VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0181/01 0751317
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 161317Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2672
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000181 
 
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 (ROBERTS AND DENYER) 
NSC FOR FLY 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR MARCH 9-13, 2009 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 167 
     ¶B. STATE 23254 
 
This is CWC-16-09. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) The Western European and Others Group 
(WEOG) met March 10 to prepare for a meeting of the 
WEOG representatives to the Executive Council (EC) 
requested by the Chair to discuss the selection 
process for a new Director-General (DG).  Only two 
formal candidatures have been announced, Algerian 
Ambassador Benchaa Dani, and Turkish Permanent 
Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador 
Ahmet Uzumcu, but Germany, UK and Switzerland all 
expect to field candidates shortly. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Delreps also met with Technical 
Secretariat (TS) representatives on March 11 to 
discuss the Libyan former CW production facility at 
Rabta, and called on the new head of the Policy 
Review Branch, Stian Holen, on March 12. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Iraq submitted its initial declaration on 
March 12.  The Iraqi Ambassador was not available, 
but Delreps will meet with him the week of March 16 
to present the non-paper on preparations for the EC 
(56) in April (Ref B). 
 
---- 
WEOG 
---- 
 
¶4. (SBU) German Ambassador Werner Burkart chaired 
the weekly WEOG meeting on March 10.  The meeting 
was kept short and focused on the selection process 
for the next Director-General in advance of a 
meeting the EC Chairperson had called for WEOG 
members of the Council.  Noting that there will be 
multiple candidates put forward by WEOG countries, 
Burkart said that the Group will have to discuss 
how to handle coordination.  Turkish Ambassador 
Selahattin Alpar spoke briefly about Turkey's DG 
candidate, Ahmet Uzumcu (currently the Turkish 
Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva) and 
announced that Uzumcu plans to visit The Hague and 
would like to meet with WEOG delegations. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Burkart reported that Tomova had drafted 
and signed the letter inviting nominations for DG 
from all member states and that it would be 
circulated shortly by the Technical Secretariat to 
all delegations.  (Del Note:  Del received the 
letter on March 13 and forwarded to Washington. 
End Note.)  Burkart also stated that Tomova's 
intention is to meet with the EC members from each 
regional group to discuss procedures for the 
selection process.  He suggested that it would be 
wiser to focus on the immediate future rather than 
trying to plan for every eventuality through the 
end of the year.  Most delegations agreed with 
keeping the process clean and simple and focusing 
on a step-by-step approach.  Swedish delegate 
Christer Ahlstrom said that it would be imperative 
for the October session of the EC (EC-58) to 
forward only one candidate to the Conference of the 
States Parties (CSP). Burkart added that taking the 
decision by consensus would be preferable, if 
possible. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Ambassador Pieter de Savornin Lohman 
(Netherlands) warned against discussing process and 
procedure in an open-ended working group, as Iran 
had called for during the February EC (EC-55).  He 
noted that in addition to the already-announced 
Algerian and Turkish candidates, there would likely 
be at least five more candidates, four of which 
might come from other WEOG countries.  UK delegate 
Karen Wolstenholme informed those present that the 
UK Government had decided the previous day to 
nominate current Deputy Director-General (DDG) John 
Freeman for DG, but she asked that that information 
not be shared outside of WEOG.  Swiss delegate 
Martin Strub also noted that Switzerland will 
likely put forward a candidate. Burkart announced 
that Germany will also nominate a candidate, 
pending approval by the Council of Ministers. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Wolstenholme stated that the Non-Aligned 
Movement (NAM) will want to avoid reaching 
consensus on a candidate during EC-58 in order to 
string things out and force a vote at the CSP where 
the NAM will have a majority.  Irish delegate 
Michael Hurley stressed the need to make clear that 
the process is not up for negotiation and that 
deadlines (e.g., July 7 for nominations of 
candidates) are firm.  Burkart noted that NAM 
delegations already are mentioning informally the 
possibility of considering candidates nominated 
after the July 7 deadline. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
DG SELECTION: EC CHAIR MEETS WITH WEOG EC MEMBERS 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶8. (SBU) EC Chairperson Ambassador Oksana Tomova 
hosted the ten WEOG members of the Council at the 
Slovakian Embassy on March 10.  She informed the 
group she planned to meet with each of the regional 
groups separately and then with the group 
coordinators, in accordance with the EC's directive 
for her to conduct consultations.  She said the 
letter to all member states inviting candidates was 
with the Technical Secretariat but she planned to 
sign it later that day.  She noted that the July 7 
deadline is firm, although some delegations were 
speculating about later candidacies; there were 
also rumors of two deputies, but that was not the 
decision at hand for the Council.  Burkart noted 
that the Preparatory Commission had discussed 
having two deputies, and the current corridor 
discussions seemed to have picked that up.  As 
agreed in the larger WEOG meeting (above), WEOG 
representatives urged a clean procedure, 
emphasizing that the Chair be in charge, and 
working toward consensus at the October EC.  UK 
Ambassador Lyn Parker noted the gentlemen's 
agreement at the PrepCom, and that delegations may 
want private reassurances from candidates about a 
geographic balance for the Deputy Director-General, 
but that there should be no public linkages. 
 
¶9. (SBU)  Tomova noted that the Turkish government 
had asked that the curriculum vitae for its 
candidate be distributed, and that Algeria had sent 
a note verbale to all member states.  The TS was 
circulating both as documents of the Council (EC- 
57), setting the model for later nominations. 
Parker and Burkart announced that there would be 
candidates from the UK and Germany, but did not 
divulge names.   French delegate Mari proposed an 
anonymous vote in the EC if consensus proved 
difficult.  Parker advised that, while a vote is 
always possible, it would be best not to discuss 
voting too early in the process.  Some delegations, 
Qvoting too early in the process.  Some delegations, 
he noted, would prefer that the decision go to the 
Conference, where the numbers for voting would be 
very different. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Parker asked what would happen at EC-56 
in April.  Tomova said she would like to provide a 
document to the member states outlining the 
process.  U.S. Delrep stated that a document could 
prove problematic and turn into a drafting 
exercise; she suggested that the Chairperson give 
an oral status report on her series of 
consultations and remind everyone of the calendar 
(July 7, presentations at EC-57, etc.).  There was 
general agreement among the group that any explicit 
statement on criteria or vetting procedures be 
avoided.  Several delegations spoke to the need for 
the Chair to have a free hand, and for a smooth 
transition from Tomova to Mexican Ambassador 
Lomonaco in May.  Tomova welcomed the views of the 
WEOG reps and asked that she be invited to a WEOG- 
plus like-minded states' meeting in the weeks 
before the EC to discuss views with that larger 
group. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
MEETING WITH TS TO DISCUSS LIBYAN CWPF CONVERSION 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶11. (SBU) On March 11, Delreps met with UK delegate 
Karen Wolstenholme and the following 
representatives from the Technical Secretariat 
(TS):  Director of Verification Horst Reeps, Legal 
Advisor Santiago Onate, Chemical Demilitarization 
Branch (CDB) Head Dominique Anelli, and CDB Officer 
Oleg Ukharov.  Delreps sought TS views on Libya's 
request to retain the protective berm and sandbag 
wall around its former production facility at 
Rabta.  Onate agreed that moving a 
structure/feature from the "specialized" to 
"standard" list is an unprecedented change in a 
conversion plan, but also noted the TS view that 
the sandbag wall should never have been declared as 
specialized in the first place.  Anelli and Ukharov 
confirmed that the TS now plans to capture the 
justification for retaining the sandbag wall in the 
change document it will issue to the Executive 
Council (EC).  Delreps noted that this technical 
assessment from the Secretariat would facilitate 
Council members' consideration of the issue. 
Anelli recommended that Libya include details on 
this change and the justification in its 90-Day 
report to the Council. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Action Request:  Del requests guidance as 
to whether the U.S. is now in a position to support 
this change. 
 
-------------------------------- 
SUBMISSION OF IRAQ'S DECLARATION 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) On March 12, Delrep confirmed with Iraqi 
Rep Abbas Fadhil Al-Kafhaji that Iraq had submitted 
its declaration (in English) to the TS.  Delrep 
informed Abbas that the U.S. has a non-paper to 
provide to Iraqi Ambassador Banaa, and raised the 
possibility of experts from Baghdad participating 
in a working session April 16-17 (prior to EC-56) 
to develop Iraq's presentation to the EC-56 
Destruction Informals.  Abbas responded that his 
delegation is encouraging Baghdad to send expert 
representatives to EC-56, and he agreed to schedule 
a meeting for Delreps with the Ambassador next 
week. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
DISCUSSIONS WITH NEW POLICY REVIEW BRANCH HEAD 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶14. (SBU) On March 12, Delreps met with Stian 
Holen, the new head of the OPCW's Policy Review 
Branch (PRB).  Delreps found Holen to be engaged, 
enthusiastic, and interested in developing the 
policy role of the branch to include more effective 
Qpolicy role of the branch to include more effective 
analysis of inspections and exploring a longer-term 
vision for the Organization. 
 
¶15. (SBU) Holen noted his view that, in comparison 
with other international organizations, the 
Executive Council of the OPCW seems remarkably 
complacent about deferring a significant number of 
agenda items for one or more sessions.  Holen has 
also been surprised by the impact of the OPCW 
confidentiality regime on the Technical 
Secretariat's ability to synthesize and analyze 
inspection data.  As an example, he explained that 
two inspectors may run across very similar issues 
on industry inspections in two different States 
Parties, but would never know this because they are 
not permitted to share the details of their 
inspections.  One of Holen's goals for the coming 
year is to find, within the constraints of the 
confidentiality regime, a more effective way for 
inspectors to learn from each others' experience 
and for PRB to analyze trends.  Holen also frankly 
noted the Director-General's cautious approach 
holds the TS back from proposing new initiatives. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Holen informed Delreps that preparation 
of the 2008 Verification Implementation Report is 
proceeding on schedule and that he intends to 
continue improving the format and accessibility of 
information.  He sought Del views on the TS's 
readiness to conduct a challenge inspection, and 
shared his own:  that the headquarters element 
seems to be well trained, but that he has doubts 
about the ability of an inspection team on the 
ground to perform the tasks associated with a 
challenge inspection to a high standard.  (Del 
Comment:  This is consistent with U.S. and other 
informal reporting that the overall quality of 
inspections is decreasing.  End Comment.)  Holen 
hopes to involve the TS in a field exercise some 
time in the next two years, but this may be shaped 
by TS participation in the upcoming Investigation 
of Alleged Use exercise in Tunisia in 2010.  Holen 
also noted the TS plans to hold a table-top 
exercise during 2009, having not had one since 
¶2007. 
 
¶17. (SBU) On staffing, Holen said that the OPCW has 
offered a position in PRB to Daniel Feakes, who 
will start at the end of May.  He asked for U.S. 
views on the impact of the tenure policy, and noted 
that he believes the impact is exacerbated by 
budget and training issues.  Referring to his 
experience at the UN's World Food Program, Holen 
remarked that the OPCW seems to be "run on a 
shoestring," which means that robust training that 
could be used to offset the effects of experienced 
personnel departing is often unaffordable. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Holen sought U.S. views on current 
priorities and the future of the OPCW.  Delreps 
highlighted the U.S. desire to see the Organization 
stay relevant in the evolving security environment, 
particularly where the industry inspection regime 
was concerned.  Delreps also noted that it will be 
very important for the OPCW to become more 
effective in its non-proliferation role as chemical 
weapons destruction activity decreases.  Holen said 
that he had also been surprised that more of PRB's 
time is not devoted to thinking about issues like 
this, particularly with 2012 approaching.  He 
reiterated his intention to focus PRB away from 
more operational activities better suited to other 
Qmore operational activities better suited to other 
branches and toward policy formulation, including 
more medium- and long-term planning.  To that end, 
Holen mentioned that one of PRB's new projects has 
been a paper on addressing the diminishing number 
of Schedule 3 industrial facilities that have not 
yet been inspected. 
 
¶19. (U) Beik sends. 
GALLAGHER