VZCZCXYZ0010
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0746/01 3451505
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 111505Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3570
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 000746 
 
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 CWC
SUBJECT: CWC:  WRAP-UP FOR THE CONFERENCE OF THE STATES 
PARTIES (CSP 14), NOVEMBER 30 - DECEMBER 4, 2009 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 719 
     ¶B. STATE 12230 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 738 
 
This is CWC-73-09 
 
------------------------ 
SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION 
------------------------ 
 
¶1. (SBU) The 14th Conference of the States Parties 
(CSP) unanimously approved the appointment of 
Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu of Turkey as the next 
Director-General (DG) for the Organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to begin 
his four-year term in July 2010.  The Conference 
was characterized by an unusually high number of 
speakers in the General Debate and by remarkably 
little controversy on most of the main agenda 
items, including the 2010 Program and Budget and 
the election of new members to the Executive 
Council (EC). Compromise language on the final 
destruction deadlines for the report was reached 
fairly quickly among key delegations and accepted 
without change by the rest. The final three days of 
the CSP, indeed filling the time available, were 
spent on consultations on Articles VII (national 
implementation) and XI (economic and technological 
development), with delegations arguing over the 
format of the report for the former and a 
brainstorming workshop for the latter.  Both 
reached final agreement on Friday evening on the 
last day of the Conference, to everyone's relief. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 
Andrew Weber participated in the first two days of 
the Conference and held a broad range of productive 
meetings, including with Director-General Pfirter, 
newly appointed DG Uzumcu, and an open meeting on 
the U.S. destruction program, which was attended by 
a standing-room-only crowd.  These meetings are 
being reported by septel. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The U.S. Delegation also met bilaterally 
with the Iraqi delegation several times and with 
the Technical Secretariat to discuss next steps on 
Iraq's chemical weapons sites (ref C).  Other 
bilateral meetings on the margins of the CSP 
included a meeting with the Israeli delegation, an 
industry discussion with India, a meeting with the 
Algerian delegation on the proposed conference on 
chemical safety and security in Algiers, and a 
meeting with the Libyan delegation on its 
destruction and conversion programs (reported by 
septel). 
 
------------------------------------------ 
DG'S STATEMENT AND THOUGHTS FOR HIS LEGACY 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) In his final address to the Conference as 
Director-General, Rogelio Pfirter provided his 
customary detailed overview of the Organization's 
activities during the year.  Running from an update 
on the status of destruction to congratulating 
Uzumcu, the DG concluded his 80-minute statement 
with some personal thoughts on issues facing the 
Organization.  Pfirter noted that the OPCW is in 
better shape than when he arrived in 2002, but he 
also acknowledged that there are important 
challenges ahead, including destruction, non- 
proliferation and matters on which the Convention 
is ambiguous.  On destruction, Pfirter opined that 
deadlines are not an end in and of themselves but 
rather a means toward complete disarmament.  He 
Qrather a means toward complete disarmament.  He 
stated that, after 2012, there likely still will be 
non-member states in possession of chemical 
 
weapons; they should be given the chance to join 
the Convention and destroy their stockpiles. 
Pfirter said the Convention will remain  successful 
if it can respond to challenges posed by 
destruction.  He also reiterated the suggestion 
that a special meeting of all member states should 
be convened before 2012 to address the issue. 
 
¶5. (SBU) On non-proliferation, Pfirter reaffirmed 
his conviction that the increase in Other Chemical 
Production Facilities (OCPF) inspections has been 
the right thing to do, despite any difficulties 
posed by the Convention's annual cap on OCPF and 
Schedule 3 inspections.  However, he stated that 
the present approach to industry verification is 
unable to provide adequate levels of verification. 
Noting that the necessary increases in staff and 
resources to significantly ramp up inspections are 
unlikely to be approved, Pfirter suggested adopting 
a complementary approach:  having National 
Authorities inspect relevant sites in addition to 
the regular inspections carried out by TS 
inspectors (ref A).  He said that this would help 
share the burden of non-proliferation activities 
between the TS and national authorities, but he 
stressed that any arrangement would need to be 
predicated on important preconditions, such as 
having a properly function National Authority and 
regular auditing and spot checks by the TS.  For 
Pfirter's final point on matters on which the 
Convention is ambiguous or silent, he highlighted 
incapacitants and non-lethal weapons.  He suggested 
that the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) could shed 
some light on their relevance to the Convention and 
that the Third Review Conference might be a good 
forum in which to discuss the issue. 
 
¶6. (U) The full text of Pfirter's official 
statement and personal remarks is available as an 
official OPCW  Conference document (C-14/DG.13). 
 
-------------- 
GENERAL DEBATE 
-------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) Fifty-two national statements were 
delivered during the General Debate, the highest 
number in recent history.  Nearly all the speeches 
praised outgoing Director-General Pfirter, welcomed 
the appointment of new DG Uzumcu, and urged 
universal membership in the Chemical Weapons 
Convention.  Many lauded the tradition of consensus 
in the Organization, particularly in the process to 
appoint the next DG.  A number of statements 
supported better targeting of sites for chemical 
industry inspections, although western countries 
supported additional inspections of Other Chemical 
Production Facilities (OCPFs) while the Non-Aligned 
Movement (NAM) states called for political 
agreement on criteria before increasing the number 
of inspections.  Many countries supported greater 
efforts in countering terrorism.  Western countries 
advocated full implementation of Article VII 
obligations, while NAM countries spoke of the 
importance of full implementation of Article XI for 
international trade and cooperation. 
 
¶8. (U) The group statements (EU, NAM and African 
states) and almost all of the national statements 
expressed concern over the potential delays in 
meeting the final extended destruction deadline 
Qmeeting the final extended destruction deadline 
under the Convention.  Some referred to the 
"challenging times" ahead, and whether by name or 
insinuation, the United States was singled out for 
particular concern over its stated likely inability 
to meet the deadline.  In this regard, several 
statements contended that the ability to meet the 
 
2012 deadline will impact the integrity of the 
Convention.  Some welcomed the consultations under 
the Executive Council Chairman to discuss how the 
Organization might address states' inability to 
meet the final extended deadline for destruction. 
The Mexican Ambassador (the current EC Chairman) 
emphasized the importance of working by consensus, 
as the Organization had just demonstrated in the DG 
selection process, and encouraged all States 
Parties to engage in open and transparent dialogue 
on the deadline issue, with the aim of the debate 
to strengthen, not debilitate, the Convention.  The 
Brazilian statement repeated this theme that the 
delays in destruction are a common challenge to all 
States Parties. 
 
¶9. (U) The Indian statement offered Indian 
expertise and experience to assist other possessor 
states in meeting the 2012 deadline.  Australia 
acknowledged the challenge of meeting the deadline, 
noted the significant achievements that have been 
made, and encouraged constructive discussion of the 
issue.  The Australian statement also announced the 
recent discovery of old chemical weapons in 
Queensland and stated that the most appropriate 
destruction methods were being sought.  Malaysia 
offered the most dramatic statement on destruction, 
quoting President Obama, Gandhi and a CNN slogan: 
"If you want change we can believe in, you must be 
the change." 
 
¶10. (U) The Russian statement confidently expressed 
movement toward the goal of full destruction, not 
least because it had met its third interim deadline 
to destroy 45% of its declared stockpile one month 
in advance.  Russia then listed every country, 
including the United States, which provided donor 
money to Russia's destruction program.  However, 
Russia warned that its ability to meet the 2012 
deadline on-time is dependent on donor countries' 
abilities to timely deliver funding.  Russia also 
expressed concern over the delay of the initial 
Secretariat visit to Iraq following its initial 
declaration. 
 
¶11. (U) The African group statement included 
support for Libya's destruction extension request, 
endorsement of the facilitation on "situations 
unforeseen" by the Convention which should help to 
prevent any undermining of the CWC, and a call for 
equitable geographic and gender representation in 
the Secretariat. 
 
¶12. (U) The Iranian statement was somewhat more 
moderate in tone compared to the political 
diatribes delivered in the past.  It even thanked 
outgoing CSP Chairman Shibuya (Japan) for his work, 
despite the fact that his Chairman's report last 
year was a major bone of contention for Iran when 
they broke consensus and the Conference failed for 
the first time to adopt its report.  Iran called on 
the Executive Council not just to consult on the 
destruction deadlines but to form working groups on 
the matter as "time is of the essence." 
 
¶13. (U) Iraq followed Iran's emotional "never 
again" theme after the use of chemical weapons by 
Saddam Hussein's regime in both Iran and Iraq.  The 
Iraqi statement briefly outlined plans for 
addressing security and assessing the sites of the 
Qaddressing security and assessing the sites of the 
former chemical program, and it thanked the U.S. 
and other donors for current and future support. 
 
¶14. (U) By the end of two days of debate, the 
statements largely blended together.  However, the 
Costa Rican Ambassador took the floor last to 
deliver two speeches, the first on behalf of the 
 
Latin Group (GRULAC) praising two of their sons, EC 
Chairman Lomonaco (Mexico) and DG Pfirter 
(Argentina).  He then made a very personal address 
calling for the "proliferation" of new chemical 
weapons to fight AIDS and global warming and to 
transform the world for everyone's children. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
APPOINTMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL AND EC MEMBERS 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶15. (U) Most of the items on the Conference Agenda 
were approved quickly and with little debate on 
December 2.  New members of the Executive Council 
were elected:  Algeria, Kenya, Libya and South 
Africa for the African Group; Iran, Iraq, Pakistan 
and Sri Lanka for the Asian Group; Albania, Romania 
and Russia for the Eastern European Group; 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba and Ecuador for the 
Latin American and Caribbean Group; Canada, 
Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey for the 
Western European and Others Group. 
 
¶16. (U) The appointment of the new Director-General 
was timed for noon on Wednesday, December 2, so 
that heads of delegation (and the Turkish press) 
could attend.  Uzumcu gave a brief speech thanking 
everyone and noting the challenges he would need to 
address.  DG Pfirter congratulated him and offered 
full assistance in the transition to his tenure. 
The Chairman of the Conference limited debate to 
the coordinators of the regional groups since so 
many of the national statements had already 
welcomed the new DG.  As the meeting was adjourned 
for lunch, Uzumcu shook hands with a long line of 
delegates. 
 
------------------------------------- 
THE BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶17. (SBU) With agreement on the draft 2010 program 
and budget having been reached during the EC's 
October session, budget and administrative matters 
were uncontentious during the CSP.  The Conference 
approved the 2010 program and budget without any 
debate.  In addition to noting a number of regular 
reports, the only other substantive actions taken 
by the Conference were adoption of the scale of 
assessments for 2010 and approval of IPSAS 
(International Public Sector Accounting Standards) 
as the OPCW's financial and accounting standard. 
 
--------------------- 
DESTRUCTION DEADLINES 
--------------------- 
 
¶18. (SBU) During the plenary session December 2 on 
progress in meeting the revised deadline for CS 
destruction, Iran intervened to announce that they 
required report language to address the destruction 
deadlines, and stated that they had circulated 
draft language to interested delegations for 
consideration.  Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico) 
took the floor to state that Iran's proposal 
expanded beyond report language and raised points 
of substance; he requested that the issue be 
discussed in plenary with all parties receiving a 
copy of the proposed text. The call for plenary 
discussions was supported by the delegations of 
Peru, Ireland, Costa Rica, Netherlands, Columbia, 
Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 
The Conference Chairman, Ambassador Vaidotas Verba 
QThe Conference Chairman, Ambassador Vaidotas Verba 
(Lithuania) instructed that the draft language be 
circulated and continued discussion in the plenary 
later the same morning. 
 
¶19. (SBU) Following distribution of the Iranian 
draft text, Ambassador Lomonaco intervened in both 
his capacity as head of the Mexican delegation and 
as Chairman of the Executive Council.  He stated 
that he had two primary concerns with the text. 
The first was disagreement with the Iranian 
assertion that "the integrity and the credibility" 
of the Convention hinge solely on the destruction 
deadline.  This concern was echoed by the Peruvian 
Ambassador, who stated that, while it is essential 
that the deadlines be met, the integrity and 
credibility of the Convention do not hinge on this, 
calling it an inversion of values.  He further 
stated that "total and full destruction is the best 
way to uphold the Convention" and called for more 
optimism acknowledging the progress made to date by 
Possessor States. 
 
¶20. (SBU) Ambassador Lomonaco's second concern was 
that the text pre-empted the outcome of the 
consultations entrusted to him as Chairman of the 
Executive Council based on the decision rendered at 
the 58th Session of the Council.  He stated that 
these consultations need to be completed, something 
for which he and his successor would be 
responsible. Multiple delegations voiced similar 
concerns that the Iranian text pre-judged the 
future efforts of the Council (Costa Rica, Peru, 
the Netherlands, Columbia, Germany, the UK and the 
U.S.). 
 
¶21. (SBU) Indonesia intervened to state that it is 
important that report language be included to serve 
as a reminder that "this is not a business as usual 
problem and cannot be dealt with as business as 
usual", deeming this an unprecedented event calling 
for unprecedented action.  Cuba also intervened to 
state that this issue is of paramount importance 
and urged that the Conference start working on 
appropriate language. 
 
¶22. (SBU) Ambassador Peter Goosen (South Africa) 
intervened with a surprisingly constructive 
commentary.  Goosen stated that the Conference 
should clarify that no action would be taken that 
would undermine the Convention or that would lead 
to re-writing the Convention, and that possessor 
states should be urged to meet their obligation as 
soon as possible.  He stated that the Iranian 
proposal raised some concerns, most notably that 
this is a situation that should be managed but it 
is not a situation that holds this Convention to 
lack integrity or credibility.  He suggested that 
the elements that should be addressed in report 
language were simply that delegations expressed 
concerns and urged possessor states to make all 
possible efforts to complete their destruction 
activity. 
 
¶23. (SBU) Following the discussion in the plenary, 
a group of interested parties convened to review 
new text provided by South Africa following the 
lines of Goosen's remarks on the floor of the 
plenary.  The group consisted of the Conference 
Chairman and delegations from the United States, 
Russia, Mexico, Iran, and South Africa. The group 
rapidly concluded negotiations to produce balanced, 
compromise text.  When introduced at the plenary on 
December 4, Iran insisted that no changes be made 
QDecember 4, Iran insisted that no changes be made 
to the compromise text.  The Conference reviewed 
the language and approved it without further 
debate. 
 
----------------------------- 
ARTICLES VII AND XI (OR BUST) 
----------------------------- 
 
¶24. (SBU) As noted in Ref A, the main unresolved 
issues at the CSP were draft decisions on Articles 
VII (national implementation) and XI (economic and 
technological development).  During the week, the 
facilitators for both issues -- Rami Adwan 
(Lebanon) for Article VII and Chen Kai (China) for 
Article XI -- held back-to-back consultations in 
order to resolve the relatively minor outstanding 
differences.  With the resolution of report 
language on destruction by Thursday, final 
agreement on Articles VII and XI consumed the 
entire final day of the Conference, with Iran 
playing the lead role in dragging out the process. 
 
¶25. (SBU) On Article VII, South Africa successfully 
mobilized other African delegations behind its 
insistence that the annual TS report on national 
implementation -- relatively unchanged since first 
appearing in 2004 -- be amended to only include 
data directly related to Article VII.  The Swedish 
delegation, on behalf of the EU, vocally opposed 
what they viewed as South African micro-management 
of the TS.  At one point during informal 
consultations, the Representative of San Marino 
spoke to defend the current report and counter 
South African claims that the report was a burden 
to small countries and unfairly portrayed any gaps 
in their national implementation as serious non- 
compliance.  The ensuing debate turned attention on 
Article VII away from the broader issue of national 
implementation and focused it solely on the TS 
annual report.  The African-EU discord was resolved 
with an agreement to split the annual report into 
two concurrent reports -- with the first report 
including some of the current indicators and the 
second report containing all other information in 
the current report -- provided that the reports be 
provided annually without the need to renew the 
Technical Secretariat's mandate each year. 
However, Iran objected to this final point, 
insisting that the report -- and the TS's mandate 
to provide the report to the Council and Conference 
-- should be carefully examined and debated each 
year. 
 
¶26. (SBU) Meanwhile, the draft decision on Article 
XI was much less contentious.  A last-minute 
addition by the Czech Republic to include language 
 
on the importance of program evaluation did little 
to stall the momentum behind the Article XI draft 
decision.  Another last-minute intervention by 
Lebanon insisting that any stakeholders included in 
the proposed Article XI workshop should only come 
from member states -- a pointed attempt to exclude 
participation by Israel -- was easily resolved.  By 
Friday morning, western delegations were faced with 
the virtually-agreed Article XI draft decision 
while the fate of the Article VII draft decision 
hung in the balance as a group of interested 
delegations tried to reach a compromise. 
 
¶27. (SBU) Despite an effort by the General 
Committee to provide senior leadership to the 
facilitators,  Adwan was left brokering a small 
room negotiation between Iran on the one side and 
the EU on the other.  The WEOG coordinator worked 
to expand the participation to include regional 
Qto expand the participation to include regional 
representatives from other groups.  When Iran 
refused to budge, the U.S., GRULAC, Russian, South 
African and EU delegations around the table got up 
and insisted on moving the issue back into the 
plenary.  After Adwan provided an update on the 
status of negotiations and Legal Advisor Onate 
described the effects of not passing decisions on 
either Article VII or XI, delegations agreed to 
attempt one final consultation to reach agreement 
on the Article VII draft decision. 
 
 
¶28. (SBU)  The consultation remained at an impasse, 
with Iran clearly isolated but blocking action, 
until German Ambassador Burkart offered compromise 
text that took out "annually" but referred to 
"annual reports".  The Iranian delegation noted the 
"ambiguity" but agreed to the new language.  They 
then  insisted on removing the descriptor "full" 
from the Article VII decision title, almost 
torpedoing the whole thing.  Russia, supported by 
the U.S., African and EU delegations, insisted that 
the implementation of Article VII be treated the 
same as that of Article XI. As the agreed Article 
XI draft decision was entitled "full 
implementation," the Russians and others said that 
either Article VII should also be entitled "full 
implementation" or that "full" should be dropped 
from both.  The Cuban, Indian and Pakistani 
delegations countered that the issues should not be 
linked and that agreement on Article XI should not 
be re-opened.  In the end, despite Russian 
protestations, Iran got its way, and delegations 
returned to the plenary and adopted both decisions 
just before 10:00 p.m. Friday night, concluding the 
Conference 
 
¶29. (U) In the WEOG hotwash on December 8, Delrep 
offered a Shakespearian conclusion, "All's well 
that ends well."  The Irish delegate responded, the 
more appropriate Shakespearian reference would be, 
"Much Ado about Nothing." 
 
¶30. (U) Beik sends. 
LEVIN