VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB
DE RUEHTC #0632/01 2951801
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 221801Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3379
INFO RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS PRIORITY 1052
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 0739
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 1822
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN PRIORITY 4168
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PRIORITY 1906
RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA PRIORITY 0259
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 1921
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 0187
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 2245
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 4600
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1449
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY 0682
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 000632
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: 10/22/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL AORC EIND OPCW CWC AU FI GM ID TU
UK, AG
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION,
OCTOBER 13-16, 2009 (EC-58)
REF: A. THE HAGUE 617
B. THE HAGUE 627
C. THE HAGUE 628
D. STATE 107329
E. BEIK-ISN/CB EMAIL (10/09/09) ON EC VISIT REPORT
F. GRANGER-ISN/CB EMAIL (10/09/09) ON IRANIAN
STATEMENT
G. STATE 105819
H. THE HAGUE 604
Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)
(U) This is CWC-63-09
-------
SUMMARY
-------
1. (SBU) The 58th session of the Executive Council
(EC) of the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was a remarkable success.
The Council approved by consensus a recommendation
to the Conference of States Parties (CSP) to
appoint Ahmet Uzumcu of Turkey to be the next
Director- General (DG) for the Organization. The
EC also recommended that the draft budget and plan
of work be forwarded to the CSP, only the third
time in history the budget has been approved on
schedule by the Council. After more than ten years
of off-and-on negotiations, including an intense
final round the past two weeks, the EC also decided
on limits for low concentrations of Schedule 2A/2A*
chemicals, a compromise that satisfied no one but
achieved a long-overdue agreed standard.
2. (SBU) Destruction issues dominated the Council's
time, with two new initiatives proposed -- one (by
South Africa) to examine the gaps in the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC) covering destruction of
chemical weapons (CW) in combat situations, and the
other (by Brazil) to begin a dialogue on how the
Organization might deal with delays in the final
destruction deadline of April 2012. Iran, as
always, targeted the United States for criticism,
both in the report of the EC visit to the Pueblo
and Umatilla CW destruction sites and in the most
recent U.S. 90-day report on destruction progress.
After a series of lengthy negotiations in a small
group setting, Iran took the issue to the plenary
Council, maintaining their opposition to "noting"
any reports that contained dates for the U.S.
program beyond 2012. The final surreal compromise
proposed Friday evening was to take the projected
dates out of the U.S. report and the Technical
Secretariat (TS) report on destruction progress; as
one western delegation put it, a blow to the
transparency the reports were intended to produce.
3. (SBU) This EC was also notable for beginning to
debate issues during the sessions in which they
were scheduled, rather than in last-minute
wrangling over report language as has been done so
often in the past. The Chairman kept control of
often in the past. The Chairman kept control of
the agenda, and, as with his handling of the
Director-General search, kept the Council with him
in addressing issues properly on the floor without
endless interventions. Delegations, including
Iran, produced draft report language early on items
such as Articles VII, X and XI, and began
negotiations over text before the final session.
4. (SBU) DEL COMMENT: As this EC neatly wrapped up
quite a lot of business, the upcoming Conference of
States Parties (November 30 to December 4) provides
an ideal opportunity for a major U.S. policy
address to the membership of the CWC to look toward
the future and the tenure of a new Director-
General. END COMMENT.
5. (SBU) This cable reports on the major events of
EC-58, following the update on the DG selection
(ref A); the low concentration solution (ref B);
and the donors' meeting, destruction informals and
Iraqi assistance (ref C). Septels will follow on
bilateral meetings with the Libyan, Chinese and
Russian delegations.
--------------------------
DIRECTOR-GENERAL SELECTION
--------------------------
6. (SBU) While a surprise to some, the consensus
agreement by the Council to recommend Ahmet Uzumcu
of Turkey to the Conference of States Parties as
the next Director-General (ref A) was the result of
careful planning and endless hours of consultation
by EC Chairman Ambassador Lomonaco (Mexico).
Council members took very seriously the
presentations by all seven candidates at the July
EC, and many recommended the candidates that most
impressed them to their capitals. While politics
and national considerations also played their usual
role in establishing preferences, many delegations
could support more than one candidate, as was the
position of the U.S. Lomonaco consulted all
delegations in August and early September and, Del
believes, knew the probable result even then.
Without naming candidates, he expressed privately
and publicly that there was broad support among all
the regional groups for the same three candidates.
His early messages to the candidates and their
representatives, however, did not result in any
withdrawals.
7. (SBU) Lomonaco began conducting straw polls
October 5 after briefing Council members and other
interested delegations on the process he had in
mind-- preferences listed with a weighted point
system. From the first poll, Uzumcu took a clear
lead, with Freeman (UK) and Gottwald (Germany) in
close proximity to each other in second and third
place. Dani (Algeria) took a firm place in the
middle of the range, with Thalmann (Switzerland),
middle of the range, with Thalmann (Switzerland),
Polho (Finland) and Sudjadnan (Indonesia)
clustering toward the bottom. As the straw polls
proceeded on October 9 and 12, there was slight
movement among the bottom group and between Freeman
and Gottwald, but no one challenged Uzumcu's lead.
Lomonaco slowly and deliberately changed the
parameters of the straw polls, reducing the number
of preferences indicated from seven to four, and
then releasing all of the statistics (numbers of
first, second and other preferences) when there
were still no candidates withdrawing. He kept the
process open to suggestions from Council members,
but everyone followed his proposals, agreeing to
the step-by-step approach he first outlined in his
Roadmap at the July EC.
8. (C) As the Council officially opened October 13,
the UK sent a junior minister, Ivan Lewis, to make
a pitch for John Freeman in the General Debate;
his blunt political pitch to the Council and at a
later luncheon was a rather jarring change from
previous UK decorum (and John Freeman's personal
style). Gottwald and Uzumcu traveled to The Hague
for EC-58, meeting with delegations, as did
resident Ambassador Dani. Few, if any, positions
among delegations changed.
9. (SBU) By the afternoon session of October 13,
the Finnish and Swiss governments had agreed to
withdraw their candidates together, a model for the
withdrawals to follow. Lomonaco graciously
acknowledged the difficulty of their decision in
putting the Organization above national and
personal aspirations. Indonesia followed the next
day in withdrawing Sudjadnan's candidacy, paving
the way for the final round of straw polls.
10. (C) The fourth straw poll took place October 14
among the four remaining candidates, with EC
members indicating three preferences. Although the
ranked order of candidates did not change, the
striking piece of new information was the "no
preference" column, where Uzumcu scored zero
negative votes. All delegations had listed him as
first, second or third preference. Dani's "no
preference" number ranked very high (17), while
both Gottwald and Freeman tied at 12, close to a
third of the Council (13) and nearly enough to
block a potential two-thirds ballot.
Delegations began openly discussing the "European
problem" and whether Dani should be pressured to
withdraw. All reports from conversations with Dani
were that he still considered himself in second
place due to his number of first choice votes (11).
11. (C) Gottwald himself told Delreps on October 15
that the UK had approached him to withdraw together
with Freeman, a suggestion he said he refused. The
straw poll scheduled for the afternoon of October
15 saw a delayed start, with delegations answering
cell phones and moving in and out of the meeting
cell phones and moving in and out of the meeting
room. When the session finally began, the British
Ambassador announced the withdrawal of Freeman.
Lomonaco again thanked Freeman and the UK
government for their courage and action taken on
behalf of the Organization.
12. (C) In the subsequent straw poll among the
three candidates remaining, Dani and Gottwald had
identical numbers of first choice votes to the
previous day, with Freeman's six clearly going to
Uzumcu. Del believes the frenzy of activity before
his withdrawal included requests that Freeman's
support be directed to Uzumcu. With the consensus
outcome clearly in sight, the Chairman and
Ambassadors convened in multiple private
conversations Thursday evening about next steps,
including requests by Representatives and by
governments that Dani and Gottwald withdraw.
13. (C) By Friday morning, rumors abounded that
Dani would be withdrawn. The Turkish Ambassador
confirmed to WEOG that the Turkish Ambassador in
Algiers had been informed by the Algerian
government that they were withdrawing Dani's
candidacy. The European Union met in emergency
session before the morning EC session. When the
Council convened, both Dani and Gottwald personally
announced their withdrawals, paving the way for the
Council to recommend Uzumcu by acclamation.
Spokespersons for the Regional Groups and many
individual Representatives congratulated Uzumcu,
praised the quality and professionalism of all the
candidates as well as the Council's tradition of
consensus decisions. Many also credited the
consensus and the smooth selection process to the
efforts of Chairman Lomonaco. Lomonaco thanked
everyone for their participation and cooperation
and noted the importance of consensus decision-
making as a successful model for other multilateral
organizations in their leadership elections. It
was a high moment of unity before the session
descended into hammering out the report language
for EC-58.
---------------------
THE BUDGET -- DEJA VU
---------------------
14. (SBU) Starting in early September, Budget co-
facilitators Ambassador Francisco Aguilar (Costa
Rica) and Martin Strub (Switzerland) held seven
scheduled rounds of consultations, three "informal
informal" meetings of interested delegations to
thrash out a compromise over contentious points,
countless discussions on the margins and two final
consultations to try to reach consensus. After all
of these consultations and negotiations, last-
minute disagreements between several EU countries
(Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands) and India,
Pakistan and Iran on the text of the budget draft
decision threatened to postpone adoption of the
2010 budget beyond EC-58. However, a final
compromise was agreed, and the Council forwarded a
budget very similar to the 2009 budget to the CSP
for approval. The number of industry (Article VI)
for approval. The number of industry (Article VI)
inspections had been the main point of contention
throughout budget negotiations, and the agreed
budget reverted to the numbers for 2009 (208 total
inspections). India, Iran, Pakistan and China had
insisted that Article VI inspection numbers should
not change from those agreed last year due to the
lack of any substantive policy discussion on the
industry verification regime. Addressing the
number of industry inspections "as a matter of
policy" -- rather than relegating it to the annual
budget negotiations -- had been a key component of
the agreement brokered last year for the approval
of the 2009 budget.
15. (SBU) DEL COMMENT: While this marks only the
third time in the OPCW's history that the EC has
reached agreement on the annual budget on time,
this was only due to the U.S. and other WEOG
delegations agreeing not to drag out negotiations
over a few additional Article VI inspections
proposed by the DG. During negotiations it became
apparent that India, China and other developing
countries will continue to fight very hard against
any increase in Article VI inspections in future
budgets. Last year's hard-fought compromise has
been interpreted by these countries to mean that
outstanding issues related to the industry
verification regime (e.g., the balance between
destruction and non-proliferation, the "hierarchy
of risk", the relevance of OCPFs and "wasted"
inspections due to poor declarations) must be
discussed substantively and resolved before
additional Article VI inspections will be
considered. These discussions will need to start
quickly within the industry cluster or other
relevant consultations if there is any hope of
increasing non-proliferation activities in future
years. END COMMENT.
---------------------------------------
LOW CONCENTRATIONS -- AGREEMENT AT LAST
---------------------------------------
16. (SBU) After more than ten years of off-and-on
negotiations, most recently restarted in August
2008, the EC finally agreed on low concentration
limits for Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals (ref B). The
compromise agreement was reached in the final hours
of EC-58 after intensive informal negotiations led
by Facilitator Giuseppe Cornacchia (Italy).
Cornacchia presented the consensus draft decision
to the EC plenary, but before it could be adopted,
several delegations took the floor. China started
by registering concerns with the text --
specifically the finally-agreed threshold limits --
but agreed to go along with consensus on the matter
and not object to the draft decision. Germany,
Japan and the U.S. also noted difficulties with the
final compromise, but all agreed to join consensus.
Chairman Lomonaco, noting how difficult it
obviously had been to reach consensus,
congratulated the Council on finally resolving the
long-outstanding issue. Lomonaco thanked
long-outstanding issue. Lomonaco thanked
Cornacchia for his facilitation and also paid
tribute to everyone who had worked on the issue for
the previous ten years.
--------------------------------------------
PROCEDURAL CORRECTIONS-- DEBATING AND NOTING
--------------------------------------------
17. (SBU) From the onset of this EC session, the
Iranian delegation once again challenged the
meaning of the term "to note" and foreshadowed
hours of needless discussion on standard English
vocabulary. Despite the Technical Secretariat and
States Parties intervening to clarify this term,
the Iranian delegation held firmly to the position
that each delegation can interpret the meaning as
they see fit. Towards the end of the EC session,
the South African delegation intervened to
introduce report language defining "took note" and
"noted" under the agenda item Any Other Business.
The text basically states that "to note" a document
does not constitute approval of or agreement to the
substance of the document. The Iranian delegation
intervened to acknowledge this and then stated that
if they disagreed with the document proposed for
noting they would look to voice their position in
report language and/or the actual text of the
document in question. (DEL NOTE: We deduced that
the Iranian instructions included resisting
"noting" any document put forth by the United
States that included dates beyond the revised
destruction deadlines. The discussion immediately
below illustrates the challenges of this position,
whereby the visit report was noted as written with
comments that appeased the entire Council, and the
90-day report was noted with the removal of the
dates extending beyond 2012.)
-------------------------------------
DESTRUCTION ISSUES -- PAST AND FUTURE
-------------------------------------
18. (SBU) Despite multiple consultations in advance
and on the margins of the formal sessions in an
effort to reach agreement on substance and report
language, the final hours of EC-58 on October 16
were monopolized by destruction issues to include
the noting of U.S. documents (i.e., U.S. visit
report and 90-day report) and new initiatives.
19. (SBU) The report on the visit by the Chairman
and representatives of the Executive Council to the
Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant,
Colorado, and to the Umatilla Chemical Agent
Disposal Facility, Oregon (EC-57/12, dated 10 July
2009) was the subject of continued debate prior to
and throughout EC-58. This report was considered
during EC-57 in July and deferred to this session
due to the Iranian delegation's resistance to the
procedural issue of noting the document. In the
week prior to EC-58, a consultation was held with
visit participants and interested delegations in an
visit participants and interested delegations in an
effort to resolve any outstanding substantive
concerns about the document and the information
received during the visit (ref E). The Iranian
delegation made a strong statement articulating
their views on the U.S. projections of destruction
at two sites beyond 2012 (ref F). (DEL COMMENT:
This statement outlines the concerns of Iranian
delegation, which are likely to resurface as the
U.S. destruction program continues to project dates
extending beyond the treaty deadline. This
document was sent electronically to ISN-CB. The
Del recommends thorough review and preparation of
talking points to address the questions raised in
the document. END COMMENT.)
20. (SBU) While Iran argued for the text of the
report to be adjusted to include a statement
pertaining to the Council's view on this "premature
noncompliance" by the U.S., visit participants
remained firm in insisting that the report was a
factual report on their visit and would not be open
to changes by Council members. The attention then
turned to the EC report language. The South
African delegation had proposed draft report
language in July and re-circulated it for review in
advance of this EC session.
21. (C) Throughout the week of the EC, Ambassador
Lohman (Netherlands) convened a group of interested
delegations -- the U.S., Russia, Iran and South
Africa -- in an effort to reach agreement on report
language and avoid protracted debate on the floor.
Despite several lengthy meetings, no agreement was
reached. The Iranian delegation was persistent in
vying for strong report language blasting the U.S.
for its projections, while simultaneously being
resistant to noting the report itself. The Iranians
blamed their inflexibility on the lack of
participation of delegates from capital due to a
visa-related issue. While the Iranian delegates
waffled on noting the report, the Russian
delegation stated that if the reports are not
noted, then future visits would be discontinued.
On Friday, with no agreement on text, the debate
hit the floor of the Council during the report-
approval process. Despite efforts at compromise
language from several delegations (Netherlands,
Ireland and India), the Iranian delegation
demonstrated an unfortunate lack of command of the
English language and offered text which simply
called for the U.S. to accelerate destruction
efforts by April 28, 2009. Likely because the
delegation had irritated the entire Council with
their antics throughout the session, no State Party
intervened to correct Iran's mistake and the
Council accepted the language and closed the issue.
22. (SBU) On the agenda item regarding progress
made in meeting revised deadlines for the
destruction of chemical weapons, the Council
considered a report by the DG as well as all of the
90-day reports (Libya, U.S., Russia, China and
Japan). The Iranian delegation again intervened to
object to the Council noting the TS report as well
as the U.S. report, although the delegation was
as the U.S. report, although the delegation was
willing to note all the rest. The U.S. intervened
with the position that these documents should be
grouped and handled in the same manner, whether
noted or under some other formulation. The TS
offered language that the documents were
"circulated" to the Council. However, Russia and
some of the other possessor states voiced
opposition to this concept, indicating that it is
offensive to those delegations responsible for
drafting these reports, but said, for the sake of
consensus, they would not object. Russia referred
to the Iranian objection and the U.S. grouping of
all the reports as "vicious" tactics.
23. (SBU) To add further confusion to the matter,
the TS had inserted previous chapeau language into
the draft text of the decision before Iran
requested it as they had in the past. The Iranian
delegation took the position that they could accept
the "circulation" of the reports and would give up
the previously hard-fought chapeau language urging
early commencement of new destruction facilities,
much to the surprise of other Council members.
Multiple delegations voiced concern with removal of
the statement reaffirming the obligation of
possessor States Parties to destroy their chemical
weapons within the extended deadlines. Finally,
the South African delegation intervened to state
that this was not an acceptable solution.
24. (SBU) In order to resolve this impasse, the
U.S. delegation considered the earlier option
proposed by the TS upon the introduction of the DG
note in the agenda review. When the Iranian
delegation had first intervened on the DG note,
with specific reference to paragraph 30 which
included the U.S. destruction dates extending
beyond 2012, Alexander Khodakov, Secretary to the
Policy-Making Organs, offered that the document
might be amended and reissued with those dates
removed since the note is intended to report on
past activities, progress achieved, rather than
future-oriented projections. This same line of
logic was applied to the U.S. 90-day report, and
the South African delegation intervened to offer
that the language in the U.S. 90-day report and the
DG note should be amended and reissued with the
term "to be determined" inserted where the
troublesome dates were used. The U.S.
Representative clarified the alternative language
that would be issued and verified with the Iranian
delegation specifically that this was agreeable.
With no objections from the Council, this allowed
the chapeau language to be retained, and the DG
note and the entirety of the collection of 90-day
reports to be noted.
25. (SBU) Prior to the EC session, the Brazilian
delegation proposed report language calling for the
Council to instruct the EC Chairman to engage in
informal consultations with interested delegations
on how, and when, to initiate formal deliberations
by the Council about the feasibility of the revised
deadlines of 2012 being met by possessor States
deadlines of 2012 being met by possessor States
Parties. Several small groups meetings were held
on the margins of the EC to revise the language to
ensure that the proposal was positively received
and approved by the Council. Brazilian Ambassador
Jose Medeiros chaired the meetings in which
interested delegations included South Africa,
India, China, Japan, Russia, Sweden, the U.S. and
Peru. The Russian delegation took the position
that the proposal itself was not appropriate for
consideration at this time. Several delegations
(Iran, India, South Africa and Sweden) called for
the term "compliance" to be included in the text.
However, to reach agreement among the group and
later within the Council, the proposal emphasized
the consultations to be a procedural step to start
the process for further discussions. Benign text
drafted by Delrep was distributed as the Russian
compromise position and was accepted by both the
smaller group of interested parties and the larger
Council. (DEL NOTE: The Brazilian delegation
privately described the motivation for this
proposal as an effort to take this very political
and complicated discussion off the table of the EC,
clearing the path for the Chairman to address the
required agenda items and effectively lead this and
future meetings. Additionally, the EC Chairman told
Delrep that he felt that the substance of this
proposal was largely the role of his successor.
END NOTE.)
26. (C) The South African delegation also proposed
a new initiative under the agenda Subitem 5(b),
which was amended to add the term "and other
destruction related issues" to accommodate their
proposal. Prior to the EC, the South African
delegation engaged the U.S. and UK delegations on
their initiative to establish an open-ended working
group aimed at developing guidelines pertaining to
security and destruction of chemical weapons in
situations not foreseen by the Chemical Weapons
Convention. Despite both the U.S. and the UK
delegations expressing opposition to the proposed
open-ended working group, the South African
delegation circulated draft report language in
advance of the EC and firmly indicated that they
would be pursuing this initiative, going as far to
threaten that, should the U.S. not agree to this
approach, a discussion on noncompliance related to
U.S. and UK activity related to RCW in Iraq would
be the alternative.
27. (SBU) In trilateral discussions between the
U.S., the UK and South Africa, the issue of who
might serve as the facilitator for this proposed
working group. The South African delegation said
that they were prepared to serve in this role
themselves, specifically Delegate Marthinus van
Schalkwyk. Both the U.S. and the UK delegations
objected. As a result of considerable discussion,
a compromise position was reached, whereby the
format of these discussions would be deemed
consultations rather than an open-ended working
group, and the facilitator would be Irish Delegate
group, and the facilitator would be Irish Delegate
Michael Hurley. To further restrict the scope of
this initiative, the UK provided draft guidelines
to the U.S. and South Africa for review and
indicated that these should be introduced by the
facilitator. (DEL NOTE: An electronic copy of the
draft guidelines/decision text was sent to ISN-CB
for further review and comment. END NOTE.)
28. (SBU) While the Council approved the South
African proposal, and Irish Delegate Michael Hurley
agreed to serve as facilitator, several delegations
queried the goal of these consultations. During a
final intervention at the EC, the Russian Delegate
read a prepared statement that these consultations
should in no way seek to change the legal text of
the treaty, nor to amend the convention, and ought
to be limited in scope to conflict situations
rather than extending to include situations related
interdictions at sea. The EC Chairman requested
that Russia circulate a national paper on their
position.
--------------------------------------------- --
DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S STATEMENT AND GENERAL DEBATE
--------------------------------------------- --
29. (U) The 58th session of the Executive Council
opened on October 13 with an update from the four
Vice-Chairmen on activities that took place during
the intersessional period. On chemical weapons
issues, Ambassador Lohman (Netherlands) informed
the Council that he had chaired a consultation on
the report on the EC visit to two U.S. destruction
facilities. One round of consultations on Article
X assistance and protection had also been held
since the last EC. Regarding chemical industry
issues, Ambassador Idris (Sudan) noted progress
during consultations on low concentrations for
Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals and enhancement of
OCPF declarations. The Vice-Chairman for
administrative and financial issues, Delegate
Vejdani (Iran) reported on eight rounds of budget
consultations, and stated that the Report of the
Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial
Matters (ABAF) and the Report on Implementation of
the External Auditor's Recommendations were both
ready for Council consideration. On legal and
organizational issues, Ambassador Gevorgian
(Russia) noted consultations and progress on
universality, Article XI international cooperation
and Article VII national implementation. Chairman
Lomonaco (Mexico) reported on his consultations and
straw polls for the DG selection, the Host Country
Committee and the informal meeting on destruction
the day before.
30. (U) Director-General Pfirter opened his
statement, long even by his standards, with pointed
congratulations for President Barak Obama on
winning the Noble Peace Prize, noting that Obama
gave a new impetus to multilateralism and
contributed to improving the diplomatic atmosphere
in the fields of disarmament and nonproliferation.
Pfirter then turned to destruction issues,
highlighting that the milestone of 50% destruction
highlighting that the milestone of 50% destruction
of all declared chemical weapons (CW) had been
passed. On Libya, he cited the extension request
and the need for prompt action to destroy Libya's
CW stockpile within the deadline.
31. (U) On Iraq, notwithstanding Iraq's commitment
to the Convention, he stated that the security
situation had forced the postponement of the
initial visit by the Technical Secretariat (TS) to
verify Iraq's declarations and that the visit had
not yet been rescheduled. The DG noted the visit
by the TS teams, at the invitation of the United
States and the United Kingdom, to review records on
the disposal of chemical weapons recovered in Iraq
between 2003 and 2008. In the TS view, the
documents appeared consistent with information
provided by the U.S. and the United Kingdom, and
full transparency was provided in support of the
review.
32. (U) The DG turned to Russia's enhanced efforts
on destruction, highlighting construction and
commencement of chemical weapons destruction
operations at new units in their operating
facilities. He described the U.S. destruction
effort as proceeding steadily and noted completion
of operations at Dugway Proving Ground.
33. (U) The DG stated that this year's Article VI
inspections were on track. However, he emphasized
the importance of focusing on appropriate
inspections for the large numbers of Other Chemical
Production Facilities (OCPF) worldwide, and the
ease and speed with which a number of such
facilities could be reconfigured for production of
chemicals other than those they are meant for. He
announced a workshop planned in November before the
National Authorities meeting to discuss OCPF
issues.
34. (U) Pfirter summarized TS assistance
activities, highlighting ASSISTEX III to be held in
Tunis in October 2010, as well as noting various
training courses related to Article X held in the
intersessional period. As for cooperation
sponsored by the States Parties, he summarized
recent developments in the 2009 Associate Program,
and contributions from several governments.
35. (U) The DG noted continued progress of States
Parties designating National Authorities, which
have reached 97% of Convention membership. He also
highlighted UN Security Council Resolution 1887
which links progress in disarmament and non-
proliferation as an element of international
security. He also addressed TS participation in a
meeting established under UNSCR 1540. On the
budget, he noted positive feedback received during
facilitations on progress made towards a "results-
based" approach. In turning to the Scientific
Advisory Board (SAB), he welcomed the six new
members, including Bill Kane (U.S.) who will join
the Board in January. He indicated that the SAB
will address applications of nanotechnology to
improve protective measures against chemical
weapons.
36. (U) The General Debate that followed featured
36. (U) The General Debate that followed featured
several recurring and predictable themes. Many
statements expressed optimism for a successful
outcome for the Executive Council's efforts to
nominate a consensus Director-General candidate to
the Conference. Regarding destruction matters, the
African Group, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and
China, Pakistan and Brazil included varying
expressions of concern that a major possessor state
does not expect to meet the 2012 deadline. Iran
stated that CW destruction is the most important
issue on the agenda, that the final extended
deadline of 2012 must be met, and that the
integrity of the CWC will be tested if one state
Party cannot meet that deadline. China
additionally urged all possessor States to show a
sense of urgency and overcome difficulties to
ensure the timely completion of destruction.
37. (U) Brazil proposed that the Council appoint
the Chairman to conduct informal consultations with
Council members on how and when to initiate formal
deliberations on the feasibility of the 2012
deadline. Both the NAM and African Group
statements supported South Africa's proposal
regarding the security and destruction of chemical
weapons in situations not foreseen by the
Convention.
38. (U) The statement by Russia highlighted its own
destruction accomplishments but expressed concern
regarding the lack of progress in verifying Iraq's
initial declaration. The European Union (EU) and
Russia called on Iraq to prepare a detailed plan
for destruction and submit it to the Executive
Council. The EU also requested more information
about Libya's plans and projections regarding its
request for an extension to its deadline for
destruction of Category 1 weapons. Libya
emphasized that it was committed to elimination of
all WMD, and provided an update on its efforts to
construct a CW destruction facility at Rabta.
Predictably, China dedicated a portion of its
statement to the issue of Japanese abandoned
chemical weapons, noting grave concern that
destruction has not yet begun. Japan stated that
they were working to use ultrasound technology to
gain a better understanding of old and abandoned CW
in China. Iraq thanked the U.S., the UK and
Germany for their assistance in helping Iraq to
implement the CWC.
39. (U) Regarding the Article VII action plan and
related national implementation efforts, Russia
placed great importance on successful
implementation, linking this issue to export
controls. The statement called for a search for
new incentives to promote real progress in meeting
Article VII. The EU noted with concern the slow
progress in recent years and encouraged the TS to
consider alternative approaches, such as targeted
training for relevant government officials at the
training for relevant government officials at the
OPCW.
40. (U) The NAM, the African Group and Saudi Arabia
invoked Article XI and called for resumption of
consultations on full implementation of Article XI.
The African Group noted the implementation of the
Program for Africa and thanked States Parties
supporting the program through voluntary
contributions. The European Union touted its own
financial contribution to the Program under the
EU's Strategy against Proliferation of WMD.
41. (U) Russia, the NAM, the African Group and
Saudi Arabia supported the Secretariat's work in
Article X activities, with some specifically citing
the ASSISTEX 3 exercise to be held in October 2010.
The NAM and African Group statements highlighted
Article X in the context of the CWC's contribution
to global antiterrorism efforts, and, along with
the EU, supported the efforts of the Open-Ended
Working Group on Terrorism. Nigeria stated that
the role of the OPCW in preventing terrorism cannot
be over-estimated.
42. (U) Several statements included similar themes
regarding the allocation of Article VI inspection
resources. The NAM stated that the proposed
increase and distribution of industry inspections
are unconvincing and have no reasonable basis,
while China repeated the theme of "hierarchy of
risk" pertaining to the four types of facilities
under Article VI.
43. (U) Russia and the EU supported the principle
of zero-nominal growth budgets and maintaining the
present level of annual State Party contributions
to the OPCW.
---------------------------------------
UNIVERSALITY AND ARTICLES VII, X AND XI
---------------------------------------
44. (U) The facilitators for Universality and
Articles VII, X and XI all briefed the Council on
the progress of their respective consultations.
The four issues attracted little substantive debate
with facilitators working on the margins to
negotiate draft text for the session's final
report. Delreps worked with WEOG delegations to
insure balance between report language on Articles
VII and XI. The Council extended the mandates of
all four facilitators to allow them to continue
consultations through to the CSP and authorize them
to submit draft decisions or other products for the
CSP's consideration.
45. (SBU) During the adoption of report language,
Iran insisted from the floor that the TS include
more information in future Article VII annual
implementation reports on legislation related to
free trade (Article XI Paragraph 2(e)). The UK and
other delegations objected in principle as Iran
previously had not raised the issue formally in the
Council. Legal Advisor Onate also staunchly
defended his office's annual report, stating that
it already includes complete information on Article
XI Paragraph 2(e). Despite Iranian protestations,
XI Paragraph 2(e). Despite Iranian protestations,
Chairman Lomonaco ruled that Iran's text could not
be inserted due to the lack of support, and the
fact that it would not be factually correct to
include it in the session's report.
46. (C) DEL COMMENT: As the Council completed all
of its mandatory work needing to be forwarded to
the CSP for action, these four issues likely are to
be the primary focus of work in the run up to the
CSP and will dominate the substantive agenda of the
CSP. Given Iran's inability to insert report
language under Article VII on its pet issue of free
trade in chemicals (Article XI), the Iranian
delegation likely will press hard to include
similar references in any Article VII draft
decision at the CSP. END COMMENT.
----------------------
ITEMS APPROVED/ADOPTED
----------------------
47. (U) The following agenda items were approved or
adopted:
EC-58/S/2 - Corrections to the general and detailed
plans for conversion of the Libyan CWPFs "Rabta 1"
and "Rabta 2"
EC-58/NAT.5 and EC-58/DEC/CRP.2 - Libyan request
for extension of the intermediate and final
destruction deadlines for its Category 1 chemical
weapons
EC-57/CRP.2 and EC-58/DEC/CRP.5 - 2010 Budget
EC-58/DEC/CRP.6 - Guidelines regarding low-
concentration limits for declarations of Schedule
2A and 2A* chemicals
EC-58/DEC/CRP.3/Rev.1 - Adoption of IPSAS as the
OPCW's accounting standard
EC-58/S/3 - appointments of Sakiko Hayakawa (Japan)
and Yungjoon Jo (South Korea) to the Advisory Body
on Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF)
EC-58/CRP.1 - EC report on its activities from 28
June 2008 to 17 July 2009
--------------
ITEMS DEFERRED
--------------
48. (U) The following documents were deferred:
EC-56/S/3*, EC-57/DEC/CRP.1 - Proposed guidelines
on the nature of continued verification measures at
converted production facilities ten years after
their certification of conversion
EC-53/S/5 - Secretariat note on enhancing
information on the characteristics of plant sites
in other chemical production facility declarations
EC-53/DG.11 - DG note concerning information on the
enhancement of OCPF declarations
EC-57/DG.5 - DG note entitled "Technical
Arrangement between the Technical Secretariat and
Designated Laboratories concerning the Procedures
for Off-site Analysis of Samples and for Adherence
to the Requirements of the OPCW Confidentiality
Regime"
EC-57/S/1 - Secretariat note on continued inclusion
in the OPCW Central Analytical Database (OCAD) of
analytical data for derivatives of scheduled
chemicals
EC-58/DG.4, EC-58/DEC.CRP.1 - DG note on the lists
of validated data for Council approval for
inclusion in the OCAD and the draft decision
EC-57/DG.4 - DG report on the implementation of the
tenure policy in 2008
-----------
ITEMS NOTED
-----------
49. (U) The Council noted the following documents:
EC-58/DG.13 - DG's opening statement
EC-58/R/S/1 - Secretariat note on the update on
process in converting a former CWPF
EC-58/NAT.6 - notification of changes to the
general and detailed plans for the conversion of
former CWPFs "Rabta 1" and "Rabta 2"
EC-58/DG11* - DG note on the progress of States
Parties granted extensions of destruction deadlines
EC-58/NAT.4 - Libyan national paper on the status
of destruction activities
EC-58/NAT.3* - U.S. national paper on the status of
destruction activities
EC-57/12 - report of the EC visit by the
Chairperson and representatives to Pueblo and
Umatilla
EC-58/P/NAT.1 - Russian national paper on the
status of destruction activities
EC-58/NAT.1 - Chinese national paper on the status
of Japanese abandoned CW (ACW) in China
EC-58/NAT.2 - Japanese national paper on the status
of its ACW projects in China
EC-58/HP/DG.1 - supplement to the 2008 Verification
Implementation Report (VIR)
EC-57/HP/DG.2/Add.1 - comments and views received
on the 2008 VIR
EC-57/HP/DG.1/Corr.2 - corrigendum to the 2008 VIR
EC-58/DG.5 - DG note on the status of Article VII
implementation
EC-57/S/3 - Secretariat note on the content and use
of the Article X assistance-and-protection databank
EC-58/DG.9 C-14/DG.8 - DG note and annual report on
the implementation of the action plan for the
universality of the CWC
EC-55/DG.8 - DG report on the performance of the
modified methodology for the selection of OCPFs for
inspection
S/773/2009 - Secretariat note on electronic
submission of annual declarations on past
activities as at 31 May 2009
EC-58/DG.8 - DG note on the Secretariat's readiness
to conduct a challenge inspection
EC-58/DG.12 - DG note on OPCW income and
expenditure for the financial year to 30 September
2009
EC-58/DG.3 - DG note on the adoption of IPSAS
(International Public Sector Accounting Standards)
EC-58/S/1 - Secretariat note on the status of
implementation of the recommendations of the
External Auditor
ABAF-27/1, Corr.1, - report of the Twenty-Seventh
ABAF session
EC-58/DG.10 - DG note containing comments on the
ABAF report. The Council noted the resignation of
Su-Jin Cho (South Korea) and Takayuki Kitagawa
(Japan) from the ABAF.
EC-58/HCC/1, C-14/HCC/1 - report by the Committee
on Relations with the Host Country on the
performance of its activities December 2008 -
September 2009
EC-58/3 - withdrawal of Finland's and Switzerland's
DG candidates
EC-58/4 - withdrawal of Indonesia's DG candidate
EC-58/5 - withdrawal of the United Kingdom's DG
candidate
EC-58/6 - withdrawal of Algeria's DG candidate
EC-58/7 - withdrawal of Germany's DG candidate
50. (U) BEIK SENDS.
LEVIN