VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0402/01 1881057
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 071057Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2989
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 000402 
 
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:  SCENE-SETTER FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 57TH 
SESSION, JULY 14-17, 2009 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 362 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 371 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 352 
     ¶D. THE HAGUE 288 
 
This is CWC-35-09. 
 
¶1. (U) This is an action request, see para 19. 
 
------------------------ 
SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION 
------------------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) As for the previous two Executive Councils 
(EC), the selection of the next Director-General 
(DG) for the Organization for the Prohibition of 
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will likely dominate EC-57, 
with the presentation of all of the candidates to 
the Council scheduled on July 15.  At the informal 
meeting on the EC-57 agenda on July 3, Non-aligned 
Movement (NAM) countries lined up in support of a 
joint statement calling for open meetings on the 
procedures for the DG selection process.  Western 
nations, the European Union (EU) in particular, 
generally opposed an open-ended process but 
supported ongoing consultations by the EC Chairman, 
Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico).  This 
polarization recalled the dynamics of the April 
2008 Second Review Conference that had been largely 
absent since. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The draft program and budget for 2010 will 
be introduced on July 10 ahead of the Council 
meeting.  Although it has not been discussed in the 
past at the first EC session after its 
introduction, early budget questions or positions 
might be introduced at this session.  The EC-57 
agenda is extensive with quite a number of routine 
reports to consider.  An innovation by the new 
Chairman is annotation of exactly how many times 
items have been previously deferred.  Some of the 
items that may be controversial are detailed below. 
 
¶4. (SBU) For the United States, the July 13 
informal meeting on destruction will probably see 
questions raised on the schedule for completion of 
destruction after 2012, and legal and procedural 
questions on the U.S. and UK destruction of CW in 
Iraq prior to its accession to the Chemical Weapons 
Convention (CWC).  The formal EC-57 agenda items 
most likely to spark discussion are the Report on 
the visit of EC representatives to the Pueblo and 
Umatilla chemical weapons destruction facilities in 
June.  Questions on CW recoveries in Iraq could 
also be raised in conjunction with the U.S. 90-day 
destruction report or under Any Other Business. 
Specific guidance on this issue is requested below 
(see para 19). 
 
------------------ 
NAM BACK IN ACTION 
------------------ 
 
¶5. (SBU) The July 3 agenda consultation provided an 
unwelcome return of NAM activism on a key issue, 
the search for the next Director-General.  In what 
is normally a procedural meeting with few 
interventions, the Cuban Ambassador presented a 
prepared statement on behalf of the NAM States 
Parties and China.  The Ambassador stated that it 
is time for States Parties to hear each others' 
views in an "open and frank" discussion and called 
for a consultation for this purpose.  He 
specifically noted that more information on the 
procedures for the candidates' presentations to the 
EC, particularly the questions and answers, is 
needed.  Chairman Lomonaco replied that he is still 
 
working on the methodology and will present it to 
member states in due course.  The Swedish delegate 
responded on behalf of the EU, fully supporting the 
Chairman's mandate to conduct consultations and an 
open and transparent process. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The South African Ambassador expressed 
full support for Cuba's statement and then called 
for an open-ended working group with broad 
participation.  NAM delegations followed in greater 
than usual numbers, with many ambassadors present 
to support the Cuban statement (India, Pakistan, 
Malaysia, Iran, Sri Lanka, Sudan, China, Lebanon as 
an observer). 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) Western countries had few ambassadors 
present but countered with statements of support 
for the Chairman's efforts and the transparency of 
the process to date, with the Australian delegate 
noting that there were other national papers on the 
DG selection (referring to Australia's), not just 
the South African paper.  Delegates from France, 
Italy, the Netherlands and Ireland supported the EU 
and each other's positions.  The WEOG members with 
national candidates did not participate in the 
debate.  U.S. Delrep stated support for an open 
discussion of specific issues under the Chair's 
leadership at an appropriate time but not an open- 
ended working group.   Japan echoed western support 
for the Chairman. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Latin American (GRULAC) delegates tried to 
take a middle course, some expressing support for 
the Cuban statement (as NAM members) but also 
support for the Chairman (Peru, Colombia).  The 
Brazilian Ambassador agreed with the need for an 
exchange of views on procedures but said that it 
should wait until after EC-57 to codify the process 
after the candidates' presentations, not compete 
for scarce time in the next two weeks.  The 
Tunisian Ambassador expressed support for the 
Chairman but noted that guidelines might help him 
in his efforts.  The Russian delegate stated that 
it was clear from this discussion that an exchange 
of views was necessary and that all should work 
toward consensus and avoid "complications." 
 
¶9. (SBU) The Cuban Ambassador spoke to clarify that 
in the agreed NAM text there was nothing but praise 
for the Chairman and that the open discussion was 
intended to assist the Chairman; he also noted that 
the NAM joint statement did not prevent individual 
member states from expressing their views. 
Chairman Lomonaco attempted to close the debate 
after it had gone on for over an hour, noting that 
he had consulted 78 States Parties, individually 
and in groups, many more than once.  He noted the 
openness of the morning's discussion that included 
substance as well as procedure, and broad agreement 
that consultations should take place -- the 
question was timing.  He asked delegations with 
strong views to consult with one another on when 
such an open meeting would best take place, and 
that he was willing to accommodate the majority 
view.  The South African Ambassador took the floor 
to contradict the Chair on his summation of the 
meeting. 
 
¶10. (SBU) DEL COMMENT:  This discussion echoed the 
NAM tactics and North-South polarization that 
characterized the open-ended working group before 
Qcharacterized the open-ended working group before 
the Second Review Conference.  The NAM is not as 
unified as their joint statement would appear, with 
GRULAC holding different views from many of the 
others, but there are clear efforts to resurrect 
the NAM as a strong bloc, not a welcome development 
 
for the DG process or other important issues.  END 
COMMENT. 
 
--------------------- 
NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK 
--------------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) The Iranian delegation has been quiet and 
polite, still awaiting a new Ambassador and a new 
Deputy for the OPCW.  Del expects they are 
receiving few if any instructions from Tehran, in 
light of the recent turmoil over the election.  The 
Iranians may well defer any potentially 
controversial documents for lack of instructions, 
including the EC visit report to the U.S. 
destruction facilities.  The Iranians have not 
signaled views on the DG process beyond their 
position in February that late candidates should be 
considered. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Newly-arrived South African Ambassador 
Peter Goosen has entered the fray with an unwelcome 
flourish.   In his first informal Council meeting 
(July 3), he managed to lock horns with both the 
Cuban Ambassador over the NAM position, and with 
the Chairman over procedure.  He gratuitously 
insulted the Irish delegate, referring to his "too 
early, too late" description of the South African 
paper as "eloquent but wrong."  The Irish delegate 
did not use his "too early, too late" comment in 
these informals but had expressed that view at an 
earlier WEOG meeting (Goosen did not say how he had 
knowledge of the WEOG discussion).  Goosen informed 
the Chairman several times that the normal 
procedures he was following for OPCW meetings did 
not meet the standards at "other" international 
organizations, such as the IAEA in Vienna.  He also 
privately has offended other delegations with his 
arrogance and dismissive responses to their views. 
Goosen will likely replace the Iranian delegation 
for this EC as the leading antagonist on a number 
of issues. 
 
------------------------------------ 
SEARCH FOR THE NEXT DIRECTOR-GENERAL 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶13. (SBU) Despite the NAM battle-lines drawn, the 
discussion at the EC-57 agenda meeting did not 
provide any specifics on what NAM states would like 
to see in the procedures for winnowing down the 
number of candidates to a consensus choice.  The 
NAM statement did not endorse the South African 
paper, although Goosen presented it on behalf of 
the African Group.  The procedural issues will 
undoubtedly arise in some fashion, through 
continuing pressure for a consultation (even during 
the packed week of the EC) or through report 
language, as happened in the previous two EC 
sessions on this topic. 
 
¶14. (SBU) The candidates' presentations will take 
all day on July 15 with standing-room-only interest 
among delegations and likely greater numbers of 
observer states than usual.  Control of time and 
the question period are the challenges the Chairman 
has kept as his responsibility.  All of the 
candidates have been making the rounds of the 
regional groups.  WEOG has met with all seven, and 
delegates from other groups have said they also 
have had meetings with all or nearly all the 
candidates.  Lunches, dinners and receptions have 
been ongoing, but the Del has not received any 
invitations to that type of event for any of the 
candidates during the week of the EC. Concentration 
Qcandidates during the week of the EC. Concentration 
seems to be on the formal presentations to the 
Council. 
 
 
--------------- 
EC VISIT REPORT 
--------------- 
 
¶15. (SBU) The Chairman and EC representatives on 
the visit kept tight control of the draft report 
and were instructed not to share it before they all 
agreed to the text.  South African delegate 
Marthinus van Schalkwyk served as secretary for the 
group, correcting the English and editing the final 
draft.  The TS and group members do not foresee any 
changes or editing to the final report.  Other 
delegations who met with Dr. Mikulak and Dr. 
Hopkins during their visit in June (ref A) seem 
pleased with the advance information; some may ask 
questions in the Council but Del expects more of 
the questions about the schedule dates will be 
private than public. 
 
¶16. (SBU) At the agenda informal July 3, the 
Iranian delegate inquired when the visit report 
would be available.  The Iranians may defer the 
report for its late distribution or due to lack of 
instructions from Tehran. 
 
-------------------- 
RECOVERED CW IN IRAQ 
-------------------- 
 
¶17. (SBU) It has become increasingly clear over the 
past several weeks that several "interested 
delegations" have every intention of returning to 
the issue of U.S. and UK recovered chemical weapons 
in Iraq.  While the Russian delegation has simply 
laid a marker that it will mention its intent to 
raise the subject in the future, the South African 
delegation has been far more active (ref B). 
Ambassador Goosen spoke at length about the issue 
during a meeting with Robert Mikulak and Tom 
Hopkins on June 25 (ref A), and his delegate made 
clear last week that South Africa will raise the 
issue at EC-57.  Goosen also has raised this issue 
with the Swedish Ambassador (Sweden took over the 
rotating EU Presidency on July 1).  South African 
delegate van Schalkwyk shared his delegation's 
plans to raise the issue not only during the 
destruction informals (where it was first briefed) 
but also during the formal Council session, 
although South Africa is apparently searching for 
the appropriate place in the agenda to do so. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Del has also spoken with OPCW Legal 
Adviser Santiago Onate on the matter.  As reported 
after EC-56, Onate still maintains that delegations 
wishing to raise the issue would need to have the 
political will to do so under Article IX if they 
are actually interested in pursuing it in the legal 
framework of the Convention.  At this more recent 
meeting, Onate also made a point of telling Delreps 
that this is a situation not envisioned by the 
Convention, and that the Secretariat can therefore 
offer only limited advice.  In his view, it is for 
this reason that it is more appropriate for 
delegations to seek clarification bilaterally from 
the U.S. or UK, as opposed to asking the 
Secretariat for its position on the legality or 
compliance of actions taken. 
 
¶19. (SBU) REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE:  Given the nature 
of discussions with the Legal Adviser and other 
delegations, Del requests guidance on the following 
points: 
 
a.) Whether the U.S. would be willing to discuss 
"rules of the game" for future recoveries with 
South Africa on the margins of EC-57; 
 
 
b.) Whether the U.S. took possession of chemical 
weapons in Iraq; 
 
c.) Whether the U.S. had jurisdiction or control of 
the territory on which the weapons were recovered. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
CONVERSION OF CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶20. (SBU) At the July 3 agenda meeting, South 
African Ambassador Goosen inquired as to the 
process for discussion of the TS note on general 
guidelines for continued verification measures of 
converted CW production facilities ten years after 
conversion.  The Chairman proposed that interested 
parties consult, but Goosen insisted on a process 
being outlined.  Ambassador de Savornin Lohman 
(Netherlands), as Vice-Chair for CW issues, offered 
to informally chair a discussion; time and place 
have yet to be determined.  The UK delegate 
requested withdrawal of both the guidelines and the 
decision on the Portreath converted facility, in 
light of new information that will be forthcoming 
in a letter from the UK that would require 
revisions to the Portreath document and should 
affect the proposed guidelines. 
 
------------------------------------ 
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL REPORTS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶21. (SBU) While the DG will formally present his 
draft 2010 budget and program of work before the 
EC, there is usually little or no discussion on the 
document during the Council session.  However, some 
delegations, notably South Africa, might choose to 
score points by criticizing the budget or by 
holding up other financial and administrative 
reports.  According to the Swedish Ambassador's 
report of his meeting with the South African 
delegation, Goosen particularly is displeased with 
the DG's report on tenure implementation and plans 
to take issue with it during the Council session. 
South Africa previously had asked for detailed 
staffing information to see the geographic 
distribution of TS jobs and could well insist on 
greater information from the DG. 
 
¶22. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
GALLAGHER