VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0368/01 1761731
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 251731Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2942
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 1860
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 1791
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 1477
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 000368 
 
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: MEETINGS OF SENIOR U.S. EXPERTS IN THE HAGUE 
ON U.S. CW DESTRUCTION 
 
REF: A. STATE 64170 
     ¶B. STATE 51992 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 352 
 
This is CWC-33-09. 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY:  Between June 23 and 25, two 
senior-level U.S. experts visited The Hague to 
brief key stakeholders at the Organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on the U.S. 
program for destroying its chemical weapons (CW) 
stockpile (ref A), including projected operating 
schedules that go beyond the 2012 treaty deadline. 
This cable gives an overview of the meetings held 
and highlights of reactions to the message conveyed 
during the visit.  More in-depth reporting covering 
all of the meetings will be sent septel.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
-------- 
MEETINGS 
-------- 
 
¶2. (U) Robert Mikulak (ISN/CB Director and U.S. 
Representative to the OPCW's Executive Council 
(EC)) and Tom Hopkins (Principal Deputy Assistant 
to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical 
and Biological Defense Programs), accompanied by 
Delreps, met with a wide range of delegations in 
The Hague during their June 23-25 visit.  They also 
called on OPCW Director-General Rogelio Pfirter and 
had an informal briefing for Amcits working at the 
OPCW Technical Secretariat (TS). 
 
¶3. (SBU) Bilateral meetings were held with 
delegations from India, China, Russia, Brazil, 
South Africa, Iran, Mexico (Amb. Jorge Lomonaco is 
also the current EC Chairman) and Japan (Amb. 
Minoru Shibuya is also the current Chairman of the 
Conference of the States Parties (CSP)).  Mikulak, 
Hopkins and Delreps also met jointly with:  close 
allies (the UK, France and Germany); the Western 
European and Others Group (WEOG) plus non-WEOG EU 
members, Japan and South Korea; the Czech Republic 
and Sweden as the current and incoming holders of 
the EU Presidency; EC members from the Group of 
Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC); regional 
group coordinators Pakistan (Asia), Estonia 
(Eastern Europe) and Colombia (GRULAC); Algeria, 
Sudan, Slovakia and the Netherlands; and Cuba and 
Malaysia as the current and previous Non-aligned 
Movement (NAM) coordinators. 
 
¶4. (SBU) NOTE:  The Iranian delegation stressed 
that they had not received official permission from 
Tehran to meet but had decided to do meet 
unofficially in a cooperative and constructive 
spirit.  Cuba also stressed that it was under 
instruction to meet in its capacity as NAM 
coordinator, along with Malaysia, and not 
bilaterally.  END NOTE. 
 
------- 
MESSAGE 
------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Presentations by the U.S. experts mirrored 
those given to Executive Council representatives 
during their visit to U.S. facilities during the 
week of June 1-5.  In all meetings, Mikulak and 
Hopkins emphasized the tremendous effort the U.S. 
has already made in destroying its chemical 
weapons, beginning before entry into force of the 
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).  They noted 
 
that, in addition to destroying all of its most 
modern (binary) weapons, the U.S. has destroyed all 
former production capacity and 97% of all nerve 
agent.  What will remain in 2012 is only 10% of the 
U.S. stockpile, which will be reduced to 2% when 
Pueblo finishes in 2017.  This remaining stockpile 
at Blue Grass will be eliminated by 2021.  U.S. 
Reps also stressed that the U.S. chemical 
demilitarization program has received all of the 
funding it has requested and that an additional 
$1.2 billion has recently been allocated, a clear 
sign that the necessary resources are being made 
available. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Mikulak and Hopkins emphasized the full 
commitment of the U.S. to complete destruction of 
its stockpile as rapidly and safely as possible, 
and stated that the U.S. is seeking every possible 
opportunity to accelerate progress at the remaining 
two facilities.  They also explained that part of 
the purpose of their visit to The Hague was to seek 
the views of key delegations, and that the U.S. 
valued questions and thoughts about the way ahead. 
 
----------------------- 
REACTIONS: MAJOR THEMES 
----------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) Reactions to the visit of senior U.S. 
experts following the EC visit were positive, 
although a few delegations put down friendly 
markers about the importance of the 2012 deadline. 
Many delegations made a point of complimenting the 
U.S. not only for its transparent and detailed 
presentation, but also for its outreach and its 
interest in the views of other member states.  The 
tone of all discussions was collegial and 
constructive.  There was general agreement on the 
importance of finding a consensus solution, 
preserving the credibility of the CWC, and 
upholding the reputation of the OPCW as a model of 
effective multilateralism.  Delegations also noted 
that there was no question of U.S. commitment to 
complete destruction of its stockpiles or the 
object and purpose of the Convention. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Several questions were common to most 
discussions.  A seemingly procedural, but 
noteworthy, question was whether the U.S. was 
making a formal declaration of its inability to 
meet the 2012 deadline, and/or whether it would do 
so at the upcoming EC session in July (EC-57). 
Most were already well aware of reports that the 
U.S. would not complete destruction by 2012.  U.S. 
officials reminded delegations that the destruction 
schedule was being presented for the sake of 
transparency, but that the dates were projections 
that the U.S. intended to improve.  Many countries 
asked why the U.S. had chosen this moment to come 
forward with a more concrete schedule.  Almost 
every delegation also wanted to know whether the 
U.S. believes Russia will meet 2012, and asked 
about the effect of the U.S. destruction schedule 
on other destruction efforts (e.g., Russia, Japan, 
Libya) and possibly on non-member states. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Delegations, of course, sought U.S. views 
on how the situation should be handled:  at EC-57, 
in the run-up to 2012, and after the deadline has 
Qin the run-up to 2012, and after the deadline has 
passed.  Many, particularly the close allies, asked 
what solutions the U.S. was considering to 
accelerate its program and to manage the issue 
legally and politically at the OPCW.  Closely 
related was skepticism that transporting chemical 
 
weapons from Blue Grass and Pueblo to currently 
operating facilities would not have a significant 
impact on the overall schedule.  Disbelief is also 
widespread that domestic legislation (local, state 
or federal) could take precedence over 
international obligations. 
 
¶10. (SBU) In all consultations, delegations were 
interested in knowing who else the U.S. was meeting 
this week.  More telling was their interest in 
exactly how others had reacted to the U.S. news, an 
indication that there is no clear cut solution to 
the 2012 problem, and that a great deal of work and 
serious thought will be required in the next three 
years.  Although the legal options of an amendment 
or technical change to the Convention were 
mentioned, the general sense was that these would 
not be viable options and a more innovative 
solution must be sought.  Several delegations 
specifically stated that establishing new deadlines 
would not be a practical or politically acceptable 
solution. 
 
---------- 
WHAT NEXT? 
---------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) In the coming weeks and on the margins of 
EC-57, Delreps will follow up with all remaining EC 
members, as well as with the OPCW Legal Advisor and 
other key TS directors.  Delreps recommend that the 
U.S. presentation during the EC-57 destruction 
informals mirrors the information provided by 
Hopkins and Mikulak this week. 
 
¶12. (SBU) One final common theme raised during 
meetings was what the Obama Administration is doing 
about the situation.  While Mikulak and Hopkins 
emphasized that the Administration is reviewing 
options for dealing with the situation, delegations 
in The Hague -- as well as capitals -- will be 
expecting specific, regular updates on measures the 
Administration is taking to redress the situation 
and accelerate chemical weapons destruction. 
 
¶13. (U) MIKULAK SENDS. 
 
GALLAGHER