CWC: MEETING WITH THE OPCW DIRECTOR-GENERAL ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000061

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: 01/29/2020
TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: MEETING WITH THE OPCW DIRECTOR-GENERAL ON
IRAQ AND OTHER ISSUES

REF: A. THE HAGUE 51

B. THE HAGUE 39

C. THE HAGUE 10

D. 09 THE HAGUE 738

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

This is CWC-07-10

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


1. (C) At the request of OPCW Director-General (DG)
Pfirter, Delreps Beik and Granger met with him and
Chief of Staff Ekwall on January 28 to discuss
Iraq. The Iraqi Ambassador had asked the DG to
encourage assistance from the United States and
other countries for Iraq's chemical weapons (CW)
destruction. Additional topics discussed at the
meeting included recent consultations on the final
destruction deadline and "situations not foreseen"
by the Convention, and plans for the next Executive
Council (EC) in February (EC-59).

--------------
WHEN IS THE NEW AMBASSADOR ARRIVING?
--------------


2. (SBU) After initial pleasantries, Director-
General Pfirter again enquired when the new U.S.
Ambassador/Permanent Representative would be
arriving, noting that the position has now been
vacant for more than a year. Delrep responded that
a formal nomination has not yet been made. In the
run-up to 2012, Pfirter stressed the pressing need
for good diplomatic management of the chemical
weapons destruction issue, including high-level
representation in The Hague. He noted the
perception that not replacing the U.S. Ambassador
reflects on the relative importance the U.S.
attaches to OPCW issues, including chemical weapons
destruction. (DEL COMMENT: With rumors running
rife about who the next U.S. Ambassador to the OPCW
will be, Delreps are constantly being asked by
other delegations and the Technical Secretariat
about the nomination and dates. We agree with the
DG's point about perceptions. END COMMENT.)

--------------
IRAQ
--------------


3. (C) Turning to his request for meeting on Iraq,
the DG said that, while it was not precisely in his
mandate to deliver a "demarche" from the Iraqi
Ambassador, he had been asked to encourage the U.S.
and other countries to provide assistance for
Iraq's destruction of its chemical weapons
remnants, including the "toxic waste" that appears
to be all that is left in Bunker 41. Delrep
responded that it was clear in the technical
meetings two weeks ago (Ref B) that Iraq wanted
guaranteed assistance before agreeing to amend
their initial declaration and develop a destruction
plan; however, donors would need to see the plan
before they could coordinate assistance and
expertise. She noted that Iraq appears to expect
the U.S. to substantially fund the destruction
program, but said that would be highly unlikely, as
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Andrew Weber
informed the Iraqi delegation in December (Ref D).
Delrep said the U.S. would look into how we might
be able to support Iraq's destruction, perhaps
providing engineering expertise to develop an
encapsulation plan, but we would certainly not be
in a position to write a blank check.


4. (C) Delrep briefed the DG on the assistance
meeting with the Iraqi delegation and some
potential donors that took place on the margins of
the Conference of the States Parties (CSP) in
December (Ref D),and noted the participation of
CSP Chairman Verba (Lithuania) in that meeting.
Verba would like an active role for his year as
Chairman, and, if he is willing to chair an
informal Iraq donors group, it could be could be
very useful. Pfirter appeared unaware of the
assistance meeting and said he would be meeting
Verba later in the week and would discuss chairing
ongoing Iraq donors meetings.


5. (C) Pfirter said that he had been warned by the
UN Secretary General's Representative in Iraq that
security conditions, and the strain on security
resources during the run-up to elections in March,
would not permit an OPCW visit to Iraq until after
the elections. He said unfortunately, there is not
much he can report to the Executive Council on
progress in Iraq, and some delegations will raise
questions on the delays. Delrep noted that the
Iraqi team for the technical meetings had not
included Dr. Al Sharaa, and Ambassador Banaa had
not attended any of the sessions. She expressed
doubt about the accuracy of reporting back to
Baghdad and when a decision from the Iraqi
government would be forthcoming on whether Iraq
would agree to amend its initial declaration in
light of the new information from UN documents, or
whether it would approve pursuing the option of
encapsulating the bunkers. The next step is Iraq's
to take. Pfirter agreed that there have always
been difficulties in communication between The
Hague and Baghdad, and said he would be meeting
again with the Iraqi Ambassador. (DEL NOTE: We
have also requested a meeting with Ambassador
Banaa. END NOTE.)

--------------
CURRENT CONSULTATIONS
--------------


6. (SBU) Turning to the "situations not foreseen"
consultation held the day before, the DG inquired
how it went. Delrep spoke briefly about U.S.
reservations with the facilitator's draft
guidelines, and noted other delegations' confusion
about the exercise and questions on the draft text.
This consultation would take time, she concluded.


7. (SBU) Pfirter agreed with Delrep that EC
Chairman Lomonaco's consultation the week before on
the final destruction deadline had gone well,
noting the constructive attitude of nearly all
delegations. He said even Iran's intervention had
been restrained. The DG also singled out South
Africa and Germany for their good interventions.
Reiterating his previous comments about a legal
opinion on missing the 2012 deadline (Ref A),
Pfirter stressed that the time is not yet right and
that the request for an opinion must be a concrete
question agreed by consensus. Delrep conveyed U.S.
views on amending the Convention and seeking a
technical change; the DG agreed that an amendment
would be unwise and only open "Pandora's box."

--------------
EC-59
--------------


8. (SBU) Following the consultation on 2012, the DG
advised Lomonaco to present his report to the
Council in February (EC-59) under the current
QCouncil in February (EC-59) under the current
agenda sub-item on progress made in meeting the
destruction deadline and other destruction-related
issues. Despite some delegations wanting a

separate item to discuss the EC Chairman's
consultation, Pfirter said he had resisted,
thinking it best to avoid creating an additional
opportunity for some delegations to rail against
U.S. projections of not completing destruction by
the 2012 deadline.


9. (SBU) On administrative issues before EC-59,
Pfirter said that he will issue a paper regarding
the composition of Technical Secretariat (TS) staff
in response to calls from the African Group --
particularly South Africa. The DG wants any
reporting on staff composition to be mandated by an
Executive Council decision, just as similar reports
in the UN are made in response to UN General
Assembly resolutions. Pfirter noted that Pakistani
Ambassador Chaudry had facilitated the issue at the
UN when he was previously posted to New York, and
Pfirter has asked Chaudry to chair discussion of
the issue at the OPCW before EC-60 in April.


10. (SBU) The DG also said that he has prepared a
draft decision lowering the maximum number of
annual leave days which staff can cash in at the
end of their contracts from 60 to 30 in response to
a recommendation by the Advisory Body on
Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF).
However, Pfirter feels that the change actually
will cost the Organization more, and he will
recommend deferral of the decision until after the
next ABAF meeting (scheduled for May) so that ABAF
can examine a related report on the indirect costs
of the proposed policy change.


11. (U) BEIK SENDS.

LEVIN