VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0584/01 2710738
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 280738Z SEP 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3301
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
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000584 
 
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, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO) 
NSC FOR LUTES 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/25/2019 
TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: UPDATE ON DIRECTOR-GENERAL (DG) SELECTION 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 566 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 518 
 
Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) 
 
This is CWC-56-09 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Dr. Robert Mikulak, ISN/CB Director and 
U.S. Representative to the Executive Council (EC), 
visited The Hague September 24 to consult with key 
delegations on the selection of a new Director- 
General (DG) for the Organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). 
Accompanied by Delreps, Mikulak met with Ambassador 
Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico), the EC Chairperson; 
Ambassador Manbir Singh of India; Delegate Chen Kai 
of China; Ambassador Kirill Gevorgian of Russia; 
Ambassador Chaudhry of Pakistan; and Ambassador 
Martabit of Chile.  Prior to Mikulak's visit, 
Delrep Beik called on the Korean and Sri Lankan 
Ambassadors to discuss the same issue.  The DG race 
appears to be narrowing to three major candidates, 
with the first straw poll likely the week of 
September 29. 
 
¶2. (U) Other consultations were held during the 
week on Articles VII, X and the Budget and will be 
reported septel. 
 
----------------------------- 
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON 
----------------------------- 
 
¶3. (C) During Mikulak's short visit to The Hague 
September 24, he and Delrep met with EC Chairperson 
Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico) to discuss progress on his 
consultations and "confessional meetings" on the 
choice of the Director-General.  As he has told 
everyone who asks, Lomonaco described his first 
round of consultations as completed, with "clear 
and consistent trends" across all of the regional 
groups.  Only two countries did not respond to his 
calls, and "very few" expressed no preferences. 
Most appear to have some flexibility in their 
choices, and there was no "north/south" divide. 
Lomonaco takes all of those as good signs that 
consensus in the Council may well be possible.  He 
has already spoken to the candidates with less 
support.  However, he is not confident that any of 
them will withdraw voluntarily. 
 
¶4. (C) Lomonaco has called for an informal meeting 
September 29 to report to everyone what he has done 
and to answer questions.  If there are still no 
withdrawals from the race, he will hold a straw 
poll on October 2 following the EC consultation on 
the agenda.  He will ask delegations to rank order 
all seven candidates and weigh each selection so 
that the results will show a broad range of 
support.  Only EC members will vote, but non-EC 
member states will be permitted to observe. 
Lomonaco expects from what delegations have told 
him -- which, he acknowledged might not be how they 
would vote in a secret ballot --  that three 
candidates would emerge in close competition at the 
top with a large gap between those three and the 
other four.  (Del comment:  We believe the top 
three are the same as the U.S. top choices.  End 
comment.) 
 
¶5. (C) There are lots of rumors flying about what 
happens if the EC fails to agree on a candidate by 
the end of the session (October 16), Lomonaco said; 
however, he refuses to discuss his Plan B.  He told 
Mikulak that it would be irresponsible for him not 
to be planning for contingencies, but he has no 
intention of letting this choice go to the 
Conference of States Parties.  One message he 
intends to give delegations next week is that 
success in this enterprise cannot be measured by 
having a DG; rather, the shape of the Council -- 
the EC doing its job -- is the measure of success. 
 
¶6. (C) On other EC issues, Lomonaco said the U.S. 
90-day report is likely to generate a lot of 
discussion for publishing the projected dates 
beyond 2012 for the first time.  He has asked Vice 
Chairman Lohman to chair a discussion of the EC 
visit report; he (Lomonaco) will attend but not 
chair and he hopes that the South African and 
Indian delegates who were part of the group and 
drafted the report will defend it from attacks by 
Iran or others.  Delrep inquired about the Libyan 
request for an extension of their destruction 
deadline.  Lomonaco noted ironically that Libya has 
taken a page from the U.S. presentations and asked 
in return whether the U.S. will block the 
extension.  Mikulak said we would not block 
consensus but we do have concerns over the lack of 
progress and lack of transparency by Libya.   On 
the budget, Lomonaco does not see major obstacles; 
he has put the Chinese and Indian delegations on 
notice to resolve their differences over the number 
of industry inspections and not to let others 
(Iran) take cover behind them. 
 
----------------- 
INDIAN AMBASSADOR 
----------------- 
 
¶7. (C) Mikulak and Delrep met with Indian 
Ambassador Manbir Singh on September 24.  Singh 
stated that he was pleased with the consultations 
and the number of good candidates; however, the 
"field is crowded."  He claimed not to know where 
the Asian candidate (Sudjanan of Indonesia) stands, 
and had heard that the other NAM candidate (Dani of 
Algeria) had "not been so competent" in the chair 
(of the Second Review Conference).  The strongest 
candidates, in his estimation, are the UK and 
German candidates, with his preference going with 
Freeman (UK) for continuity.  Some ambassadors had 
remarked on Freeman's "sharp edges" but were 
appreciative of his work on behalf of the 
Organization.  Mikulak noted the three strong 
candidates under consideration by the U.S.  Singh 
noted wryly that "reducing the field would help 
us." 
 
¶8. (C) In addition to the DG selection, Mikulak and 
Singh discussed budget issues, including the number 
of industry inspections.  Singh explained that 
India supports a strong verification regime, 
particularly in its "difficult neighborhood," but 
that the chemical industries mount a strong lobby 
against additional inspections.  Mikulak described 
how U.S. relations with private industry had built 
up over the years, with industry increasingly 
supportive of the inspection regime.  He also noted 
the large number of other chemical production 
facilities (OCPFs) and the need to better identify 
the small number of facilities that are of interest 
under the Convention.  Singh responded that U.S. 
proposals on industry will carry more weight when 
it makes progress on destruction, and that India 
and others still regard the destruction of chemical 
Qand others still regard the destruction of chemical 
weapons as the first and foremost goal of the 
Convention. 
 
¶9. (C) Singh said Iran has grave concerns about the 
deadlines and had been meeting with some countries 
to discuss the issue.  The Iranians have called for 
discussion of the report of the EC visit to the 
U.S.  However, the group has defended the report as 
a factual account of their visit.  In an 
interesting aside, Singh said he was puzzled by the 
repeated Iranian objections to "noting" reports and 
had looked up the word in the Farsi translations 
(Singh previously served in Tehran); it does not 
carry a meaning different from the English and does 
not connote approval.  However, the Iranian 
culture, he said, sees someone taking notes as 
submissive to the person giving the notes (like a 
student to his teacher) and thus the Iranian 
delegation is regarded as weak for "noting" 
reports.  Singh did not offer a solution to this 
cultural divide that has slowed so many Council 
sessions to a standstill. 
 
----------------------------------- 
MEETING WITH THE CHINESE DELEGATION 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (C) Mikulak and Delreps met with Chinese 
Delegates Chen Kai, Li Dong and Xiong Shuilong on 
September 24.  Chen Kai did not reveal China's 
preferences for the DG candidates, saying most 
delegations have not yet made a choice.  He 
emphasized the importance of personalities, skills 
and experience for the job and said three 
candidates are mentioned more often than others on 
these factors.  The Asian candidate (Ambassador 
Sudjanan of Indonesia) has some support, but Chen 
said there is no group candidate. 
 
¶11. (SBU) On the budget, Chen noted China's 
objection to the numbers of inspections at other 
chemical production facilities (OCPFs), and said 
China does not want a "repeat of last year."  The 
increase is small, he said, but still an increase, 
and he cited China's interpretation of the CSP 
budget decision in 2008 as agreement not to 
increase the numbers of inspections while 
consultations on the selection process have not 
come to resolution.   Mikulak responded that the 
large number of OCPFs and the range among them 
indicate the need to find the facilities that pose 
the greatest risk, but that did not mean that we 
can wait for a perfect political solution.  Chen 
stated that China's concern is "not a burden issue" 
as China is close to the cap for inspections 
already, but is based on principle. 
 
¶12. (C) Chen then raised the U.S. 90-day report and 
its projected dates for the completion of 
destruction beyond the 2012 deadline.  He said it 
will raise discussion in the Council.  Li Dong 
asked about Libya's request for a deadline 
extension.  Delrep replied that the U.S. is 
concerned about Libyan delays, but that we would 
likely raise our questions privately with Libya 
rather than in the Council.  Chen expressed concern 
over the "trend" to extend deadlines following U.S. 
admission of dates beyond the final deadline. 
 
----------------- 
OTHER ASIAN VIEWS 
----------------- 
 
¶13. (C) Mikulak and Delrep met Pakistani Ambassador 
Ahmad Chaudhry and Delegate Kehkeshan Azar on 
September 24.  Chaudhry attributed Lomonaco's 
support amongst EC members for managing the DG 
selection process to the roadmap he presented at 
the July EC session.  He said that before the July 
EC there were big differences on procedure; 
however, Chaudhry described the roadmap as a 
genuine attempt to find consensus and said that 
Qgenuine attempt to find consensus and said that 
Lomonaco's continued integrity and sincerity are 
key to the process running smoothly.  Chaudhry 
opined that Lomonaco should start using straw polls 
quickly to augment his "soundings," ensuring the 
confidentiality of and confidence in such polls. 
He suggested that a candidate could "do the maths" 
to see if they might have more support in the CSP 
and try to take any final decision beyond the EC. 
Mikulak stressed that the EC must not be 
circumvented and that it must recommend one 
candidate to the CSP.  Chaudhry was skeptical that 
the EC will be able to reach a decision by the end 
of its upcoming October session. 
 
¶14. (C) Turning to the candidates, Chaudhry said 
the field is divided between front-runners and 
others; he referred to Uzumcu, Freeman and Gottwald 
as the front-runners and all enjoying a great deal 
of support.  Pakistan is very committed to the CWC 
and the OPCW and, as such, wants the most competent 
candidate to be the next DG.  Chaudhry said his 
sense is that more and more countries share 
Pakistan's thinking on the issue.  While some 
countries are making overtures of reciprocal 
agreements in exchange for support of their 
candidate, Chaudhry stated that Pakistan will not 
enter in to any such "reciprocals." 
 
¶15. (C) Before Mikulak's visit, Delrep called on 
South Korean Ambassador Young-won Kim on September 
21 to discuss the DG selection.  Kim noted that 
Asia has no group candidate and that each EC state 
will decide on its own.  Korea has not yet made a 
selection, and Kim asked how the U.S. would advise 
them.  Delrep responded that the U.S. does not yet 
have a single preference but is considering 
carefully three candidates (Freeman/UK, 
Gottwald/Germany, and Uzumcu/Turkey).  Kim stated 
that Freeman is certainly the best candidate for 
continuity, but noted that Turkey is strongly 
supporting Uzumcu and that he appeared very well 
prepared.  Delrep noted the importance of consensus 
in the Council, if at all possible, to avoid 
choosing a candidate weakened by a protracted and 
public battle as had happened in the IAEA. 
 
¶16. (C) Delrep called on Sri Lankan Ambassador 
Grace Asirwatham on September 22.  Asirwatham 
stated that Sri Lanka's top three DG candidates 
were the same as those of the U.S. and that her 
government had not yet made a first choice.  She 
emphasized the importance of personal leadership 
qualities and the choice of the best possible 
candidate.  Delrep asked about the Ambassador's 
statements earlier in the year supporting a 
regional rotation of the DG position.  Asirwatham 
said it is important to have candidates from all 
regions eligible, and that the position should 
rotate among regions, but not in a fixed rotation. 
She said the Asian group will all decide on a 
national basis, as will the Non-Aligned Movement. 
"We are not meeting in NAM to discuss a common 
choice," she said.  She noted that some of the 
African ambassadors are ready to support someone 
other than Ambassador Dani (Algeria) in a secret 
straw poll, despite his endorsement from the 
African Union.  By her account, Asirwatham appears 
to have a central role in her government's decision 
and is basing her recommendation largely on the 
candidates' presentations at the July EC. 
 
¶17. (C) On other EC issues, Asirwatham described 
the meeting of Ambassadors of the Asian group last 
week to discuss the Asian seats on the Council. 
Qweek to discuss the Asian seats on the Council. 
There are five states interested but only four 
seats available.  Iraq, she said, gave a good 
presentation and has a lot of support from the 
group.  She said Iran was struggling to justify its 
continuing presence on the Council, as several 
countries feel it uses its vice chair for national 
purposes rather than representing the group.  Iraq 
is in discussion with Qatar, and the group hopes 
they can work out a sub-regional rotation. 
------------- 
RUSSIAN VIEWS 
------------- 
 
¶18. (C) Mikulak and Delreps met with Russian 
Ambassador Kirill Gevorgian and Delegates 
Konstantin Gavrilov and Vladimir Ladanov on 
September 24.  While Gevorgian was supposed to 
finish his term and return to Moscow during the 
summer, he confided that his successor is awaiting 
agreement from the Dutch government so Gevorgian 
plans to stay through the October EC session. 
Gevorgian said that there is no reason for any 
candidate to drop out of the DG race until the 
first straw poll, at the earliest.  He asked who 
the U.S. pick is; Mikulak told him the top three, 
stressing that there is no preference amongst them, 
despite Gavrilov reiterating his previous joke that 
Freeman is obviously the U.S. preference given the 
U.S.-UK "special relationship."  Gevorgian said 
that he had met personally with all seven 
candidates and expressed his view that all of them 
are strong, including the Indonesian, but he 
admitted that Dani -- while being a personal friend 
-- was weakened by his poor performance during the 
Second Review Conference. 
 
¶19. (C) Moscow has not made a clear choice yet, 
according to Gevorgian, though he noted that Deputy 
Foreign Minister Ryabkov -- who will be influential 
in making Russia's choice -- served in Washington 
with Gottwald.  Gevorgian stressed that the U.S. 
and Russia need to "find a common solution."  He 
also raised the issue of the OPCW's senior 
management, noting that its composition will be 
affected by the next DG.  Gevorgian even asked what 
WEOG would do if Gottwald were selected DG and 
Freeman remained as DDG; Mikulak ruled out the 
possibility of the DG and DDG both coming from 
WEOG, noting that the U.S. continues to support 
maintain the balance between developed and 
developing countries.  Mikulak also said that the 
U.S. and Russia both need to keep their senior 
management positions. 
 
¶20. (C) Mikulak stated that the objective is to 
reach consensus by the end of the EC session in 
October, but Gevorgian skeptically noted that the 
Organization's traditional mode of operating is to 
go until the last minute, which in this case he 
said is the CSP in December.  Gevorgian said that 
the NAM seemed intent on pushing for the CSP to 
make the final decision; Mikulak responded that the 
EC must make a recommendation and dismissed the NAM 
position as no longer relevant, having been an 
initial reaction to their fear of the process. 
 
¶21. (C) Turning to other issues, Mikulak said that 
the budget does not seem problematic aside from the 
number of industry inspections.  Gavrilov responded 
that, based on a meeting with the Chinese 
delegation the previous day, China might accept an 
additional one or two OCPF inspections instead of 
the additional three inspections proposed. 
Gavrilov also noted South Africa's strong 
opposition to the use of SSA (contract) inspectors 
and suggested that it might pose a problem to 
reaching agreement on the budget.  On continued 
verification of converted former CW production 
facilities, Gavrilov said the Russian delegation 
will defer the issue to EC-59 in February 2010. 
Qwill defer the issue to EC-59 in February 2010. 
 
¶22. (C) Mikulak asked about progress in meeting 
Russia's 45% destruction target by the end of the 
year; Gavrilov responded that destruction is on 
track to meet the target, though Gevorgian admitted 
that it will be tight.  According to Gavrilov, the 
destruction facility at Pochep is on schedule to 
start operation by the end of the year and 
construction at Kizner also is on schedule. 
 
---------------- 
CHILE AND GRULAC 
---------------- 
 
¶23. (C) Mikulak and Delrep met Chilean Ambassador 
Juan Martabit on September 24.  Martabit said that 
while the rules are clear and straightforward, 
there is no clear sense of when the "midnight hour" 
is that the EC must act, so the selection process 
will be a long one extending beyond the upcoming 
October EC session, and possibly beyond the next 
few EC sessions.  Referring to the recent election 
of the new DG at UNESCO, Martabit said he fully 
expects a similar surprise at the OPCW and 
suggested that things could change at the last 
minute, including the possibility of a GRULAC 
candidate popping up.  The selection process will 
be very difficult, Martabit believes, and strange 
alliances could emerge due to the importance 
countries place on having their candidate chosen. 
Mikulak named the U.S.'s top three candidates, and 
while Martabit agreed personally that they are the 
front-runners and would each be a good DG, he was 
clear that Chile does not have an official position 
yet.  He noted that no candidate has clear support 
from any group and suggested that the "top actors" 
need to figure out amongst themselves who to 
support in order to narrow the field.  As for 
GRULAC, Martabit said that aside from one or two 
more "militant" NAM members who are automatically 
supporting NAM candidates, the group is waiting for 
the outcome of Lomonaco's consultations and to see 
how things go during the EC. 
 
¶24. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
LEVIN