VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0764/01 3561540
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 221540Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3606
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 000764 
 
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: 12/22/2019 
TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: ASD WEBER DELIVERS PRESENTATION ON U.S. 
DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM AND MEETS WITH SENIOR OPCW 
LEADERSHIP ON 2012 DEADLINE 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 746 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 738 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 745 
 
Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) 
 
This is CWC-77-09 
 
¶1. (U) This is an action request:  see paras 12, 18 
and 24. 
 
------------ 
INTRODUCTION 
------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) Senior Department of Defense 
representative Andrew Weber (Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological 
Defense Programs) visited The Hague November 30 - 
December 1 to participate in the 14th Conference of 
the States Parties (CSP) of the Organization for 
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) (ref A). 
Weber held a broad range of productive meetings, 
including with OPCW Director-General (DG) 
Ambassador Rogelio Pfirter and newly appointed 
Director-General Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu, and an 
open meeting on the U.S. chemical weapons 
destruction program which was attended by a 
standing-room-only crowd.  Weber also met 
bilaterally with the Iraqi and Russian delegations 
on matters pertaining to U.S. cooperation and 
requests for assistance on destruction activity, 
reported in Refs B and C, respectively. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
DISCUSSIONS WITH OPCW LEADERSHIP PRESENT AND FUTURE 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶3. (SBU) On November 30, Weber met with Director- 
General Pfirter to solicit the views of OPCW 
leadership on key strategic issues, and engage in a 
constructive conversation on the challenges with 
the U.S. destruction program as well as the status 
of international destruction programs. The meeting 
was also attended by Richard Ekwall (Chief of 
Cabinet), Dr. Robert Mikulak (ISN/CB Director and 
Head of the U.S. Delegation to the CSP), and 
Jennifer Smith (U.S. Delegation to the OPCW). 
 
¶4. (SBU) Weber stated that the U.S. continues to 
make every effort to expedite our destruction 
program with the goal of completing destruction of 
our chemical weapons stockpile by 2012, or as soon 
as feasible thereafter.  He added that the U.S. 
would like to ensure that the OPCW leadership 
remains confident in our commitment, political will 
and efforts aimed at the full implementation of the 
Chemical Weapons Convention.  He described U.S. 
transparency measures, including the open meeting 
to be held the following afternoon on the status of 
U.S. destruction efforts.  Weber stated that it is 
important that we constructively prepare for the 
possibility that the U.S. will not complete 
destruction activity by 2012, as current schedule 
projections indicate. 
 
¶5. (C) Pfirter responded that "the success of the 
organization should not be tied to a date" 
emphasizing that the key is the destruction itself. 
He stated that this matter requires serious 
"diplomatic management" and urged that the U.S. 
appoint an Ambassador as Permanent Representative 
to the OPCW as soon as possible. Weber indicated 
that there has been progress in this regard back in 
Washington and that a nomination is expected to be 
announced soon. Pfirter stated that, should an 
Ambassador be appointed prior to his departure, he 
QAmbassador be appointed prior to his departure, he 
 
 
would assist in any way possible with the 
transition. Weber stated that, similarly, the U.S. 
is interested in facilitating a smooth transition 
of leadership from Pfirter to his successor, and 
offered that a joint visit to a U.S. destruction 
facility might be extremely beneficial to ensure a 
firsthand appreciation by the incoming Director- 
General of the complexities of destruction 
activity.  He proposed such a visit during the 
second week in February 2010.  (Del note: Both 
Pfirter and Ekwall have concurred on a detailed 
itinerary for a U.S. visit February 16-19, 2010. 
End note.) 
 
¶6. (C) Weber stated that the U.S. has received a 
request from the Government of Iraq to assist with 
their destruction program and that he has enlisted 
specialists to review the situation and make 
recommendations on what support, if any, the U.S. 
ought to provide.  He indicated that this has posed 
a particular challenge as our current assessment is 
that the financial contribution required to conduct 
even the most preliminary assessment activities and 
inventory is considerable, and the risk posed to 
personnel and the environment in terms of safety 
and security is also considerable, while the 
proliferation risk or the actual threat from the 
contents of the bunkers is very limited.  He stated 
that he would be meeting with the Iraqi delegation 
during his visit to discuss this matter.  Weber 
said that he was interested in the option of 
entombment of the bunkers as a viable destruction 
strategy. 
 
¶7. (C) Pfirter stated that he has discussed this 
matter with his Director of Verification, Horst 
Reeps, and they would be inclined to endorse this 
approach or something similar.  He said he entirely 
agreed with looking for a practical application of 
the treaty obligations.  Pfirter viewed the South 
African proposal on handling unforeseen 
circumstances as helpful in this regard, noting 
that the result may be guidelines or modalities of 
implementation and reaching a more flexible 
approach in these challenging situations. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Pfirter said the Technical Secretariat 
recently had to postpone their visit to Iraq based 
on a last minute venue change by the Iraqi 
Government from Arbil to Baghdad.  He stated that 
the Technical Secretariat remains ready to conduct 
the visit, noting that there are more qualified 
inspectors ready now than previously, having 
recently undergone training in Amman, but that they 
are awaiting an Iraqi invitation with an alternate 
date.  Pfirter said that he had been working with 
the UN to coordinate the visit as required, and the 
UN had advised that this should be postponed until 
after the January elections based on the UN ability 
to support the visit. (Del note: The Iraqi 
delegation advised Delrep that the elections would 
likely be postponed to March.  The postponement has 
since been made public.  End note.)  Pfirter stated 
that he encouraged the Iraqi Ambassador to 
coordinate with the UN and the U.S. to ensure 
appropriate security measures are met for the 
visit.  He also stated that there is political 
Qvisit.  He also stated that there is political 
pressure to conduct this activity, noting that the 
Iranian delegation had been in his office the week 
prior and inquired when this might take place. 
 
¶9. (SBU) With regard to other destruction programs, 
Pfirter stated that he would be congratulating the 
Russian Federation for achieving their 45 percent 
destruction milestone during his statement to the 
CSP.  He also stated that he believed the Libyan 
destruction deadline request would be approved by 
 
 
the CSP, but emphasized that the Technical 
Secretariat would be exerting increased pressure on 
the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on their destruction 
progress. 
 
¶10. (SBU) On December 1, Turkish Ambassador Ugur 
Dogan hosted an informal breakfast meeting for 
Weber with incoming Director-General Ambassador 
Ahmet Uzumcu.  Also attending were Haldun Ererdem 
(Turkish Delegation to the OPCW), Cem Utkan (Deputy 
Chief of Mission, Turkish Embassy), Volkan Oskiper 
(First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Turkey to 
the United Nations Office in Geneva) and U.S. 
Delreps Mikulak and Smith.  During the breakfast a 
cordial conversation ensued and Ambassador Uzumcu 
complimented Mikulak and Weber on the U.S. National 
Statement at the CSP the day before. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Weber briefly described the U.S. 
destruction program and the challenges faced by the 
Department of Defense in meeting the 2012 deadline. 
He also invited Uzumcu to visit a U.S. destruction 
facility in February.  Weber stated that he 
extended a similar invitation to Ambassador Pfirter 
earlier.  They discussed potential dates for the 
visit and proposed meetings with senior U.S. 
government officials.  Uzumcu tentatively agreed to 
a visit during the second week in February. (Del 
note: Uzumcu has concurred on a detailed itinerary 
for a U.S. visit in February 16-19, 2010.) 
 
¶12. (SBU) Action requested:  Del requests 
Washington points of contact for the coordination 
of the visit to a U.S. destruction facility for 
Uzumcu, Pfirter, and Ekwall during the week of 
February 14, including those responsible for 
preparing invitational travel orders for Uzumcu 
(whose itinerary will include a visit to New York 
City) and scheduling appropriate meetings with 
senior leadership from the National Security 
Council, State, Defense and Commerce, and possibly 
Senator Lugar.  Del will provide coordination with 
OPCW leadership. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
PRESENTATION ON U.S. DESTRUCTION PROGRAM 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) On December 1, Weber made an informal 
presentation on the status of the U.S. destruction 
program during the lunch hour of the second day of 
the CSP to a standing room only crowd.  Del had 
arranged with the Technical Secretariat for the 
meeting to be announced at the CSP and for 
invitations to be distributed to all delegations 
for those interested in attending.  Mikulak, U.S. 
Representative to the CSP, and Lynn Hoggins, Chief 
of the Chemical/Biological Branch, Arms Control 
Division, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 
supported Weber's presentation.  In his opening 
remarks, Weber described this as an introductory 
meeting to learn the concerns of the audience and 
indicated that he would be a regular visitor to The 
Hague.  He stated his intention to keep the OPCW 
and States Parties well-informed of the status of 
U.S. destruction efforts. 
 
¶14. The presentation covered: 
 
-- overall progress made (noting that 67.6 percent 
of Category 1 chemical weapons have been 
destroyed); 
-- site-specific achievements (including site 
Q-- site-specific achievements (including site 
closures, operations, and construction activity); 
-- Executive Council visits (including a proposed 
visit in 2011 to Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal 
Facility and Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction 
 
 
Pilot Plant); 
-- overall schedule projections (showing 
destruction operation scheduled for Pueblo of 2014- 
2017 and Blue Grass 32018-2021); 
-- operational challenges (including management 
related issues of retaining personnel and technical 
issues of mercury contamination and mustard agent 
heels); 
-- and program acceleration efforts (including a 
review of small scale systems, mobile systems and 
explosive chambers to destroy rejects over 
overpacked leaking munitions). 
 
The presentation was approximately 30 minutes and 
was followed by a question and answer session where 
four countries posed questions: India (twice), 
Iran, Sweden, and Austria. 
 
¶15. (SBU) The Indian Permanent Representative, 
Ambassador Manbir Singh, asked for more details on 
the new small-scale systems under consideration by 
the U.S. and to what extent the U.S. expects these 
systems to expedite the schedule for the program. 
Weber responded that this approach has only been 
considered in the last month and in the near-term 
requires funding from Congress.  He stated that he 
believes this would allow the U.S. to begin to 
destroy chemical weapons at Pueblo in 2012 and he'd 
like to do the same at Blue Grass.  He stated that 
it is impossible to provide a thorough estimate of 
how this might affect cost and schedule at this 
point.  Hoggins informed that this approach might 
complete operations activity approximately 8 months 
earlier than currently projected at Pueblo. 
 
¶16. (SBU) An expert from the Indian National 
Authority later inquired about the technical 
challenges in the presentation. He inquired about 
the cause of the mercury contamination, stating 
that India had not faced this problem in their 
destruction activity.  He stated that India did 
face the issue of the "mustard heels" and as a 
result believed that they might not meet their own 
deadline, but noted that they were able to overcome 
this issue with government support.  He also 
inquired why a bio-process, which is known to be 
very slow, was selected.  Weber responded that the 
bio-process is only for treatment of secondary 
waste and not the primary process for destruction. 
He complimented India in achieving their 
destruction goals and stated that the U.S. would 
welcome India's suggestions and technical advice. 
 
¶17. (SBU) With regard to the mercury contamination 
issue, Hoggins clarified that the mercury 
contamination may have come from the ton containers 
and perhaps from previous container contents.  She 
said that a filtration system has been employed to 
correct the issue.  The Austrian Permanent 
Representative, Ambassador Wolfgang Paul, inquired 
about the amount of contamination from mercury. 
Weber and Hoggins stated that they did not have 
this figure on hand but that a response would 
follow through the U.S. Delegation. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Action requested:  Del requests 
correspondence to the Austrian delegation in 
response to their inquiry. 
 
¶19. (SBU) Swedish Delegate Jan Lodding complemented 
the U.S. on the progress achieved thus far and the 
level of transparency provided. He also expressed 
Qlevel of transparency provided. He also expressed 
gratitude for the Executive Council visits and 
stated that he hopes for a similar visit in Russia 
in 2010.  He expressed concern with the schedule 
projections included in the briefing.  He stated 
that he understood from the presentation that the 
 
 
U.S> is looking at transporting mobile systems to 
the sites to expedite progress and inquired if it 
is possible to transport the chemical weapons 
stockpiles from the non-operational sites to the 
existing sites. Weber stated that under federal and 
state laws transportation of these materials is 
prohibited. He described a past study by the 
Department of Defense that included this suggestion 
and concluded that it would require an act of 
Congress to change the laws, which is in itself a 
timely process.  Weber stated that this issue also 
came up in the context of the Russian program as a 
suggestion to move chemical weapons from Kisner to 
Shchuchye and the conclusion was that because of 
the age and condition of the chemical weapons, it 
was deemed to risky to move them.  (Del note:  The 
Japanese delegate approached Delrep at a reception 
to state that they too had looked into 
transportation and had experienced similar legal 
and technical challenges that prohibited the 
movement of chemical weapons from one site to 
another.  End note.) 
 
¶20. (SBU) A representative from Iran's National 
Authority, Alireza Hajizadeh, mixed in a few 
questions within a long-winded comment.  He 
complained that the Iranian delegation had made 
several requests of the U.S. Delegation in The 
Hague for more details on Pueblo and Blue Grass but 
that no information had been provided until the 
release of the latest EC visit report to the U.S. 
The Iranian noted from this EC visit report that a 
contract had been signed in the U.S. to complete 
destruction by 2012, and he therefore asked why 
this had changed.  He also asked for an update on 
U.S. legislation on destruction.  He then asked why 
no activity is planned at these two remaining sites 
for many years.  Assuming that the U.S. government 
must not discriminate among the safety of its 
citizens from different states, he asked why the 
U.S. is not using the same destruction technology 
at these two new sites as was used in other sites. 
Ultimately, the Iranian wanted to know the true 
intention of the United States because he claimed 
that Iran simply cannot digest how it is possible 
for the U.S. to miss the deadline.  The projected 
timelines causes Iran to question the U.S. 
commitment to the CWC.  He concluded by contending 
that U.S. intentions are not clear, that the U.S. 
is presenting contradictory information, and that 
these issues need further clarification. 
 
¶21. (SBU) Weber responded that that the delegate 
had raised a number of important issues, but with 
regard to his fundamental question, he stated that 
the U.S. is committed to destroying 100 percent of 
its chemical weapons as soon as possible.  He 
asserted that there is not a lack of activity at 
the two sites (Pueblo and Blue Grass) and rather 
that they are working at maximum capacity at both, 
to the extent that additional funding would not 
likely speed up activity due to absorption. Weber 
stated that he has called for a study to review 
opportunities for increased efficiencies in the 
operations at these sites.  He highlighted that 
Qoperations at these sites.  He highlighted that 
with regard to schedule reporting, there are 
frequent reports to the Technical Secretariat, 
which include the referenced Executive Council 
visit report. 
 
¶22. (SBU) Mikulak stated that the U.S. will be as 
transparent as possible, to include reports on cost 
and schedule. He emphasized that the schedules in 
the presentations are projections and that the U.S. 
will continue to keep all parties informed of 
changes and progress.  (Del note: Delrep later 
asked Hajizadeh of his impressions the 
 
 
presentation.  Hajizadeh said that even if he 
believed this presentation, he would have 
difficulty communicating this to people in his 
capital, describing that the issue for them is seen 
through a different lens as victims of chemical 
weapons.  He stated that there is a sentiment in 
the Iranian government that the U.S. is purposely 
retaining a portion of its stockpile with no 
intention of full destruction.  Until clarified by 
Delrep, he believed that Weber's presentation was 
required, and was surprised to learn that this was 
a voluntary transparency measure. He also expressed 
interest in the next Executive Council visit to the 
U.S. indicating that the announcement during the 
presentation of the next visit will be received 
with great interest from the Iranian government. 
End note.) 
 
¶23. (SBU) Del Comment:  The full attendance at this 
open meeting, and the expressions of concern about 
delays in the U.S. destruction program expressed in 
nearly all of the national statements during the 
General Debate at the CSP (ref A) reflect the 
widespread reservations among delegations here 
about the U.S. program.  While Iran's aggressive 
interventions, especially like the rambling and 
inarticulate one above, embarrass other countries' 
representatives, many of them quietly share Iran's 
questions and concerns.  Silence at this meeting, 
and others, does not indicate approval of the U.S. 
-- or any other country -- missing the final 
destruction deadline in the Convention.  End 
comment. 
 
¶24. (SBU) Action requested:  Del requests that a 
standard set of talking points on the U.S. 
destruction program be developed, updated, fully 
coordinated, and provided to all members of the 
Delegation, including visiting TDYers.  With the 
increased attention to the 2012 deadline and U.S. 
schedule projections, such information may be 
required at short notice of anyone representing the 
U.S. in any capacity.  Preparations for routine 
destruction informal presentations would be 
substantially improved with resources such as 
likely questions to be fielded and coordinated 
answers to be provided. 
 
¶25. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
MANN