VZCZCXYZ0002
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0051/01 0271731
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 271731Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3699
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 000051 
 
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 KTIA OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 22, 2009 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 29 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 21 
     ¶C. STATE 5807 
 
This is CWC-06-09. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) The Executive Council (EC) Chairman's 
consultation January 21 on issues related to the 
final destruction deadline dominated the week's 
agenda as the first official meeting at the 
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical 
Weapons (OPCW) in the new year.  Delreps met with 
the Russian delegation January 20 in anticipation 
of this meeting.  The Western European and Others 
Group (WEOG) discussed the deadline consultation 
and the upcoming consultation on "situations not 
foreseen" by the Convention at the weekly meeting 
on January 19.  Delreps also met privately with the 
Irish facilitator for "situations not foreseen" on 
January 22 (that meeting will be reported by 
septel). 
 
---- 
WEOG 
---- 
 
¶2. (SBU) At its regular Tuesday meeting January 19, 
the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) 
discussed both the EC Chairman's consultations on 
the 2012 destruction deadline and the "situations 
not foreseen" consultation under Facilitator 
Michael Hurley (Ireland), who briefed the group on 
his draft paper.  The UK delegate announced that 
London would not permit Ambassador Arkwright to 
take the Executive Council chair after the former 
UK ambassador chaired the Second Review Conference. 
German Ambassador Werner Burkart added that he 
planned to invite ambassadors from the ten WEOG 
member countries of the Executive Council to lunch 
to discuss the future WEOG EC chairmanship (since 
scheduled for February 4). 
 
¶3. (SBU) On the deadline consultation, the Spanish 
delegate (now representing the EU presidency) spoke 
of the importance of the issue, cited the Director- 
General's view that the deadline is a means to an 
end and not the end in itself, and said he expected 
a roadmap from Chairman Jorge Lomonaco (Mexico), 
much as he had done for the DG search.  Delrep 
briefed the group on Lomonaco's plans for the 
meeting (Ref B), noting that he expects to launch 
the process but will hand it over to his successor, 
and emphasizing that he is open to suggestions on 
his notional outline of issues relating to the 
mandate of the EC ("how and when" to hold 
discussions) and the impact on the Organization. 
German representatives weighed in against the 
budget and personnel implications as being 
substantive and beyond the mandate of the 
consultations, which should focus on how and when 
to hold discussion on the deadline.  Ruth Surkau, 
in her role as WEOG coordinator, inquired about 
views on a special EC or Conference, or an Open- 
Ended Working Group.  Delrep outlined U.S. view 
(Ref C) that the normal political bodies should be 
able to handle this issue in the two years 
remaining before the April 2012 deadline.  The 
Spanish rep advised keeping the process in the 
hands of the EC Chairman. 
 
¶4. (SBU) On "situations not foreseen" by the 
Convention, Facilitator Hurley outlined his draft 
paper, noting that he deliberately avoided 
Convention terms, and the contentious issues of 
"possession and control" of chemical weapons, and 
the vague formulation of "situations not foreseen." 
He emphasized the role of the Policy-Making Organs 
to review and approve arrangements, and noted South 
Africa's concern that information be conveyed to 
the OPCW in a timely fashion, hence the 30-day 
updates included in the draft.  The French delegate 
inquired as to the timeline.  Hurley responded that 
he planned to introduce the paper at the 
consultation on January 27, hear reactions at the 
meeting the following week (February 3), and report 
to the EC.  He is looking for an agreed paper 
before the Conference of the States Parties (CSP). 
The Spanish delegate asked about the reactions of 
other delegations.  Hurley said the South Africans 
had initiated this, but broadly accepted his 
approach; they would tighten the reporting 
requirements.  German Ambassador Burkart questioned 
the title of the exercise, noting that this seemed 
to be verification not destruction, and expressed 
concern about the role of the Council.  Surkau 
noted that the original formulation to limit this 
to non-States Parties in the future seemed to have 
disappeared. 
 
------------------------------- 
MEETING WITH RUSSIAN DELEGATION 
------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Delreps Beik and Granger met with Russian 
Delegate Vladimir Ladanov on January 20 and shared 
points from guidance (Ref C) on the first round of 
consultations on the 2012 destruction deadline 
scheduled the following day by EC Chairman 
Lomonaco.  Ladanov excused the absence of Russian 
Deputy PermRep Konstantin Gavrilov, who was ill and 
unable to join the meeting.  After Delreps gave a 
brief overview of Lomonaco's plan for the 
consultation as he had outlined it to them (Ref B), 
Ladanov said that he did not have instructions from 
Moscow but that it would be important for Russia 
and the U.S. to coordinate and cooperate on the 
issue.  He agreed with Delreps that it is too early 
to talk about non-compliance and also agreed that a 
Special Conference to address the issue would not 
be advisable, saying that some countries would only 
use it to politicize and over-dramatize the 
situation. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Ladanov described an amendment to the 
Convention as a "non-starter," further noting that 
Russia does not see an amendment as an option or 
even a possibility to be discussed.  On Lomonaco's 
idea on how to proceed with the consultation, 
Ladanov was cool on the idea of addressing 
organizational and practical implications of the 
deadline; he focused instead on the mandate from 
the EC on how and when to initiate discussions and 
expressed concern that deviation from the "how and 
when" mandate would encourage some countries to 
focus on why 2012 would be missed and who would be 
to blame. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Delreps also discussed the consultations 
on "situations not foreseen" and Facilitator 
Hurley's draft paper circulated the day before. 
Ladanov had not seen Hurley's paper but reiterated 
the Russian position as stated during the October 
EC session (EC-58) and subsequently circulated as a 
national paper. 
 
¶8. (SBU) On the issue of continued verification 
Q8. (SBU) On the issue of continued verification 
following 10 years after conversion of former 
chemical weapons production facilities (CWPFs), 
Ladanov said that Russia and the UK had reached a 
compromise on having a special regime under Article 
VI for converted former CWPFs to be inspected. 
(Del Note:  We are not so certain this has been 
agreed.  The Article VI designation would ensure 
that costs for inspections would be borne by the 
OPCW rather than States Parties, a key Russian 
concern.  End Note.)  However, the details still 
are being worked out by the Technical Secretariat 
and should be in its anticipated paper on the 
topic.  Ladanov confided to Delreps that Russia is 
considering destroying some of its converted former 
CWPFs, which are now dormant, just as the U.S. did. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
EC CHAIRMAN'S CONSULTATION ON ISSUES RELATED TO 2012 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) The first official meeting of the new year 
was a display of the OPCW at its best:  a positive, 
constructive tone permeated almost all 
interventions.  Even the Iranian comments were 
relatively mild for them.  The meeting was a 
standing-room-only event with attendance by the 
Director-General (DG), Deputy DG and a large number 
of ambassadors and OPCW staff as well as the usual 
delegates, with everyone exchanging best wishes for 
the new year.  EC Chairman Lomonaco opened the 
meeting by stating his expectation for an exchange 
of views on organizational matters, as well as his 
intention for the meeting to provide an opportunity 
to explore ideas and suggestions on how to proceed. 
Lomonaco said the informal consultations should 
provide a forum for discussing issues related to 
the destruction deadline of 2012 in parallel with 
the formal sessions of the EC; he plans to report 
back to the EC on the progress of consultations, 
thereby avoiding repetition of discussions within 
the Council. 
 
¶10. (U) Speaking in his capacity as CSP Chairman, 
Lithuanian Ambassador Verba set the tone for 
subsequent interventions.  He thanked Lomonaco for 
the initiative and agreed on the value of starting 
a substantive debate on the issue.  Verba noted 
that destruction of existing stockpiles is only one 
part of the Convention and said that dialogue is 
crucial for the Organization to complete 
destruction and transition to a greater focus on 
non-proliferation.  He also stated the need to 
acknowledge current realities when addressing the 
issue. 
 
¶11. (U) Brazilian Ambassador Medeiros, who first 
proposed convening the informal consultations, 
agreed with Lomonaco that the consultations provide 
an important forum for discussion, including a 
discussion on the future of the OPCW.  He said that 
the issue should be kept permanently on the EC's 
agenda, with the Chair reporting back to every 
regular Council session.  Medeiros said the next 
two years will allow the Organization to address 
the deadline issue without being overwhelmed by it 
in 2012.  Referring to the mandate for the 
consultations given by EC-58, Medeiros divided the 
issues related to meeting 2012 into three 
categories: 
 
-- Legal implications 
How will some possessors not completing destruction 
by 2012 affect the letter and spirit of the 
Convention? 
 
-- Administrative/practical implications 
How will the normal work of the TS be affected if 
2012 is not met, including any budgetary impact? 
 
-- Institutional problems 
How to deal with both the legal and 
QHow to deal with both the legal and 
administrative/practical implications of not 
completing destruction by 2012?  Possibly convene a 
Special Conference or an Amendment Conference?  Or 
increase monitoring through the EC? 
 
¶12. (U) South African Delegate van Schalkwyk 
stressed the need to base discussion of 2012 on 
"facts on the ground," noting that a decision on 
the matter only can be reached closer to the 
deadline.  Chiming a refrain heard throughout the 
consultations, van Schalkwyk said that nothing 
should be done to undermine the Convention and 
cited the need for flexibility in order to preserve 
the Convention.  He stressed the need for 
destruction to be completed, even if the deadline 
is missed.  Van Schalkwyk supported Lomonaco's 
intention to keep substantive discussion of the 
issue in the consultation process and called for a 
balanced approach to the issue.  Echoing comments 
from previous interventions, Indian Ambassador 
Singh said that it was important to discuss and 
prepare for 2012 but that no action should be pre- 
emptive and action could not be taken until the 
deadline.  Singh ruled out any amendments to the 
Convention, which he said would lead to its 
unraveling. 
 
¶13. (U) The Iranian Delegate then took the floor 
reiterating Iran's position that complete 
destruction constitutes the most important and 
fundamental commitment of possessor states. 
Expressing deep concern with the U.S. projected 
dates for completing destruction, the Iranian 
Delegate said these clearly contradict the 
Convention and insisted that non-compliance with 
the Convention will undermine its credibility and 
that of the OPCW.  Suggesting that the EC 
Chairman's consultations might not be able to 
address sufficiently all issues related to meeting 
2012 (as mandated by the EC), the Iranian Delegate 
proposed establishing ad-hoc working groups but 
insisted at the very least that consultations be 
convened on a regular basis. 
 
¶14. (U) Following the first wave of speakers, U.S. 
Delrep welcomed the constructive tone of the 
discussion and the positive ideas that had been 
proposed and would be proposed in future 
discussions.  She emphasized that there was time to 
proceed with these consultations in an orderly and 
productive manner and noted that the U.S. would 
actively participate.  The U.S. delegation sat next 
to the Russian delegation, which left a junior 
officer in the chair and did not speak at the 
meeting.  (Del Note:  Brazilian Ambassador Medeiros 
made a point of thanking Delrep following the 
meeting for her positive intervention.  He and 
other delegates expressed appreciation for how well 
the meeting had gone.  End Note.) 
 
¶15. (U) Obviously waiting for the U.S. to speak, 
German Ambassador Burkart, French Delegate Rabia 
and Dutch Ambassador Lohman then made 
interventions.  Burkart echoed Verba's earlier 
remarks and stressed the need for balance.  Burkart 
said it was good to start in a "timely manner" but 
saw no need for haste with two years still left. 
He also said a special conference would not be 
necessary.  Citing the mandate given by the Council 
to the consultation, Burkart said focus initially 
should be on procedural (i.e., how and when) rather 
than substantive matters.  Referring to the 
Brazilian categorization of issues related to 2012, 
Burkart noted the different character between legal 
QBurkart noted the different character between legal 
and practical implications and said that the latter 
will need to be addressed regardless of whether or 
not destruction is completed by 2012, as 
destruction activity naturally will draw down. 
Rabia echoed the South African comment that 
destruction will be effective even if the deadline 
is missed and agreed with Burkart that a special 
conference or meeting would not be needed.  She 
also agreed with India against renegotiating the 
Convention.  Like others, Lohman said that a final 
decision cannot be taken until the situation is 
clearer in 2012. 
 
¶16. (U) Chinese Delegate Chen agreed on focusing 
first on organizational aspects and subscribed to 
Brazil's categorization of issues.  Chen suggested 
a plan of work be drawn up to guide the 
consultation process during the next two years.  He 
also stressed the need for timely information from 
possessors on measures they are taking to meet the 
deadline or to address any delays.  Cuban 
Ambassador de los Reyes also said that precise, 
timely and "profound" information will be essential 
to guide the consultation process.  Spanish 
Ambassador Prat y Coll emphasized the 
consultation's mandate to explore all issues 
related to destruction and meeting 2012, including 
the evolution of the OPCW to focus more on non- 
proliferation following destruction.  Prat y Coll 
said that organizational changes should be a focus 
of discussion. 
 
¶17. (U) Drawing on comments from previous speakers, 
Peruvian Ambassador Wagner highlighted six 
elements: 
-- the consultation should be open-ended and 
include as many delegations as possible to help 
build consensus; 
-- while important, destruction must be balanced 
with non-proliferation and industry issues, as well 
as international cooperation and assistance; 
-- any decision cannot be pre-emptive; 
-- a distinction should be made between original 
possessor states and those joining the Convention 
later (including current non-member states) as the 
process of destruction will not end until there is 
complete universality and all chemical weapons have 
been destroyed; 
-- in line with the Brazilian intervention, legal 
and practical implications must be considered 
first, with institutional changes examined later; 
-- a solution must be found within the Convention 
without any recourse to amending it. 
 
¶18. (U) Summing up the meeting, Lomonaco noted his 
appreciation for the constructive and positive tone 
and said he hoped to channel energies into finding 
solutions and avoid finger-pointing.  Lomonaco also 
circulated a "lean paper" with two main elements 
(modeled on the draft elements he had shared with 
Delreps reported in Ref B): 
-- how and when to initiate discussions by the 
Council, and 
-- OPCW administrative adjustments post 2012. 
 
Lomonaco did not announce a date for the next 
consultation, but said he had noted carefully the 
ideas expressed and would continue to consult with 
delegations. 
 
¶19. (SBU) DEL COMMENT:  Drawing on his experience 
leading the selection process for the next 
Director-General, Lomonaco obviously consulted with 
a number of key ambassadors in advance of the 
consultation resulting in a semi-choreographed 
display of support for Lomonaco's approach.  The 
absence of a Russian intervention, and the fact 
that a junior member of the Russian delegation was 
in the chair, were telling of the current Russian 
approach to the issue.  Following the meeting, DG 
Pfirter told Delrep that the timing was not yet 
right for a legal opinion on the effect of missing 
Qright for a legal opinion on the effect of missing 
the destruction deadline; Pfirter also said that 
the Legal Advisor will need to have any request for 
an opinion will need to be an explicitly- and 
clearly-framed question.  Delreps later learned 
from Legal Advisor Onate that he intentionally did 
not attend the meeting to avoid being called on 
immediately to pronounce a legal opinion.  END 
COMMENT. 
 
¶20. (SBU) Postscript:  In the following week's WEOG 
discussion on January 26, delegations agreed that 
the meeting had set a positive start to the 
consultation, that it should remain in the hands of 
the Chairman, and that it is too early for detailed 
substantive discussion. There was a slight 
divergence of views on whether the administrative 
issues were relevant to the process or useful as a 
diversion.  The Dutch Ambassador noted the 
opportunity to broaden the issue to look at the 
future of the Organization.  The Italian delegate 
intoned that expanding the discussion on other 
issues would require an evaluation of "what we want 
to achieve."  The Swiss delegate cited the 
importance of keeping this issue in informal 
channels and out of the Executive Council.  WEOG 
Coordinator Surkau asked if the mandate for the 
consultation should be expanded beyond how and when 
to hold discussions.  The UK delegate and U.S. 
Delrep both responded that it would be best not to 
return this issue to the Council but to leave it in 
the capable hands of the Chairman, with the 
narrower mandate protecting against discussion in 
undesirable directions while still allowing broader 
discussion if the consultation group agreed. 
 
¶21. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
LEVIN