VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0422/01 1950743
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 140743Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3038
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 000422 
 
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 JULY 6-10, 2009 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 402 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 415 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 411 
 
This is CWC-39-09 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) As will happen during the upcoming 
Executive Council (EC) session, discussions this 
week were dominated by the search for a new 
Director-General (DG).  After additional 
consultations with a number of delegations, 
including with a small group of western and like- 
minded states in which he outlined his plans for 
the process, the EC Chairman hosted an informal 
meeting of all interested delegations on July 10. 
That meeting was notable for its civility and 
constructive ideas as opposed to the previous 
week's confrontation over the agenda (ref A).  An 
eighth candidate for DG was nominated just before 
the deadline on July 7, a Major General from 
Burundi, sparking a lot of corridor speculation. 
 
¶2. (U) The Director-General launched the draft 2010 
Program and Budget on July 10, another zero- 
nominal-growth budget looking much like the 2009 
budget.  Japanese facilitator Takayuki Kitagawa 
held his last facilitation on July 10, on the 
External Auditor's Report and Financial Statements 
for 2008, before he hands the facilitator's baton 
to U.S. Delrep Nik Granger. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Japanese delegation raised the 
question of possible chemical weapons or precursor 
chemicals recovered under UN Security Council 
Resolution 1874. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Delreps met with the Deputy Director- 
General (DDG) July 10 on issues relating to Iraq 
(ref B). 
 
¶5. (U) Reporting on the July 9 Industry Cluster 
consultations will be sent septel. 
 
 
------------------------------ 
RECOVERED CW FROM NORTH KOREA? 
------------------------------ 
 
¶6. (SBU) Japanese delegate Takayuki Kitagawa has 
raised the issue of how to deal with recovered CW 
in light of recent the UN Security Council 
resolution on North Korea (UNSCR 1874).  Japan is 
concerned what to do witQny CW or precurQs 
confiscated through impleQting that resolution. 
Kitagawa specifically asked if the Coast Guard 
should be expected to destroy CW, and if so, how. 
 
¶7. (SBU) DEL COMMENT:  In light of the South 
African ambassador's discussion of "filling the 
gap" (ref C) in the Convention (CWC) on CW 
recovered in Iraq by the U.S. and UK before Iraq's 
accession to the CWC, Del believes the UN Security 
Council resolution provides a more immediate and 
useful focus to such a discussion.  As Japan asked, 
if states interdict North Korean shipments of CW 
(or precursor chemicals), what are their options 
for destruction and their responsibilities to 
report such destruction to the OPCW?  END COMMENT. 
 
---- 
WEOG 
---- 
 
¶8. (SBU) On July 7, coordinator Ruth Surkau 
(Germany) chaired the weekly meeting of the Western 
European and Others Group (WEOG).  Agenda items 
included preparation for EC-57, report of the EC 
visit to U.S. CW destruction facilities (CWDFs), 
preparation for the Industry Cluster on July 9 and 
an update on new facilitators. 
 
¶9. (SBU) On EC-57 preparations, U.S. Delrep 
characterized the dynamic at the agenda preparation 
meeting on July 3 as reminiscent of the Second 
Review Conference polarization of the Non-aligned 
Movement (NAM) against WEOG.  Delrep appealed for 
delegations to present national, individual views 
rather than falling into bloc positions to 
encourage NAM delegations to follow suit and not 
blindly echo more vocal, extreme NAM countries. 
Dutch Ambassador Pieter de Savornin Lohman noted 
the unharmonious dynamic between EC Chairman Amb. 
Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico) and South African 
Ambassador Peter Goosen at the July 3 meeting, and 
agreed with Delrep on the usefulness of 
individual/national interventions. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Swedish Ambassador Hans Magnusson 
reported on a long meeting that his delegation 
(representing the EU) had with the South African 
delegation on July 6, saying that Goosen seems to 
be preparing for the worst-case scenario and wants 
a clear idea on an open, transparent, democratic 
process.  Goosen sees no problem in borrowing from 
the IAEA's rules of procedure and also thinks that 
having an open-ended working group actually will 
prevent some delegations (e.g., Iran and India) 
from hijacking the process.  Magnusson said that 
Goosen also raised the issue of U.S. and UK 
recovered CW in Iraq and the need to discuss how to 
deal with similar situations in the future.  South 
Africa is also unhappy with the DG's report on 
tenure policy implementation, which in the past 
they have asked to be stronger and more 
informative. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Referring to preparing for a worst-case 
scenario, French delegate Annie Mari raised the 
possibility of convening a special EC or CSP 
meeting if there is no agreement by the December 
CSP.  German Ambassador Werner Burkart said that he 
had encouraged Lomonaco not to wait too long to 
reveal his intentions and ideas on how to proceed 
after EC-57.  Burkart said that people support 
Lomonaco but want to know where he is leading them. 
Swiss delegate Martin Strub agreed that Lomonaco 
would help the current situation and relieve 
mounting tensions by indicating the next step or 
two.  UK delegate Karen Wolstenholme stated that 
reaching agreement by EC-58 in October should be a 
priority, partly to avoid the risk of new 
candidates parachuting in later. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Moving to the report of the EC visit to 
Pueblo and Umatilla, Delrep reported that the U.S. 
had provided input and comments quickly and that 
Lomonaco was finalizing it before sending to the 
Technical Secretariat (TS) for distribution. 
Delrep also noted that the updated schedule 
projections will be included in the U.S. 
presentation during the EC-57 destruction 
informals.  De Savornin Lohman described the report 
as a factual recounting of what the EC 
representatives learned in the U.S. along with a 
page of the group's observations. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Italian delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia, 
Q13. (SBU) Italian delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia, 
facilitator for low concentrations in the Industry 
Cluster, announced that the TS will present the 
results of the survey on Schedule 2A/2A* thresholds 
at the July 9 consultation.  Cornacchia also 
announced his intention to request that the draft 
decision be formalized by making it a conference 
room paper in order to have a document to which to 
refer in the EC agenda rather than doing everything 
informally.  Delrep, along with de Savornin Lohman 
and Wolstenholme, supported Cornacchia's proposal, 
noting his difficulty in even being able to speak 
on the status of his consultations in previous EC 
sessions due to the lack of any formal EC agenda 
item or documents on the issue. 
 
---------------------------- 
LAST-MINUTE CANDIDATE FOR DG 
---------------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) Just before the July 7 deadline for the 
nominations of candidates, Burundi nominated Major 
General Evariste Ndayishimiye.  The Burundian 
ambassador, resident in Brussels, was in The Hague 
on July 7 for a TS briefing on the OPCW's Program 
for Africa and used the opportunity to deliver 
Ndayishimiye's nomination letter.  Several 
delegates suggested that South Africa put Burundi 
up to the nomination or that the nomination may 
have been organized at the recent African Union 
summit in an effort to have another African 
candidate besides Algerian Ambassador Benchaa Dani. 
Delreps have heard that a number of African 
countries were glad to have an alternative to Dani, 
saving them from having to publicly endorse him, 
even if they do not plan to support either African 
candidate in secret balloting.  The Sudanese 
Ambassador had not heard the news at a lunch on 
July 8; he told Delrep he wished it had been a 
"serious candidate." 
 
-------------------------------------- 
CHAIR'S CONSULTATIONS ON THE DG SEARCH 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶15. (SBU) On July 7, EC Chairman Lomonaco held a 
meeting with selected western and "like-minded" 
states, specifically not including those with a 
candidate for Director-General.  The Dutch and 
Czech Ambassadors attended, as did delegates from 
Sweden (current EU presidency), Italy, Ireland, 
Japan, South Korea, Australia and the U.S. 
Lomonaco described a meeting he had had with new 
South African Ambassador Goosen following the 
rather contentious debate at the EC informals on 
July 3 (ref A).  Goosen had suggested that South 
Africa wanted to help Mexico with drafting a 
statement (bilaterally) for the selection 
procedures that the Chair could issue; Lomonaco 
refused.  Based on Goosen's comments to him, 
Lomonaco believed that South Africa intends to hold 
the EC hostage to a decision on the DG procedures. 
He inquired whether the western and like-minded 
representatives present would need a consensus 
report, whether they would object to voting on the 
report, or whether they could support a Chairman's 
EC report (as had happened for the CSP in December) 
or perhaps a partial report adopted by consensus. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Czech Ambassador Mares advised against 
starting out with procedural votes, a precedent 
that could haunt the new Chairman.  U.S. Delrep 
noted that the agenda for this EC has very few 
decisions, but a long list of reports to be noted; 
she joined the Czech ambassador in advising against 
early voting.  Others agreed that the EC should not 
continue endlessly if there is not agreement on a 
set of procedures for the DG search.  Lomonaco said 
Qset of procedures for the DG search.  Lomonaco said 
he intends to close the EC on Friday. 
 
¶17. (SBU) Lomonaco asked the group whether the open 
meeting the NAM was pushing for would be useful. 
The group generally agreed that it would be 
beneficial to allow delegations to vent steam, that 
such a meeting should be open to all interested 
parties and limited in time.  Lomonaco said he was 
looking at Friday, July 10, following the 
introduction of the draft budget.  He did not plan 
to present an agenda but would open the discussion 
saying he wanted to hear views and ideas on the 
selection process.  He did not want the open 
meeting to focus on the question and answer portion 
of the candidates' presentations; the significant 
differences he had heard on that topic in his 
consultations might then tie his hands for the 
session at the EC the next week.  Rather, he plans 
to consult the EC Bureau on Q and A procedures, 
proposing five questions for each candidate, 
questions from one state (in a national capacity) 
from each regional group, and limited time for both 
questions and answers. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Lomonaco then outlined for the small 
group his current thinking on the selection process 
that he will likely codify in a Chairman's 
statement after the open meeting.  He would 
emphasize the "common ground" of an open 
transparent process and decision by consensus.  He 
will NOT/NOT include a regional rotation for the 
DG, sending two or three candidates to the CSP, or 
anything that is not consistent with the Convention 
or Rules of Procedure.  His projected timeline 
would allow for a period of evaluation by member 
states following the presentations of the 
candidates and for consultations with capitals; 
after the August break, he would begin 
consultations on states' preferences, using tools 
like straw polls and "confessional meetings" to 
find early and clear trends and allow him to 
discuss with the candidates or their 
representatives possible withdrawal from 
consideration.  He would continue in successive 
cycles, informing states of the progress made.  At 
EC-58, he would try to further reduce the number 
and identify a consensus candidate.  If no 
consensus emerges, he would look to informal secret 
ballots to reduce the number or to identify a 
candidate with two-thirds support.  Only after 
exhausting all possibilities for consensus would a 
formal vote be possible. 
 
¶19. (SBU) Lomonaco noted that a statement by the 
Chairman does not require approval or consensus by 
the Council, but he had concluded that he needs to 
"pronounce himself" beyond the general statements 
he has made to date.  He would look to the 
prospective open meeting for ideas and common 
elements to include in his statement. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
OPEN INFORMAL MEETING ON THE DG SEARCH 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶20. (SBU) EC Chairman Lomonaco opened the meeting 
July 10 by stating that there seems to be clear 
agreement on the principles of transparency, 
openness and fairness, as well as reaching 
consensus on a candidate by EC-58 in October.  He 
described the differences among delegations as 
being primarily some  favoring a flexible process 
and others a more regulated one.  Lomonaco 
expressed hope on finding  common ground on the 
process for the weeks and months ahead.  Indian 
delegate Pankaj Sharma introduced the non-paper 
drafted by "interested parties" (India, Cuba, South 
Africa, Nigeria, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Malaysia, 
QAfrica, Nigeria, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Malaysia, 
Venezuela and China), outlining the paper's main 
themes:  a fair, open and transparent process; the 
goal of consensus; and a proposed set of procedures 
for use in case consensus is not achievable. 
 
¶21. (SBU) The tone of the meeting was respectful, 
E 
positive and substantive, in stark contrast to the 
July 3 meeting (ref A), when the DG search was last 
discussed during the review of the EC-57 Agenda. 
Notably, South African Ambassador Peter Goosen 
reversed his previous attacks and was effusive in 
his compliments to the Chairman and other 
delegations who participated.  Several ambassadors 
noted the constructive tone of the discussion and 
welcomed the change in atmosphere. 
 
¶22. (SBU) Nearly every speaker welcomed the new 
paper, although most had only received it that 
morning.  Delegates generally supported some of the 
ideas in the paper, particularly its emphasis on 
consensus and useful tools like straw polls. 
However, the paper's proposals for voting caused 
significant debate among delegations.  A number of 
delegations (Ireland, U.S., Sweden, Spain, 
Netherlands, Japan, Australia, Germany and South 
Korea) voiced concern over the paragraph (7) in the 
paper that a recommendation to the Conference of 
States Parties could be more than one name, and 
insisted that the EC must recommend one candidate 
to the CSP for appointment. 
 
¶23. (SBU) Several delegations, led by South Africa, 
called for additional review/consultations on this 
draft paper, but suggested different times to do 
so, both before and after EC-57.  Western and Latin 
American representatives voiced strong support for 
the Chairman, with several calling for him to 
announce his intentions for the process 
(Netherlands, France, Brazil, Japan, Germany, 
Italy).  Australian delegate Mike Byers stated that 
the process for appointment is to be determined by 
the Chairperson and not by consensus. 
 
---------------------------- 
DG UNVEILS DRAFT 2010 BUDGET 
---------------------------- 
 
¶24. (U) On July 10, the DG presented his draft 
budget and program of work for 2010 to delegations 
and also introduced the budget co-facilitators, 
Amb. Francisco Aguilar (Costa Rica) and Martin 
Strub (Switzerland).  (DEL NOTE:  The draft budget 
was emailed to ISN/CB and IO/MPR on July 10. END 
NOTE.)  The DG gave an overview of the budget and 
highlighted that it remains at the same level as 
the 2009 approved budget (EUR 74.5 million), 
representing the fifth year of sustained zero- 
nominal growth, which he described as a 
"considerable achievement."  The DG also noted the 
reintroduction of sub-programs and the improvement 
in results based budgeting standards, including 
more measurable key performance indicators.  On a 
related note, the DG reiterated his intention to 
circulate the annual performance report at the end 
of year. 
 
¶25. (U) Other highlights of the budget: 
- 50.1% for Chapter 1 (Verification and 
Inspections) and 49.9 for Chapter 2 (Administration 
and other programs); 
- 0.4% reduction in assessed contributions for 
2010; 
- fixed-term staffing remains at 523 and temporary 
staff (TACs) reduced to 13; 
- 5.6% increase in International Cooperation and 
Assistance (the DG noted that ICA's budget has 
increased 40% from 2003 to 2010); 
- slight increases (0.4% each) in Verification and 
Inspections; 
- reductions (1%-2.4%)in all other program areas; 
- 210 Article VI inspections (128 OCPF, 29 Schedule 
3, 42 Schedule 2 and 11 Schedule 1), with sampling 
Q3, 42 Schedule 2 and 11 Schedule 1), with sampling 
and analysis for 10 of the Schedule 2 inspections; 
- all four U.S. CWDFs listed as operational for 12 
months each; 
- three Russian CWDFs (Maradykovsky, Shchuchye and 
Leonidovka) listed as operational for 12 months 
each, Pochep for 10 months and Kizner for 6 months; 
- Libya's CWDF listed as operational for 10 months 
- funding for only one session of the Scientific 
Advisory Board (SAB). 
 
------------------------- 
EXTERNAL AUDITOR'S REPORT 
------------------------- 
 
¶26. (U) Departing Japanese delegate Takayuki 
Kitagawa held his last consultation on July 10 to 
look at the External Auditor's Report and Audited 
Financial Statements for 2008 (EC-57/DG.13*). 
Director of Administration Ron Nelson attended and 
responded to the few questions raised by 
delegations.  Kitagawa started the meeting by 
reviewing the relevant portion of the report from 
the most recent meeting of the Advisory Body on 
Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF) dealing 
with the External Auditor's Report.  He then went 
through the External Auditor's Report section-by- 
section. 
 
¶27. (U) German delegate Ruth Surkau asked about a 
discrepancy in two tables in the External Auditor's 
Report, which the ABAF had highlighted.  Nelson 
responded that neither the TS nor the ABAF had the 
authority to correct the error but would discuss it 
with the External Auditor when he presents his 
report formally to EC-57 on July 16.  Kitagawa 
suggested that the TS could, with the External 
Auditor's permission, issue a corrigendum with the 
corrected information.  Per guidance, U.S. Delrep 
asked what the TS has done to prevent abuses of the 
dependency benefits noted in the report. Nelson 
responded that the issue had been discussed 
thoroughly with ABAF and that the TS has tightened 
procedures so that all benefits claims are checked 
by two different reviewers.  At the end of the 
meeting, delegates agreed that Kitagawa could 
recommend the Council note the report at EC-57 and 
also thanked him for his service as facilitator. 
 
¶28. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
FOSTER