medeiros, who first
proposed convening the informal consultations,
agreed with Lomonaco that the consultations provide
an important forum for discussion, including a
discussion on the future of the OPCW. He said that
the issue should be kept permanently on the EC's
agenda, with the Chair reporting back to every
regular Council session. Medeiros said the next
two years will allow the Organization to address
the deadline issue without being overwhelmed by it
in 2012. Referring to the mandate for the
consultations given by EC-58, Medeiros divided the
issues related to meeting 2012 into three
categories:

-- Legal implications
How will some possessors not completing destruction
by 2012 affect the letter and spirit of the
Convention?

-- Administrative/practical implications
How will the normal work of the TS be affected if
2012 is not met, including any budgetary impact?

-- Institutional problems
How to deal with both the legal and
QHow to deal with both the legal and
administrative/practical implications of not
completing destruction by 2012? Possibly convene a
Special Conference or an Amendment Conference? Or
increase monitoring through the EC?


12. (U) South African Delegate van Schalkwyk
stressed the need to base discussion of 2012 on
"facts on the ground," noting that a decision on
the matter only can be reached closer to the
deadline. Chiming a refrain heard throughout the
consultations, van Schalkwyk said that nothing
should be done to undermine the Convention and
cited the need for flexibility in order to preserve
the Convention. He stressed the need for
destruction to be completed, even if the deadline
is missed. Van Schalkwyk supported Lomonaco's
intention to keep substantive discussion of the
issue in the consultation process and called for a
balanced approach to the issue. Echoing comments
from previous interventions, Indian Ambassador
Singh said that it was important to discuss and
prepare for 2012 but that no action should be pre-
emptive and action could not be taken until the
deadline. Singh ruled out any amendments to the
Convention, which he said would lead to its
unraveling.


13. (U) The Iranian Delegate then took the floor
reiterating Iran's position that complete
destruction constitutes the most important and
fundamental commitment of possessor states.
Expressing deep concern with the U.S. projected
dates for completing destruction, the Iranian
Delegate said these clearly contradict the
Convention and insisted that non-compliance with
the Convention will undermine its credibility and
that of the OPCW. Suggesting that the EC
Chairman's consultations might not be able to
address sufficiently all issues related to meeting
2012 (as mandated by the EC),the Iranian Delegate
proposed establishing ad-hoc working groups but
insisted at the very least that consultations be
convened on a regular basis.


14. (U) Following the first wave of speakers, U.S.
Delrep welcomed the constructive tone of the
discussion and the positive ideas that had been
proposed and would be proposed in future
discussions. She emphasized that there was time to
proceed with these consultations in an orderly and
productive manner and noted that the U.S. would
actively participate. The U.S. delegation sat next
to the Russian delegation, which left a junior
officer in the chair and did not speak at the
meeting. (Del Note: Brazilian Ambassador Medeiros
made a point of thanking Delrep following the
meeting for her positive intervention. He and
other delegates expressed appreciation for how well
the meeting had gone. End Note.)


15. (U) Obviously waiting for the U.S. to speak,
German Ambassador Burkart, French Delegate Rabia
and Dutch Ambassador Lohman then made
interventions. Burkart echoed Verba's earlier
remarks and stressed the need for balance. Burkart
said it was good to start in a "timely manner" but
saw no need for haste with two years still left.
He also said a special conference would not be
necessary. Citing the mandate given by the Council
to the consultation, Burkart said focus initially
should be on procedural (i.e., how and when) rather
than substantive matters. Referring to the
Brazilian categorization of issues related to 2012,
Burkart noted the different character between legal
QBurkart noted the different character between legal
and practical implications and said that the latter
will need to be addressed regardless of whether or
not destruction is completed by 2012, as
destruction activity naturally will draw down.
Rabia echoed the South African comment that
destruction will be effective even if the deadline
is missed and agreed with Burkart that a special
conference or meeting would not be needed. She
also agreed with India against renegotiating the
Convention. Like others, Lohman said that a final
decision cannot be taken until the situation is
clearer in 2012.


16. (U) Chinese Delegate Chen agreed on focusing
first on organizational aspects and subscribed to
Brazil's categorization of issues. Chen suggested
a plan of work be drawn up to guide the
consultation process during the next two years. He
also stressed the need for timely information from
possessors on measures they are taking to meet the
deadline or to address any delays. Cuban
Ambassador de los Reyes also said that precise,
timely and "profound" information will be essential
to guide the consultation process. Spanish
Ambassador Prat y Coll emphasized the
consultation's mandate to explore all issues
related to destruction and meeting 2012, including
the evolution of the OPCW to focus more on non-
proliferation following destruction. Prat y Coll
said that organizational changes should be a focus
of discussion.


17. (U) Drawing on comments from previous speakers,
Peruvian Ambassador Wagner highlighted six
elements:
-- the consultation should be open-ended and
include as many delegations as possible to help
build consensus;
-- while important, destruction must be balanced
with non-proliferation and industry issues, as well
as international cooperation and assistance;
-- any decision cannot be pre-emptive;
-- a distinction should be made between original
possessor states and those joining the Convention
later (including current non-member states) as the
process of destruction will not end until there is
complete universality and all chemical weapons have
been destroyed;
-- in line with the Brazilian intervention, legal
and practical implications must be considered
first, with institutional changes examined later;
-- a solution must be found within the Convention
without any recourse to amending it.


18. (U) Summing up the meeting, Lomonaco noted his
appreciation for the constructive and positive tone
and said he hoped to channel energies into finding
solutions and avoid finger-pointing. Lomonaco also
circulated a "lean paper" with two main elements
(modeled on the draft elements he had shared with
Delreps reported in Ref B):
-- how and when to initiate discussions by the
Council, and
-- OPCW administrative adjustments post 2012.

Lomonaco did not announce a date for the next
consultation, but said he had noted carefully the
ideas expressed and would continue to consult with
delegations.


19. (SBU) DEL COMMENT: Drawing on his experience
leading the selection process for the next
Director-General, Lomonaco obviously consulted with
a number of key ambassadors in advance of the
consultation resulting in a semi-choreographed
display of support for Lomonaco's approach. The
absence of a Russian intervention, and the fact
that a junior member of the Russian delegation was
in the chair, were telling of the current Russian
approach to the issue. Following the meeting, DG
Pfirter told Delrep that the timing was not yet
right for a legal opinion on the effect of missing
Qright for a legal opinion on the effect of missing
the destruction deadline; Pfirter also said that
the Legal Advisor will need to have any request for
an opinion will need to be an explicitly- and
clearly-framed question. Delreps later learned
from Legal Advisor Onate that he intentionally did
not attend the meeting to avoid being called on
immediately to pronounce a legal opinion. END
COMMENT.


20. (SBU) Postscript: In the following week's WEOG
discussion on January 26, delegations agreed that
the meeting had set a positive start to the
consultation, that it should remain in the hands of
the Chairman, and that it is too early for detailed
substantive discussion. There was a slight
divergence of views on whether the administrative
issues were relevant to the process or useful as a
diversion. The Dutch Ambassador noted the
opportunity to broaden the issue to look at the
future of the Organization. The Italian delegate
intoned that expanding the discussion on other
issues would require an evaluation of "what we want
to achieve." The Swiss delegate cited the
importance of keeping this issue in informal
channels and out of the Executive Council. WEOG
Coordinator Surkau asked if the mandate for the
consultation should be expanded beyond how and when
to hold discussions. The UK delegate and U.S.
Delrep both responded that it would be best not to
return this issue to the Council but to leave it in
the capable hands of the Chairman, with the
narrower mandate protecting against discussion in
undesirable directions while still allowing broader
discussion if the consultation group agreed.


21. (U) BEIK SENDS.

LEVIN