VZCZCXYZ0029
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0061/01 0291637
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 291637Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3720
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 000061 
 
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: 01/29/2020 
TAGS: PARM PREL OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: MEETING WITH THE OPCW DIRECTOR-GENERAL ON 
IRAQ AND OTHER ISSUES 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 51 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 39 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 10 
     ¶D. 09 THE HAGUE 738 
 
Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) 
 
This is CWC-07-10 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) At the request of OPCW Director-General (DG) 
Pfirter, Delreps Beik and Granger met with him and 
Chief of Staff Ekwall on January 28 to discuss 
Iraq.  The Iraqi Ambassador had asked the DG to 
encourage assistance from the United States and 
other countries for Iraq's chemical weapons (CW) 
destruction.  Additional topics discussed at the 
meeting included recent consultations on the final 
destruction deadline and "situations not foreseen" 
by the Convention, and plans for the next Executive 
Council (EC) in February (EC-59). 
 
------------------------------------ 
WHEN IS THE NEW AMBASSADOR ARRIVING? 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) After initial pleasantries, Director- 
General Pfirter again enquired when the new U.S. 
Ambassador/Permanent Representative would be 
arriving, noting that the position has now been 
vacant for more than a year.  Delrep responded that 
a formal nomination has not yet been made.  In the 
run-up to 2012, Pfirter stressed the pressing need 
for good diplomatic management of the chemical 
weapons destruction issue, including high-level 
representation in The Hague.  He noted the 
perception that not replacing the U.S. Ambassador 
reflects on the relative importance the U.S. 
attaches to OPCW issues, including chemical weapons 
destruction.  (DEL COMMENT:  With rumors running 
rife about who the next U.S. Ambassador to the OPCW 
will be, Delreps are constantly being asked by 
other delegations and the Technical Secretariat 
about the nomination and dates.  We agree with the 
DG's point about perceptions.  END COMMENT.) 
 
---- 
IRAQ 
---- 
 
¶3. (C) Turning to his request for meeting on Iraq, 
the DG said that, while it was not precisely in his 
mandate to deliver a "demarche" from the Iraqi 
Ambassador, he had been asked to encourage the U.S. 
and other countries to provide assistance for 
Iraq's destruction of its chemical weapons 
remnants, including the "toxic waste" that appears 
to be all that is left in Bunker 41.  Delrep 
responded that it was clear in the technical 
meetings two weeks ago (Ref B) that Iraq wanted 
guaranteed assistance before agreeing to amend 
their initial declaration and develop a destruction 
plan; however, donors would need to see the plan 
before they could coordinate assistance and 
expertise.  She noted that Iraq appears to expect 
the U.S. to substantially fund the destruction 
program, but said that would be highly unlikely, as 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Andrew Weber 
informed the Iraqi delegation in December (Ref D). 
Delrep said the U.S. would look into how we might 
be able to support Iraq's destruction, perhaps 
providing engineering expertise to develop an 
encapsulation plan, but we would certainly not be 
in a position to write a blank check. 
 
¶4. (C) Delrep briefed the DG on the assistance 
meeting with the Iraqi delegation and some 
potential donors that took place on the margins of 
the Conference of the States Parties (CSP) in 
December (Ref D), and noted the participation of 
CSP Chairman Verba (Lithuania) in that meeting. 
Verba would like an active role for his year as 
Chairman, and, if he is willing to chair an 
informal Iraq donors group, it could be could be 
very useful.  Pfirter appeared unaware of the 
assistance meeting and said he would be meeting 
Verba later in the week and would discuss chairing 
ongoing Iraq donors meetings. 
 
¶5. (C) Pfirter said that he had been warned by the 
UN Secretary General's Representative in Iraq that 
security conditions, and the strain on security 
resources during the run-up to elections in March, 
would not permit an OPCW visit to Iraq until after 
the elections.  He said unfortunately, there is not 
much he can report to the Executive Council on 
progress in Iraq, and some delegations will raise 
questions on the delays.  Delrep noted that the 
Iraqi team for the technical meetings had not 
included Dr. Al Sharaa, and Ambassador Banaa had 
not attended any of the sessions.  She expressed 
doubt about the accuracy of reporting back to 
Baghdad and when a decision from the Iraqi 
government would be forthcoming on whether Iraq 
would agree to amend its initial declaration in 
light of the new information from UN documents, or 
whether it would approve pursuing the option of 
encapsulating the bunkers.  The next step is Iraq's 
to take.  Pfirter agreed that there have always 
been difficulties in communication between The 
Hague and Baghdad, and said he would be meeting 
again with the Iraqi Ambassador.  (DEL NOTE:   We 
have also requested a meeting with Ambassador 
Banaa.  END NOTE.) 
 
--------------------- 
CURRENT CONSULTATIONS 
--------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Turning to the "situations not foreseen" 
consultation held the day before, the DG inquired 
how it went.  Delrep spoke briefly about U.S. 
reservations with the facilitator's draft 
guidelines, and noted other delegations' confusion 
about the exercise and questions on the draft text. 
This consultation would take time, she concluded. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Pfirter agreed with Delrep that EC 
Chairman Lomonaco's consultation the week before on 
the final destruction deadline had gone well, 
noting the constructive attitude of nearly all 
delegations.  He said even Iran's intervention had 
been restrained.  The DG also singled out South 
Africa and Germany for their good interventions. 
Reiterating his previous comments about a legal 
opinion on missing the 2012 deadline (Ref A), 
Pfirter stressed that the time is not yet right and 
that the request for an opinion must be a concrete 
question agreed by consensus.  Delrep conveyed U.S. 
views on amending the Convention and seeking a 
technical change; the DG agreed that an amendment 
would be unwise and only open "Pandora's box." 
 
----- 
EC-59 
----- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Following the consultation on 2012, the DG 
advised Lomonaco to present his report to the 
Council in February (EC-59) under the current 
QCouncil in February (EC-59) under the current 
agenda sub-item on progress made in meeting the 
destruction deadline and other destruction-related 
issues.  Despite some delegations wanting a 
 
separate item to discuss the EC Chairman's 
consultation, Pfirter said he had resisted, 
thinking it best to avoid creating an additional 
opportunity for some delegations to rail against 
U.S. projections of not completing destruction by 
the 2012 deadline. 
 
¶9. (SBU) On administrative issues before EC-59, 
Pfirter said that he will issue a paper regarding 
the composition of Technical Secretariat (TS) staff 
in response to calls from the African Group -- 
particularly South Africa.  The DG wants any 
reporting on staff composition to be mandated by an 
Executive Council decision, just as similar reports 
in the UN are made in response to UN General 
Assembly resolutions.  Pfirter noted that Pakistani 
Ambassador Chaudry had facilitated the issue at the 
UN when he was previously posted to New York, and 
Pfirter has asked Chaudry to chair discussion of 
the issue at the OPCW before EC-60 in April. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The DG also said that he has prepared a 
draft decision lowering the maximum number of 
annual leave days which staff can cash in at the 
end of their contracts from 60 to 30 in response to 
a recommendation by the Advisory Body on 
Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF). 
However, Pfirter feels that the change actually 
will cost the Organization more, and he will 
recommend deferral of the decision until after the 
next ABAF meeting (scheduled for May) so that ABAF 
can examine a related report on the indirect costs 
of the proposed policy change. 
 
¶11. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
LEVIN