VZCZCXYZ2273
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0604/01 2791810
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 061810Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3337
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 000604 
 
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, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO) 
NSC FOR LUTES 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL AORC OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 58TH 
SESSION, OCTOBER 13-16, 2009 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 601 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 597 
     ¶C. BEIK-MIKULAK E-MAIL 10/02/09 (SOUTH AFRICAN 
        PROPOSAL FOR NEW AGENDA SUB-ITEM) 
     ¶D. SMITH-MIKULAK E-MAIL 09/28/09 (DRAFT EC REPORT 
        LANGUAGE: DEADLINE CONSULTATIONS BY 
        CHAIRMAN) 
 
This is CWC-59-09. 
 
¶1. (U) This is an action request -- please see 
paras 16-18. 
 
------------------------ 
SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION 
------------------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) While the selection of a new Director- 
General is consuming all the attention of delegates 
(ref A), the agenda for Executive Council 58 (EC- 
58) is quite full and contains some potential 
landmines for the U.S.  The budget is not yet 
resolved (ref B), and although new rounds of 
facilitations on Articles VII, X, XI and 
Universality have only just begun, all of them may 
have decision or report language to negotiate. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The South African initiative (ref C) is 
moving forward rapidly on an Open Ended Working 
Group to discuss "Security and destruction of 
chemical weapons in situations not foreseen by the 
Chemical Weapons Convention" -- purported to be 
future-oriented but many delegations would prefer 
to discuss U.S. and UK destruction of CW in Iraq 
between 2003 and 2009.  The Iranians held open from 
the last EC the report on the EC representatives' 
visit to the Pueblo and Umatilla destruction 
facilities in the U.S. and have been trying to 
convince other delegations of strong language 
against the U.S. for non-compliance with the 
Convention deadline.  The U.S. 90-day report may 
also raise future compliance issues with its 
publication, for the first time, of projected dates 
after the final deadline in 2012.  Libya's 
extension request will likely also raise 
discussion, both privately and publicly.  Brazil 
has drafted language on a future discussion of the 
destruction deadlines under the Chairman (ref D), 
which some delegations welcome but others find 
premature. 
 
¶4. (U) All these topics and multiple discussions 
and possible rounds of voting for the DG will make 
this EC a very long week indeed. 
 
-------------------------- 
DIRECTOR-GENERAL SELECTION 
-------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) The first straw poll to determine support 
of the seven candidates for DG took place on 
October 5 
(Ref A).  The Chairperson left open the possibility 
of candidates with less support dropping out 
voluntarily.  They had shown no inclination to do 
so when he first approached them after his 
confessional meetings.  Now the entire Council has 
seen the spread of initial support, but it remains 
to be seen if the candidates will now withdraw or 
will remain in the race until the Council mandates 
their elimination.    Del expects one or more 
additional straw polls in the next week as the 
Council opens, and possibly formal voting if 
candidates fail to heed the early warnings. 
 
--------------------- 
PRE-EC AGENDA MEETING 
 
--------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) At the October 2 informal consultation on 
the agenda for EC-58, South African Ambassador 
Goosen opened the session by proposing a new agenda 
item 5 "Security and destruction of chemical 
weapons in situations not foreseen by the Chemical 
Weapons Convention."  Sudan supported the proposal. 
Delrep countered that this would more appropriately 
be discussed under Any Other Business as the 
Council had not yet made a decision.  Goosen 
expressed "surprise" that the U.S. would object to 
the agenda item after it had been consulted on the 
issue.  Chairperson Lomonaco noted that the 
informal meeting would not make a decision on the 
agenda, but that the Council would do so as its 
first item of business on October 13.  (Del 
comment:  South Africa clearly intends to pursue 
this issue actively, with or without agreement by 
the U.S. and UK.  End comment.) 
 
¶7. (SBU) The Dutch Vice Chairman requested deferral 
of the agenda item on the conversion of former CW 
production facilities after ten years, noting that 
consultations are still underway.  The facilitators 
for Articles VII and XI both noted that they had 
begun consultations but would continue meeting, 
with possible drafting of decision language.  The 
facilitator for low concentrations (Schedule 
2a/2a*) stated that there might also be a draft 
decision after the industry cluster meetings on 
October 6. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The Swiss co-faciltator for the budget 
also noted ongoing consultations.  When the South 
African and U.S. flags went up for the report of 
the Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial 
Issues (ABAF), Secretary Khodakov quickly 
intervened to state that the document would be 
available in English shortly and in all other 
languages the following week.  (Del comment:  In 
fact, quite a few Council documents were not yet 
issued at the time of this meeting, only ten days 
before the session is to start.  End comment.)  The 
South African Ambassador took the last word to 
opine that the Council needs to explore more 
accurate verbs than "noting" for the actions that 
it takes. 
 
------ 
BUDGET 
------ 
 
¶9. (SBU) Since concluding the scheduled series of 
budget consultations last week (ref B), co- 
facilitators Amb. Francisco Aguillar (Costa Rica) 
and Martin Strub (Switzerland) have held two 
"informal informal" meetings of interested 
delegations (Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, 
Iran, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, 
Pakistan, South Africa, Sweden, the UK and the 
U.S.) on September 30 and October 5; another 
meeting is scheduled for October 8.  The meetings 
have focused solely on the number of industry 
(Artcle VI) inspections and the related issue of 
the draft budget decision. 
 
¶10. (SBU) China, India and Pakistan have all stated 
they want to keep the 208 inspections agreed last 
year for the 2009 budget (including the spread of 
11 Schedule 1, 42 Schedule 2, 30 Schedule 3 and 125 
OCPF) due to the lack of progress on resolving 
outstanding industry issues.  Iran claims to be 
less interested in numbers and more in principle, 
insisting that the number of inspections needs to 
Qinsisting that the number of inspections needs to 
be discussed as a "matter of policy" in Industry 
Cluster consultations first.  The Iranian 
 
delegation has insisted that language agreed in 
last year's budget decision be copied verbatim in 
this year's decision.  South Africa has indicated 
flexibility -- even disinterest -- in the number of 
OCPF inspections but insists that Schedule 3 
inspections not be reduced from 30.  WEOG countries 
have supported the DG's proposal in the draft 2010 
budget but individual delegations have indicated 
varying degrees of flexibility on inspection 
numbers.  All WEOG countries acknowledge the 
importance of ensuring this year's budget decision 
is less ambiguous and more successful in moving the 
perennial debate on inspections out of the budget 
and into more relevant consultations. 
 
------------------ 
DESTRUCTION ISSUES 
------------------ 
 
¶11. (SBU) After persistent pressure from the 
Iranians, the report of the EC visit to the U.S. 
destruction facilities in June will be discussed in 
an open meeting chaired by Ambassador Lohman 
(Netherlands) on October 8.  The South African 
delegate who participated in the visit and took a 
leading role in final drafting and editing of the 
report also drafted EC report language for the July 
EC which his Ambassador is planning to introduce 
again in this Council.  Iran reportedly has 
alternative language critical of the United States, 
but several delegations, including South Africa and 
India who participated in the visit, have told 
Delreps that they did not agree with the Iranian 
initiative.  Del expects Iran to introduce 
problematic language in the Council, with or 
without support from others. 
 
¶12. (SBU) The U.S. 90-day destruction report of 
June 30, on the agenda for this session of the 
Council, is drawing questions due to its 
publication for the first time of the projected 
dates of operation for the Pueblo and Blue Grass 
facilities.  Most recently, the Swedish delegate 
followed earlier inquiries from China and South 
Africa in asking why the U.S. had chosen now to 
publish those dates after resisting so long to 
include future projections in the 90-day historical 
reports.  The published dates may encourage Iran to 
renew its efforts to differentiate the U.S. report 
from the others or to attempt additional criticism 
of the U.S. failure to meet the (future) deadline. 
 
------------------------ 
LIBYAN EXTENSION REQUEST 
------------------------ 
 
¶13. (SBU) Delegations are discussing Libya's 
request for an extension for its destruction 
deadline with varying degrees of skepticism, but 
Delreps have not heard that any delegation will 
challenge the extension.  Most consider that Libya 
has additional time before the final deadline and 
that the EC and CSP can legally extend its current 
deadline.  Del expects that, despite the minute 
attention normally given to U.S. deadlines, Libya 
will gain approval for its extension with minimal 
discussion in the preoccupation with the DG race. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
NEW INITIATIVES -- SOUTH AFRICA AND BRAZIL 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶14. (SBU) South Africa's pre-emptive move (Ref C) 
to add a new agenda item on "Security and 
Qdestruction of chemical weapons in situations not 
foreseen by the Chemical Weapons Convention" is 
receiving mixed reactions among Council members. 
 
In the October 6 WEOG meeting, several delegations 
expressed their opposition to the procedural move 
to create an agenda item before the issue is 
discussed and a working group is (or is not) 
approved.  Other delegations are reluctant to open 
an over-burdened agenda with a procedural fight and 
have asked the U.S. and UK to try to resolve the 
issue privately with South Africa.  The Dutch 
Ambassador (Vice Chair for demilitarization issues) 
expressed his willingness to chair informal 
discussions on the issue, if asked, but will not 
volunteer himself.  (Del comment:  We would 
appreciate consideration and guidance on the Dutch 
Ambassador's offer.  While the U.S. will have some 
support on the procedural question, there is broad 
confusion on the issue itself, what the working 
group is intended to do, and whether or not it will 
be addressing the recent history of CW destruction 
in Iraq.  Whoever chairs that discussion will be 
critQl to keeping it contained.  End comment.) 
 
¶15. (SBU) A second initiative by Brazil (ref D) 
appears to be an effort to find a compromise 
solution to the growing questions on destruction 
deadlines by putting consultations in the hands of 
the Chairperson.  The Brazilian delegate told 
Delrep that his delegation sees the language as 
something to offer late in the session; they would 
like to have these consultations consider 
alternatives the Council might consider in dealing 
with the deadline issue. In a P-5 discussion on 
October 6, both the Chinese Ambassador and the 
Russian delegate voiced their views that the 
Brazilian proposal is "premature." 
 
--------------- 
ACTION REQUESTS 
--------------- 
 
¶16. (SBU) Specific guidance on the South African 
proposal will be needed for the EC session and for 
the trilateral meeting with South Africa and the UK 
on October 12. The procedural issue of the agenda 
item and whether to support the Dutch Ambassador to 
take the lead on any consultations need to be 
addressed, as well as the larger issue of a working 
group, its scope and outcome. 
 
¶17. (SBU) Guidance on the Brazilian proposal and 
its timing will also be needed for the EC session. 
If there are specific comments or suggested changes 
to the Brazilian draft, it would be useful to pass 
those to the Brazilian delegation before the 
Council begins, as they have not yet broadly 
distributed the draft. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Specific guidance on the acceptable 
number of industry inspections will be necessary 
for the EC session and going into budget 
negotiations.  Any agreement on numbers (whether 
last year's compromise, this year's DG proposal, or 
a compromise of the two) will be tied to language 
in the budget decision, so clear guidance on that 
will also be needed. 
 
¶19. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
LEVIN