VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0719/01 3311707
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 271707Z NOV 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3515
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 000719 
 
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: 11/26/2019 
TAGS: PARM PREL EIND OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: SCENE-SETTER FOR THE 14TH CONFERENCE OF THE 
STATES PARTIES, NOVEMBER 30-DECEMBER 4, 2009 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 632 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 659 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 706 
     ¶D. SMITH-ISN/CB E-MAIL 11/13/09 
     ¶E. GRANGER-ISN/CB E-MAIL 11/27/09 
     ¶F. GRANGER-ISN/CB E-MAIL 11/24/09 
 
Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) 
 
This is CWC-69-09 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) The 14th Conference of the States Parties 
(CSP) should smoothly wrap up the year's worth of 
activities of the Organization for the Prohibition 
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), as intended in the 
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).  This year, 
unlike many in the past, the Executive Council (EC) 
completed its preparatory work for the CSP on time, 
including the critical issues of recommending a 
consensus candidate, Ahmet Uzumcu of Turkey, to 
become the next Director-General of the 
Organization, and forwarding the draft 2010 Program 
and Budget to the Conference to approve (ref A). 
Iran's participation, as always, could play a wild 
card in the Conference, with the most likely 
disruptive intervention centering on criticism of 
prospective delays in the U.S. chemical weapons 
destruction program. 
 
¶2. (SBU) With the visit of Assistant Secretary of 
Defense Andrew Weber November 30 - December 1, the 
U.S. Delegation will pursue progress on critical 
issues outside of the Conference plenary sessions, 
including briefings on the U.S. chemical weapons 
destruction program and meetings on Iraq's future 
destruction. 
 
3.(SBU) In the weeks leading up to the CSP, Dr. 
Robert Mikulak, ISN/CB Executive Director and U.S. 
Representative to the EC and CSP, visited The Hague 
November 10-11 and met bilaterally with a number of 
delegations in advance of the CSP.  The CSP General 
Committee met on November 11 and 26 to discuss 
preparations for the CSP.  Delreps participated in 
a meeting of Close Allies on November 18 as well as 
a number of bilateral meetings with other 
delegations and with the Technical Secretariat 
(TS).  Regular weekly meetings of the Western 
European and Others Group (WEOG) were held 
throughout November to discuss current issues. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Unresolved issues for the CSP include 
draft decisions on Article VII (National 
Implementation) and Article XI (Economic 
Cooperation and Assistance).  As one WEOG wag 
expressed it, with the major issues of the DG 
selection and the budget resolved, there has been 
perhaps too much time to devote to details of the 
Article VII and XI decisions before the CSP. 
In contrast, the annual decision on Universality 
found consensus language during a single 
consultation on November 13. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Details on the status of these issues on 
the eve of the CSP follow, as well as notes on some 
broader issues from the Close Allies meeting. 
 
---- 
IRAN 
---- 
 
¶6. (SBU) On November 26, Iranian Delegate Hassan 
Vejdani told Delreps that Iran plans to propose 
report language on destruction deadlines during the 
 
CSP.  He did not yet have the language to share but 
said that they planned to provide the draft to the 
U.S. and other delegations shortly.  Delreps 
responded that the earlier we could see the draft 
language, the better, and that it should be general 
for all destruction; we would not accept language 
singling out the United States. 
 
¶7. (C) In a private meeting later that morning, 
the Director-General told Delreps that the Iranian 
delegation had also informed him that they would 
have report language on the destruction deadlines. 
He advised them to offer the draft early and to 
consult widely with other delegations, to avoid the 
confrontational final session of last year's 
Conference.  (Del Note:  In the 2008 CSP, Iran was 
totally isolated in its efforts to introduce report 
language on the destruction deadline, resulting in 
a Chairman's Report when Iran would not join 
consensus on that paragraph.  End Note.) 
 
¶8. (SBU) Who will represent Iran is still an open 
question, as the new Permanent Representative to 
the OPCW has not yet presented his credentials, and 
the Iranian government filed applications late for 
visas for delegates from Tehran. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶9. (U) Facilitator Rami Adwan (Lebanon) convened a 
series of consultations during November to discuss 
a draft decision on national implementation for the 
CSP.  However, in stead of getting down to drafting 
the decision, Iran questioned the need for a 
decision saying that report language indicating the 
current status of things would be sufficient. 
While Iran was the only delegation explicitly to 
reject a draft decision, support among many other 
delegations was contingent on the decision tracking 
closely with that from last year.  During the 
consultation on November 12, the South African and 
Iranian delegations each tabled new language on 
indicators contained in the annual TS report on 
Article VII implementation (ref D).  The South 
African proposal aimed to limit the indicators to 
those directly related to Article VII, thereby 
removing existing indicators on submissions of 
annual declarations, etc.  The Iranian proposal -- 
which was presented as complementary to the South 
African proposal but actually appeared to be 
contradictory -- called for more detailed 
information on what member states have done to 
bring their regulations and legislation in line 
with Article XI Paragraph 2(e). 
 
¶10. (SBU) After not making any progress in the 
previous two meetings, Adwan's third consultation 
on November 17 was more productive and focused on a 
draft text prepared by Adwan, going paragraph-by- 
paragraph through the text.  Throughout the 
consultation the Iranian delegate was usually the 
first to speak on each paragraph, often insisting 
that all language match exactly that in the 
previous year's decision (C-13/DEC.7).  Aside from 
a few constructive comments by the Cuban delegate 
to move the process along, Iran was only delegation 
from the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) to take the 
floor.  The three-hour consultation turned into a 
Qfloor.  The three-hour consultation turned into a 
debate between Iran and WEOG delegations, with a 
few interventions by the Russian and Japanese 
delegates. 
 
¶11. (C) With the South African delegation's 
absence, Adwan chose to postpone discussion on the 
South African proposal to limit indicators in the 
TS annual report only to those in Article VII.  The 
 
Iranian Delegate seized the opportunity to postpone 
discussion on the Iranian proposal to add an 
indicator on Article XI Paragraph 2(e), claiming 
that it was related to the South African proposal 
and should be considered concurrently.  At the 
close of the meeting, Adwan promised to circulate a 
new draft reflecting comments from the 
consultation.  The next consultation was scheduled 
for November 23.  (Del Comment:  Adwan finally 
seemed to realize who his friends and enemies were 
during the consultation.  While he previously 
seemed inclined to accommodate all Iranian 
requests, Adwan started pushing back, particularly 
when Iran objected to congratulating Lebanon, among 
others, for establishing a national authority.  End 
Comment.) 
 
¶12. (SBU) During the final consultation before the 
CSP on November 23, Adwan went through his revised 
draft text paragraph by paragraph, successfully 
removing brackets from all but five portions: the 
title, the preambular paragraph on progress made in 
designating/establishing national authorities since 
last year's decision, the preambular paragraph on 
the contribution to universality, and operative 
paragraph on proving the full text of national 
legislation, and the penultimate operative 
paragraph on the annual TS report.  Positions on 
the draft decision's title were split between those 
delegations wanting to repeat last year's title and 
those delegations supporting Adwan's lengthier 
title taken from the 2006 (CSP-11) decision. 
 
¶13. (SBU) The Iranian delegation held up agreement 
on the preambular paragraph on designation/ 
establishment of national authorities because of 
objections to referencing last year's decision, 
despite the decision being referenced specifically 
in the first two preambular paragraphs.  The 
Iranian delegation also voiced the only objection 
to including the UK-proposed preambular paragraph 
on the link between universality and Article VII 
implementation, despite the language having been 
agreed in the Article VII Action Plan and the 
Second Review Conference. 
 
¶14. (SBU) Legal Advisor Onate explained that the 
report of the First Review Conference as well as 
the Article VII Action Plan provided the basis for 
requesting updates from member states when amending 
implementing legislation/regulations as well as the 
full text of national implementing legislation. 
The Iranian delegation, initially opposed to 
including the paragraph, went on to insist that a 
reference to Article XI Paragraph 2(e) be added. 
The South African and Indian delegates suggested 
that relevant portions of the Action Plan 
(paragraphs 14(c) and 15) could be inserted 
verbatim. 
 
¶15. (SBU) The remaining point of contention 
involved the request to the TS to produce its 
annual report on Article VII implementation.  WEOG 
delegations spoke in support of a generic request 
for annual reports in order to avoid having to re- 
authorize the TS each year to produce its report. 
Delegates also discussed the South African and 
Iranian proposals on which indicators to include in 
the annual report.  The South African delegate 
Qthe annual report.  The South African delegate 
initially refused to be drawn into commenting on 
the Iranian proposal but finally admitted that he 
did not see a contradiction between the two 
proposals; he explained that -- even though his 
proposal limited indicators to those related to 
Article VII paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 -- the Iranian 
proposal could be accommodated because a previous 
decision (the Action Plan) specifically mentioned 
Article XI Paragraph 2(e).  With no agreement in 
 
sight, Adwan closed the meeting and announced his 
plan to continue consultations during the CSP, most 
likely starting on December 1.  (Ref E contains 
latest draft text.) 
 
---------- 
ARTICLE XI 
---------- 
 
¶16. (SBU) Facilitator Chen Kai (China) held three 
rounds of consultations on his draft decision on 
Article XI.  The first consultation on November 11 
was short and efficient, with delegations actively 
commenting on the draft text circulated by Chen 
(ref F).  During his consultation on November 17, 
Chen presented a new draft.  Discussion focused on 
the operative paragraphs, specifically those 
dealing with the proposed workshop.  WEOG 
delegations pushed to remove redundancies 
throughout the text; Iran and Cuba were the only 
NAM delegations to engage, the latter more 
constructively than the former.  When the Iranian 
delegate insisted on the word "agreed" appearing in 
reference to the arrangements for the workshop, the 
Brazilian delegate responded that the decision 
should focus on authorizing the workshop instead of 
fixating on agreeing all of its aspects. 
 
¶17. (SBU) During the November 23 consultation, 
delegations progressed through Chen's revised draft 
text leaving only two points open at the end of the 
meeting.  While agreement was reached on most 
outstanding issues, the Iranian delegation 
surprisingly threw on the brakes near the end of 
the meeting, informing Chen that they needed 
instructions from Tehran and would not be able to 
resume discussions for at least a week.  The 
Iranian delegation took exception to the reference 
in the fifth preambular paragraph to the Chairman's 
Report from CSP-13, ostensibly because they 
continue to question the report's legitimacy.  The 
Iranian delegation also objected to a proposal to 
reference, in the same preambular paragraph, the 
Cuban national paper (from EC-54) which formally 
suggested holding the Article XI workshop.  The 
Iranian delegation also continued to insist on some 
form of the word "agree" in the third operative 
paragraph addressing arrangements for the proposed 
workshop.  (Ref G contains latest draft text.) 
 
¶18. (C) Del Comment:  Iran seems to have come to 
accept holding a workshop in 2010 but is still wary 
about what the workshop will include and how it 
will be arranged.  In the words of the Brazilian 
delegate, Iran is "fixated" on spelling out every 
aspect of the workshop and making sure that member 
states will be able to veto any aspect with which 
they object.  The approach of the facilitator and 
of other NAM delegations indicates their 
realization that progress on Article XI is 
implicitly linked to concomitant progress on 
Article VII.  While Chen's facilitation is more 
advanced than the Article VII facilitation and 
seemed on the verge of completion before the 
Iranian delegation halted it, there is a general 
understanding that an Article XI decision at the 
CSP will only be possible if there is a parallel 
agreement on an Article VII decision.  End Comment. 
 
------------ 
UNIVERSALITY 
------------ 
 
¶19. (U) On November 13, Facilitator Lee Litman (UK) 
Q19. (U) On November 13, Facilitator Lee Litman (UK) 
convened a brief consultation to discuss his 
proposed draft decision on Universality for the 
CSP.  At the beginning of the meeting, Polish 
Delegate Warminska gave a report on meetings held 
 
in October on the margins of the UN First Committee 
in New York by Director-General Pfirter and Polish 
Permanent Representative Rapacki.  While all seven 
non-member states were invited to meet with Pfirter 
and Rapacki, only Burma, Egypt, Israel and Syria 
accepted.  Warminska reported that Burma signaled 
its political will to ratify the Convention but 
admitted that it is not a top priority for the 
government.  Egypt and Syria both linked their 
accession to the regional security situation, 
specifically saying that Israel would have to join 
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) first. 
Israel announced its intention to participate in 
the CSP and also noted the link made by other 
countries between the CWC and the NPT and regional 
security issues. 
 
¶20. (U) Turning to the draft decision, Litman asked 
for reactions from delegations.  The Iranian 
delegate was the first to speak, raising Iran's 
usual objection to the word "non-proliferation", 
saying that it does not exist in the Convention and 
is usually used specifically in the nuclear 
context.  Delrep, along with German and Italian 
delegates, spoke in favor of retaining the word 
"non-proliferation".  The Iranian delegate relented 
after the German delegate suggested specifying that 
the decision's reference to non-proliferation was 
only in the context of the CWC.  The only other 
modification to Litman's draft text was a 
suggestion made by Delrep to include "relevant OPCW 
meetings and events" in the list of activities to 
which non-member states could be invited in order 
to highlight the useful outreach conducted during 
regional workshops and seminars. 
 
¶21. (U) After reaching agreement on the modified 
draft decision, Litman said he would forward the 
draft to the CSP for consideration and adoption. 
(Del Note:  The draft decision has been issued 
officially as a Conference Room Paper, C-14/DEC/ 
CRP.8.  End Note.) 
 
---------- 
QUAD LUNCH 
---------- 
 
¶22. (C) Delreps Smith and Granger attended a 
working lunch for Close Allies (France, Germany, 
the UK and the U.S.) hosted by the UK Delegation on 
November 18.  UK Delegate Karen Wolstenholme, 
German Ambassador Werner Burkart and Delegate Ruth 
Surkau, and French Delegates Raja Rabia and Edouard 
Meyrat also attended.  After discussing the current 
status of consultations and preparations for the 
CSP, Burkart and Delrep raised how to energize 
Article VI industry consultations.  While Sudanese 
Ambassador Idris (the Executive Council Vice-Chair 
for Industry Issues) has put out a call for a 
facilitator to take on outstanding issues related 
to other chemical production facilities (OCPFs) and 
to annual Article VI inspection numbers, Delrep 
said that Idris should be encouraged to chair a 
consultation himself to get things moving.  And, 
while Article VI issues are important to WEOG 
delegations, Surkau noted that WEOG delegations 
already provide the bulk of facilitators; it was 
agreed that a non-WEOG facilitator may be best 
suited to lead consultations on contentious 
industry issues.  Given Brazilian re-engagement on 
Qindustry issues.  Given Brazilian re-engagement on 
industry issues, including Ambassador Meideros' 
chairing of an OCPF workshop on November 25, it was 
suggested that the Brazilian delegation be 
approached to take on the open industry 
consultation.  Rabia noted the current absence of 
any Russian facilitators and suggested having a 
Russian co-facilitator to assist Brazil. 
 
¶23. (C) Burkart and Delrep also raised the issue of 
who from WEOG could be the next Executive Council 
(EC) Chairman to succeed current Chairman Lomonaco 
(Mexico) when his term ends in May 2010.  Of the 
ten WEOG members, Burkart said that the ambassadors 
of Luxembourg and Denmark are the only 
possibilities.  Among the Close Allies, Burkart 
will be leaving during the summer of 2010; 
Wolstenholme said that new UK Ambassador Arkwright 
is not interested in the OPCW; Rabia said that 
French Ambassador Blarel has categorically refused 
to take on the role.  Burkart said he had spoken to 
the Italian and Spanish ambassadors, neither of 
whom wanted the role.  Burkart also said that the 
Canadian ambassador will be leaving during the 
summer of 2010 and posited that the Turkish 
ambassador should be excluded.  Burkart noted that 
the Luxembourgish Ambassador is engaged in OPCW 
issues and served on the Security Council when he 
was Permanent Representative in New York and 
Luxembourg was a rotating member. 
 
¶24. (C) Wolstenholme announced that the UK 
Delegation has firm instructions from London not to 
deal with the Iranian Delegation due to the recent 
conviction of local staff from the UK Embassy in 
Tehran.  Rabia followed by saying that local staff 
from the French Embassy in Tehran are currently on 
trial; she said that the issue is extremely 
sensitive but unresolved. 
 
¶25. (C) Moving to the issue of designated 
laboratories, Rabia said Paris has suggested two 
modifications to the draft agreement tabled by the 
TS.  The first modification would allow the TS to 
use an alternative laboratory if the first 
laboratory is unable to conduct the analysis and/or 
to accept a representative of the inspected state 
party to observe the analysis.  The second 
modification would allow laboratories to report 
results of analysis to the TS and in conformity 
with national regulations, which could include 
providing information also to a National Authority 
or other government body.  Burkart responded that 
Germany supports the first French modification but 
not the second.  He explained that there is strong 
German industry scrutiny on the issue of sampling 
and analysis; while he might not be concerned about 
the French National Authority receiving the results 
of an analysis of a German sample, the same might 
not be true in China or other countries.  Burkart 
also stated that Berlin is reviewing the draft 
agreement to see if previous concerns raised by 
German have been addressed. 
 
¶26. (C) Delrep and Burkart then raised a proposal 
made by Director-General Pfirter during a lunch he 
hosted the previous day for WEOG representatives. 
Pfirter, claiming to speak "off the cuff," 
suggested that one way to deal with Article VI 
inspections could be for national authorities to 
conduct their own industry inspections and for the 
TS to regularly audit them, including spot checks. 
He suggested this as a way to augment the current 
number of industry inspections.  While there was 
some surprise at Pfirter's remarks, he told UK 
Ambassador Arkwright after the lunch that China was 
QAmbassador Arkwright after the lunch that China was 
on-board.  Delrep said that India had raised a 
similar suggestion during bilateral consultations 
on the margins of the last EC session in October. 
 
¶27. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
GALLAGHER