VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0352/01 1661648
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 151648Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2915
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 000352 
 
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 AND DENYER) 
NSC FOR LUTES 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC:  WRAP UP FOR WEEK ENDING JUNE 12, 2009 
 
This is CWC-30-09. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) Over the past two weeks, the two main topics 
of discussion at the OPCW have been the search for 
a new Director General (DG) and recent news of the 
current U.S. chemical weapons destruction schedule. 
On the DG search, the Western European and Others 
Group (WEOG) heard presentations by three 
additional candidates from Finland, Turkey and 
Indonesia; and met with the EC Chair to continue 
discussing modalities for the upcoming Executive 
Council session and beyond. 
 
¶2. (SBU)  On June 9, the Del briefed WEOG on the 
recently published report to Congress and the fact 
that the U.S. is currently scheduled to complete 
destruction at its last facility nine years after 
the treaty deadline.  As with previous 
conversations with representatives on the Executive 
Council (EC) visit, the initial reaction continues 
to be an emphasis on the fact that this is the 
first time the U.S. has officially acknowledged its 
inability to meet the treaty deadline.  WEOG 
colleagues have expressed a desire to be 
supportive, but also concern at the possible impact 
of the U.S. news on other efforts at the OPCW. 
Delegations are also seeking reassurance that the 
U.S. is making best efforts to rectify the 
situation.  WEOG delegations in particular are 
interested in discussing how best to politically 
manage this issue. 
 
------------- 
WEOG - JUNE 2 
------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) On June 2, the (WEOG) heard a presentation 
by Finnish candidate for Director General 
Ambassador Aapo Polho.  Polho gave an overview of 
Finland's contributions to the OPCW, then 
highlighted portions of his background most 
relevant to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). 
Polho continued on to enumerate in some detail the 
challenges he sees ahead for the OPCW, including: 
destruction of existing chemical weapons (CW) in 
States Parties; preventing new actors from 
acquiring chemical weapons; full implementation of 
the treaty's provisions in all States Parties; 
keeping the OPCW relevant and efficient in the face 
of emerging challenges; and responding 
realistically to developing countries' expectations 
for assistance.  On CW destruction deadlines, Polho 
emphasized the importance of keeping this issue 
from overwhelming the Organization.  He also stated 
that member states should not lose sight of the 
fact that stockpiles of States Parties are well 
known and under verification; potential stockpiles 
outside the Convention are not. 
 
¶4. (SBU) In response to questions from delegations, 
Polho came across as very knowledgeable about the 
OPCW, with a clear sense of potential strategies to 
meet challenges that lie ahead for the 
Organization.  He indicated his belief that 
continued adherence to a Zero Nominal Growth budget 
is possible, but also that voluntary contributions 
should not form a sizeable part of operations.  On 
the issue of the deadlines, he acknowledged that 
missing 2012 will be politically difficult, and 
stated that it would be important for possessor 
states to continue to demonstrate commitment and 
provide detailed updates to keep from weakening the 
CWC.  On industry inspections, Polho noted that the 
QCWC.  On industry inspections, Polho noted that the 
ratio of OCPF inspections to the actual number of 
facilities is far too low.  On the topic of 
universality, Polho spoke in detail about the 
countries that remain outside the Convention, and 
possible ways to move forward. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Next, WEOG delegations discussed the 
recently circulated South African paper on 
modalities (lifted in large part from the 
procedures at the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA)) associated with the appointment of 
the next Director General.  Several delegations 
noted that it was rather late in the process to 
develop new rules now.  Many emphasized the need to 
use the OPCW's Rules of Procedure as a starting 
point, as opposed to relying on other organizations 
with structures and procedures not necessarily 
analogous to the OPCW.  U.S. Delrep noted that the 
South African proposal deliberately left open the 
possibility for the EC to forward multiple 
candidates to the CSP.  This concern was shared by 
a number of delegations.  Delegations also pointed 
out that the EC Chair has the latitude to use 
mechanisms like straw polls without having them 
laid out in new rules of procedure. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The meeting ended with a brief review of 
the Industry Cluster meetings.  Coordinator Ruth 
Surkau noted that the Secretariat's presentation on 
the OPCW Central Analytical Database (OCAD) seemed 
to have raised more questions than it answered. 
Low Concentrations facilitator Giuseppe Cornacchia 
said that the intentions of delegations in his 
consultation seem quite positive, and that slow 
progress is being made. 
 
------------- 
WEOG - JUNE 9 
------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) The WEOG meeting on June 9 had a full 
agenda, including an update from the U.S. on its 
revised chemical weapons destruction timeline. 
Before the U.S. announcement, Turkish DG candidate 
Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu made a brief presentation 
and answered questions from WEOG delegations. 
 
¶8. (SBU) In prepared remarks, Uzumcu highlighted 
Turkey's commitment to arms control and disarmament 
generally and to the OPCW specifically, citing the 
April universality workshop in Istanbul and the 
upcoming industry workshop also to be hosted by 
Turkey this fall.  In outlining his vision for the 
OPCW, Uzumcu stated that increasing the pace of CW 
destruction efforts would be a priority.  The OPCW 
must also display flexibility to handle emerging 
technologies, and the Scientific Advisory Board 
(SAB) should play an instrumental role in this 
regard.  Inspections of Other Chemical Production 
Facilities (OCPFs) need to be addressed to strike a 
balance between relevance and numbers.  National 
declarations need improvement, as well as reporting 
by national authorities, in particular customs 
agencies.  Although it is not a counterterrorism 
body, the OPCW also needs to address the issue of 
terrorism.  Uzumcu added, in the context of 
promoting greater universality, that the three 
counterproliferation treaties (Nuclear Non- 
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), CWC and Biological and 
Toxins Weapons Convention (BWC)) are all being held 
hostage to each other in the Middle East.  He ended 
his remarks by emphasizing the importance of 
consensus in multilateral security fora. 
 
¶9. (SBU) In response to questions from delegations, 
Q9. (SBU) In response to questions from delegations, 
Uzumcu stated his support for continued zero 
nominal growth (ZNG) budgets but was undecided on 
the merits of the current OPCW tenure policy.  On 
Iraq, he believes that the DG can play an active 
and leading role in ensuring destruction moves 
forward and in seeking international assistance. 
Regarding the 2012 destruction deadline, he would 
encourage all possessor states to meet this 
deadline and suggested that a special Conference of 
the States Parties (CSP) could be convened to 
address this if the deadline is not met. 
Establishing a new deadline would be difficult as 
the CWC does not allow any flexibility in this 
regard.  Until 2012, Uzumcu also conceded that the 
balance toward more OCPF inspections over CW 
destruction likely will not change, although more 
resources will have to be devoted to OCPFs as a 
priority in the future. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Following Uzumcu's presentation, WEOG 
coordinator Ruth Surku (Germany) then moved onto 
the Executive Council's (EC) recent visit to U.S. 
destruction facilities at Pueblo and Umatilla. 
Before Dutch Ambassador and WEOG Vice Chair Pieter 
de Savornin Lohman reported on the visit, Delrep 
addressed the group to share details of recently 
published destruction time lines, including the 
projected end dates of 2017 for Pueblo and 2021 for 
Blue Grass.  Delrep also announced that a senior 
delegation from Washington would be visiting The 
Hague the week of June 22 and offered a WEOG Plus 
meeting on June 24. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Lohman then took the floor to report on 
the EC visit to the United States, conceding that 
the U.S. Delegation had already provided the 
biggest news of the visit.  He shared how the visit 
participants, at least while in the United States, 
expressed an interest in approaching the deadline 
issue constructively.  Members of the visiting 
delegation agreed that the clear signs of U.S. 
commitment to destruction, including spending 
approximately $36 billion before the process is 
over, must be taken into account.  Moreover, they 
agreed that this issue should not be considered 
U.S.-specific but rather viewed in a broader 
context, as the U.S. was not the only possessor 
state needing to complete its destruction.  Several 
others could or will miss the final deadline in 
¶2012.  Finally, Lohman said that participants 
understood from the visit that safety and 
environmental concerns remained a priority for the 
United States. 
 
¶12. (SBU) In response to a UK question on perceived 
reactions to the U.S. announcement, Amb. Lohman 
said that U.S. projections of completing 90% 
destruction by 2012 should be recognized by the EC, 
and that missing the 2012 deadline is partially 
attributable to Congressional legislation. 
Moreover, Amb. Lohman reminded WEOG that there are 
still three years until the deadline, and a lot can 
happen in the meantime.  The Italian delegate 
stated that the U.S. news was significant in that 
it marks the first time this is out in the open and 
admittedly changes the entire situation at the OPCW 
because it could call into question the credibility 
of the Convention.  Amb Lohman responded that the 
EC representatives had asked during the visit if 
increased funding could help speed up destruction 
but were told that funding levels are irrelevant at 
this point due to technical and legal restrictions. 
He added that WEOG should ask the visiting U.S. 
QHe added that WEOG should ask the visiting U.S. 
delegation during the special WEOG plus meeting in 
late June whether any U.S. CW could be moved from 
Blue Grass to Pueblo to save time. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Moving on to the latest EC Bureau meeting 
held, Amb. Lohman took the floor again as the WEOG 
Vice-Chair.  He stated that the upcoming EC agenda 
looks similar to EC-55, with Wednesday's session 
being devoted to the DG candidates' presentations. 
There is currently enough room for eight candidates 
to present, should one more come forward in 
addition to the current list of seven, but any more 
and the EC may have to be prepared to work evenings 
to accommodate the full agenda.  Additionally, the 
agenda for CSP-14 was presented, also similar to 
last year's.  Amb. Lohman confirmed that the 
portfolios for the regional Vice-Chairs were 
formally agreed upon by everyone, with Iran 
assuming leadership of Administrative and Financial 
issues.  China was formally announced as 
facilitating for Article XI, and the Costa Rican 
Ambassador and Swiss delegate have agreed to co- 
facilitate budget negotiations.  Finally, Amb 
Lohman provided the tentative dates for upcoming 
OPCW meetings, asking delegations to get back to 
him with any conflicts: 
- EC-59: February 16-19 
- EC-60: April 20-23 
- EC-61: June 29-July 2 
- EC-62: October 12-15 
- CSP-15: November 29-December 3 
 
¶14. (SBU) Following WEOG, the Italian and French 
delegates approached U.S. Delreps about the 
destruction time line.  The Italian asked for clear 
points that the U.S. wants WEOG delegations to 
emphasize in helping to manage the political 
fallout from this news.  The French asked why CW 
could not be moved from one destruction facility to 
another to save time, and also regretted that this 
news had to surface before the DG election because 
of its possible impact on the selection. 
 
-------------- 
WEOG - JUNE 10 
-------------- 
 
¶15. (SBU) On June 10, WEOG held a special meeting 
with EC Chairman Amb. Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico) to 
discuss the appointment of the next DG.  Lomonaco 
raised the South African non-paper proposing rules 
and procedures for selecting the next DG, 
describing it as the only formal proposal in 
circulation.  He said he had promised the South 
African delegation to give the paper a fair hearing 
and asked for WEOG reactions.  WEOG delegations 
unanimously spoke against considering the South 
African paper formally in the EC and raised 
concerns and objections to the timing and substance 
of the non-paper.  A number of delegations noted it 
was strange to discuss rules after the process has 
already started; others, referring to the non- 
paper's replication of rules from the IAEA, noted 
the differences between the IAEA and the OPCW. 
Delegations also stressed that the EC should 
recommend only one candidate to the CSP, rejecting 
the South African suggestion that two names might 
be sent forward. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Amongst the general objections to letting 
the South African non-paper go further, delegations 
suggested that Lomonaco could use some of the tools 
proposed (e.g., straw polls or elimination voting). 
Lomonaco did not have feedback from other groups 
but plans to meet with them in the following days. 
However, he noted that he was unsure whether the 
South African non-paper would find unanimous 
support within the African Group.  Lomonaco also 
noted that a number of GRULAC (Group of Latin 
America and Caribbean) delegations had extremely 
negative reactions to the non-paper.  Lomonaco 
stated that in the absence of any meaningful, 
cross-group support, he does not see any reason to 
Qcross-group support, he does not see any reason to 
take the non-paper to the EC for more formal 
discussion. 
 
¶17. (SBU) Turning to his note on DG candidates' 
presentations at the EC session in July (EC-57), 
Lomonaco said that most delegations saw the 
usefulness in having time for questions and answers 
following each presentation.  However, he said that 
he had left the specifics around questions and 
answers ambiguous because he is still considering 
what structure to impose.  Lomonaco said that he 
plans to issue an informal paper with more details 
immediately before EC-57. 
 
----------------------------------- 
FRENCH DEMARCHE ON U.S. DESTRUCTION 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶18. (SBU) On June 10, French delegate Annie Mari 
shared with Delrep the demarche that was delivered 
earlier in Washington.  Mari stressed that while 
France has no doubts about the commitment of the 
U.S. to complete destruction, U.S. delays do have 
serious implications for the OPCW and non- 
proliferation in general.  France is particularly 
concerned that Iran and others will use the recent 
U.S. announcement for political gain, to the 
possible detriment of WEOG DG candidates.  France 
is also concerned that this development will 
undermine attempts to focus on non-proliferation 
aspects of the Convention, as Iran and others are 
likely to insist on focusing primarily on 
disarmament as long as the U.S. and others have 
chemical weapons left to destroy.  Mari noted that 
France does not believe Russia will be able to meet 
the 2012 deadline, and that an extension of 
deadlines will be necessary. 
 
¶19. (SBU) Mari asked how the U.S. plans to legally 
address the fact that it will be out of compliance 
with the Convention, and what the U.S. is doing to 
address its internal legal constraints, such as the 
transportation of chemical weapons across state 
lines.  In closing, she noted that the continued 
lack of a U.S. Ambassador will send a particularly 
negative signal at a time when States Parties will 
be looking for clear signs of U.S. commitment to 
the CWC. 
 
-------------- 
WEOG - JUNE 12 
-------------- 
 
¶20. (SBU) On June 12, WEOG held an additional 
meeting for the introduction of Indonesia's 
candidate for Director General. Amb. Saudjadnan 
Parnohadiningrat spoke at length about Indonesia's 
efforts in the areas of non-proliferation and 
disarmament, as well as its under-representation in 
UN organizations, and complete lack of 
representation at the OPCW.  He then laid out the 
areas Indonesia views as most important for the 
OPCW:  progress in Universality; full 
implementation of all CWC provisions; strengthening 
confidence building (particularly through 
verification/on-site inspections); and the 
promotion of international cooperation and 
assistance.  Parnohadiningrat stated that these 
principles would guide him if he were to be 
appointed Director General. 
 
¶21. (SBU) As opposed to directly reviewing the 
aspects of his CV that qualified him for the 
position, Parnohadiningrat outlined several 
competencies and attributes that the Director 
General should have.  On managerial principles, he 
noted that the DG should be able to manage 
operations, and stated that while he himself did 
not have a management background, he was the 
Secretary General of Foreign Affairs for Indonesia. 
QSecretary General of Foreign Affairs for Indonesia. 
During this time, he was responsible for the 
oversight of over one thousand people. 
 
¶22. (SBU) Parnohadiningrat then stated that the DG 
should have in-depth knowledge of the principles, 
objectives, and Articles of the Convention; and 
should understand the specific obligations of 
States Parties.  Here, he highlighted his 
experience as a facilitator for Old and Abandoned 
Chemical Weapons issues during CWC negotiations 
from 1989-1982.  He also highlighted his broader 
disarmament experience, including having chaired 
the NPT Prepcom. 
 
¶23. (SBU) Parnohadiningrat emphasized that member 
states are sovereign countries, and that the DG 
must know how to listen to and understand 
individual and collective interests of States 
Parties.  He stated that the DG should also be 
prepared to provide potential solutions to complex 
issues, for consideration by member states.  He 
also noted the importance of understanding 
efficiency, and the fact that a good DG must be a 
good steward of resources.  The DG should clearly 
understand the Organization's priorities, and 
facilitate a step-by-step process to realize these 
goals. 
 
¶24. (SBU) In the question and answer period that 
followed, the Dutch delegation asked whether the 
OPCW was living up to the expectations of the 
drafters/negotiators of the Convention.  In 
answering, Parnohadiningrat contrasted the CWC with 
the NPT and noted the significant progress made in 
the CWC in universality and implementation.  He 
acknowledged that there will be chemical weapons 
remaining after the 2012 deadline, but also that a 
tremendous amount has been accomplished in just 
over ten years. 
 
¶25. (SBU) On treaty implementation, 
Parnohadiningrat stated that the CWC is one of the 
best international legal instruments in terms of 
its ability to systematically address a range of 
issues and its comprehensive on-site inspection 
regime.  He pointed to the fact that States Parties 
are able to deal with breaches of the Convention 
through national law, and that the "tools for 
compliance are there."  He also noted that the 
collective political will and effort of States 
Parties is necessary to put pressure on those who 
violate the Convention. 
 
¶26. (SBU) On the likelihood of one or more States 
Parties missing the 2012 final destruction 
deadline, Parnohadiningrat said that a balance must 
be struck between the obligations of the treaty and 
the sovereignty of States Parties; and between full 
adherence and pragmatism.  He offered the 
Secretariat as a resource to facilitate 
consultations among interested States Parties, and 
to make recommendations for consideration by member 
states. 
 
¶27. (SBU) On industry inspections, Parnohadiningrat 
stated clearly that it is up to the DG to offer an 
annual program of inspections to States Parties 
based on the Secretariat's expert assessment of the 
potential risk of declared facility.  In making 
such recommendations, the DG must bear in mind the 
resources available.  This same consideration holds 
true for international cooperation, in which the DG 
should be able to balance the availability and 
willingness of developed countries with the 
interests of developing countries.  In response to 
an Australian question about his views on 
Qan Australian question about his views on 
terrorism, Parnohadiningrat replied that the OPCW 
must be prepared to offer immediate technical 
assistance, but also focus on capacity building to 
help member states protect themselves.  In closing, 
Parnohadiningrat told WEOG delegations that one 
important role he would like to play as DG would be 
as a bridge and consensus builder among States 
Parties as they strive to implement the provisions 
of the Convention. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
FEEDBACK FROM EC VISIT AND PREPARATIONS FOR FOLLOW- 
UP MEETINGS 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶28. (SBU) In the days following the return of the 
EC delegation from the visit to U.S. destruction 
facilities at Pueblo and Umatilla, Del has heard 
very positive feedback from members of the 
delegation.  EC Chair Lomonaco, Dutch Amb. de 
Savornin Lohman, and South African representative 
van Schalkwyk have all commented on the 
professionalism, organization, and transparency 
demonstrated by the U.S. throughout the visit.  All 
have assured the Del that their goal is a balanced 
report that pays tribute to U.S. efforts.  In a 
private conversation on June 12, Amb. Lomonaco 
stated his intent to avoid, to the extent possible, 
any attempts to question or re-draft the report. 
He also shared his view that the substantive 
discussion of deadlines should be postponed until 
next year, although some measure of political 
rhetoric this year will be unavoidable. 
 
¶29. (SBU) Del also continues preparations for the 
visit of senior U.S. officials June 22-26.  Del has 
now scheduled a series of bilateral and 
multilateral meetings and lunches to provide an 
opportunity for U.S. officials to discuss the 
current U.S. chemical weapons destruction schedule 
with key delegations. 
 
¶30. (U) ROBINSON SENDS 
GALLAGHER