This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 THE HAGUE 000798 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR CHUPA 
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC):  WRAP-UP FOR 
THE 36TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION OF THE OPCW 
 
REF: STATE 63125 
 
This is CWC-42-04. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  (U)  The 36th Executive Council session of the OPCW was a 
solid success for the U.S. across the entire range of 
substantive and administrative issues.  The presence of the 
Libyan delegation was sufficient to ensure that EC-36 would 
be memorable, and a report on the various discussions 
involving Libya will be provided septel.  The Council managed 
to clear away a substantial number of issues that had 
languished for some time.  A number of U.S. destruction and 
conversion plans and facility agreements were approved.  Two 
long-standing industry issues were resolved, and progress was 
made on other items.  Decisions and report language provide 
the basis for necessary changes on insurance and home leave 
travel payments, as well as improvements in the operations of 
the Office of Internal Oversight.  While there was discussion 
on implementation of results-based budgeting (RBB), it was 
notable that the policy decision was not challenged. 
 
¶2.  (U)  Perhaps most contentious was the Director-General's 
report on the implementation of the tenure policy, which 
generated some 30 interventions.  The DG told delegations 
that work is in progress on measures to ease the transition 
of those separated from the OPCW.  The discussion ended 
without rancor, and we urge Washington to fully support these 
transition initiatives.  In short, EC-36 cleared away much of 
the underbrush on numerous issues in a variety of areas and 
laid the foundation for intersessional work that can address 
a new set of USG priorities.  Results on specific issues are 
provided below as noted in the annotated agenda for EC-36. 
End Summary. 
 
-------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM THREE:  DG STATEMENT 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Topics addressed in the DG statement (sent to AC/CB) 
were: accolades for Libya on its accession to the OPCW, 
military and industrial verification, international 
cooperation, Article VII implementation, external relations 
and universality, tenure, results based budgeting, the OPCW 
insurance policy, and OPCW resources.  Of interest, the DG 
stated that Libya had submitted its requests for extensions 
of the one, 20, and 45 percent intermediate time lines for 
destruction of its stockpile and that the current inspection 
frequency of "other chemical production facilities" is not 
sufficient.  The draft 2005 OPCW Program and Budget will be 
tabled in May. 
 
--------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM FOUR:  GENERAL DEBATE 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) General debate opened with a statement from the EC 
Chairman paying condolences to the Netherlands on the death 
of the Queen Mother, to Spain for the bombing in Madrid, and 
to Macedonia on the tragic death of their President. Canada 
then announced it would be completing its four-year term as a 
member of the Executive Council, but proclaimed it intensions 
to remain engaged on key issues.  Ambassador Javits delivered 
the U.S. statement.  Most statements welcomed the accession 
of Libya to the CWC as a positive outcome of universality and 
on the outcome of the workshop on RBB, but noted that more 
coordination between the Secretariat and States Parties was 
needed. 
 
¶5.  (U) The highly anticipated opening statement by the 
Libyans, delivered by Mr. Al-Mabrouk Mohamed Mailad, Head of 
the National Security Branch, Tripoli, was well received by 
the Council.  Libya proclaimed full and total commitment to 
the CWC and to various international agreements.  It 
announced the submission of its initial declaration to the 
OPCW as of March 5, and the irreversible destruction of 3,561 
unfilled CW munitions.  Libya stressed that its accession to 
the CWC should not be considered as yielding to international 
pressure, but seen as a new vision and prioritization toward 
a global policy.  The Libyan statement concluded by noting 
that Libyan accession should become a benchmark to rid the 
world of WMD in other areas of the world, particularly in the 
Middle East. 
 
¶6.  (U) Ireland stated, on behalf of the EU, that the EU had 
been promoting universality of the CWC by sending 30 
demarches to States not yet Party.  Turkey, Iran, and South 
Africa emphasized that CW possessor States Parties need to do 
more to keep their demilitarization programs on schedule. 
Canada, Japan, China, Iran, South Africa, and South Korea 
emphasized the need for the smooth implementation of the 
tenure policy. 
 
¶7.  (U) South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African 
Union, stated that a Center on Terrorism would be established 
in Algiers to exchange information and alert African States 
Parties of terrorism on the continent.  India once again 
highlighted its ahead-of-schedule CW destruction program, and 
received congratulations from the Council Chairman and other 
delegations. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM FIVE:  STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE CONVENTION 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (U) Universality:  The Council agreed to note the report 
by the TS on the implementation of the Action Plan for 
Universality (EC-36/S/9).  Several States Parties voiced 
support for universality and encouragement for more States 
not yet Party to join the Convention.  The UK announced a 
voluntary contribution of 18,000 Euros for African States not 
yet Party to participate in the workshop in Addis Ababa, 
Ethiopia. The UK and India commented on the issue of 
points-of-contact (POC).  The UK was concerned that only nine 
States Parties had identified POCs and encouraged others to 
participate.  Conversely, India opined that identifying POCs 
was based on an informal and voluntary process and the lack 
of participation should not impact the plan of action. 
 
¶9.  (U) The DG stated that a corrigendum to the announcement 
of the Malta Workshop on Universality and National 
Implementation had been distributed to modify the date when 
States Parties must submit nominations for participation in 
the workshop to April 16, 2004 (S/408/2004/Corr.1). The 
original announcement only gave States Parties two weeks to 
nominate participants, which was not a sufficient response 
time. 
 
¶10.  (U) Implementation of Confidentiality:  The Council 
noted the report. 
 
¶11.  (U) Confidentiality:  The EC Chair announced U.S. Del 
member Betsy Sanders as the new Facilitator for 
Confidentiality.  The Council, then, agreed to defer 
 
SIPDIS 
decisions on Confidentiality until the new Facilitator had 
time to consider the issues. 
 
¶12.  (U) Challenge Inspections: The Council agreed to note 
the report on Challenge Inspection (EC-36/DG.5.Rev.1, dated 
17 February 2004).  The Delegation made the points from the 
floor of the EC provided by Washington in the guidance cable. 
 The final report language was also in accordance with that 
sought by Washington.  In addition, the Delegation and 
Washington TDYers spoke with the Technical Secretariat about 
the importance of proceeding with preparations to conduct a 
CI, and of the need to investigate transportation options to 
a CI site.  Ambassador Javits also raised with DG Pfirter the 
need for the TS to move ahead smartly with work on CIs. 
 
¶13.  (U) The Council considered and approved a decision on 
clarification and declarations (EC-34/DEC/CRP.8/Rev.2, dated 
24 March 2004). 
 
----------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM SIX:  ARTICLE VII ACTION PLAN 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶14.  (U) The Council received the Note by the DG on the 
Progress Report on the implementation of the plan of action 
of Article VII obligations (EC-36/DG.16, dated 4 March 2004, 
Corr. 1 dated 15 March 2004, and Add.1, dated 25 March 2004). 
The Council encouraged the Secretariat to enhance 
coordination of its activities with States Parties regarding 
offers of or requests for assistance. The U.S. stressed the 
importance that all States Parties must make every effort to 
implement Article VII by CSP-10. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
AGENDA ITEM SEVEN:  DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶15.  (U)  The Council approved the agreed detailed plan for 
destruction of chemical weapons at Pine Bluff Arsenal 
Chemical Agent Disposal Facility.  The agreed detailed plan 
for Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility was once again 
blocked by the Russian Federation and the plan for Dugway EDS 
was deferred by China to allow time for its further 
consideration and review in Beijing.  The Council approved 
the detailed plan for verification of destruction of Libyan 
Category 3 munitions (unfilled bombs) and noted a report on 
completion of that destruction.  Russia provided an extensive 
but largely vacuous and illusory explanation of its plans to 
meet its extended deadline for destroying 45% of its declared 
stockpile of chemical weapons. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM EIGHT:  DESTRUCTION OR CONVERSION 
OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES 
- COMBINED PLANS FOR DESTRUCTION OR CONVERSION 
AND VERIFICATION OF CWPF - 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶16.  (U) The Council considered and approved both the Russian 
combined plan for conversion and verification of the chemical 
weapons production facility (production of VX-type substance 
and filling it into munitions), EC-32/DG.8 dated 19 February 
2003), and the draft decision approving this plan 
(EC-32/DEC/CRP.8, dated 11 March 2003).  U.S. CW experts met 
with Russian experts to again present and discuss U.S. 
proposed changes to this plan.  Unlike the last EC meeting, 
Russian experts came prepared to work through any problems. 
As a result, the Russian delegation was able to agree to all 
the stipulated U.S. changes. The appropriate corrigendum was 
drafted and submitted to the TS that captured such changes. 
 
¶17. (U) The Council considered and approved the Russian 
combined plan for Phase 2 of the destruction and verification 
of chemical weapons production facility (Lewisite Production) 
at Dzerzhinsk (EC-36/DG.11, dated 11 February 2004).  U.S. CW 
experts held extensive consultations with Russian experts to 
capture both U.S. and Russian concerns.  Del presented and 
discussed the U.S. proposed comments and questions provided 
in the guidance relative to the Detailed Destruction and 
Verification Plan.  Russian experts reviewed and accepted 
U.S. changes, as well as updated its work stages as we 
requested under the "Schedule of Destruction Measures" in the 
detailed plan.  The one outstanding issue left to resolve was 
the two references to the destruction of the "eastern part of 
Block 317" taking place in phase 2 and 3.  During expert 
consultations, Russian experts made clearer their intention 
to include the destruction of the "eastern part of Block 317" 
in Phase 2, and destroy the "remaining part of Block 317" in 
phase 3.  U.S. experts pointed out that there is no such 
distinction made in the document, and destruction of the 
"eastern part of Block 317" in phase 2 was not captured in 
the detailed destruction or verification plan like the other 
items listed to be destroyed. 
 
¶18.  (U) Consequently, U.S. experts pointed out that such a 
change could not be done unless such activity was fully 
captured in the plan for phase 2 just like the other items to 
be destroyed.  During ongoing discussions with U.S. experts, 
Russian experts continually referred to the "eastern part of 
block 317" as the "social section."  Therefore we noted the 
name as such for clarity sake.  Both U.S. and Russian experts 
met several times to work on a corrigendum that effectively 
captures the destruction and verification of what is now 
called the "social section of block 317" scheduled for 
destruction in phase 2, and the remaining part of block 317 
to be destroyed in phase 3.  During this process, Russian 
experts were very cooperative, accepting both our initial 
comments and additional changes to include providing a 
diagram showing the social and remaining sections of block 
¶317.  After careful review of all the changes, the U.S. and 
Russian experts submitted a final agreed corrigendum to the 
Technical Secretariat, thereby allowing the U.S. to join 
consensus in approving this document. 
 
¶19.  (U) The U.S. combined plans for destruction and 
verification of the chemical weapons production facilities 
(QL and DC) at Pine Bluff Arsenal (EC-35/DG.3 and 
EC-36/DG.10, respectively) were both approved by the Council. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
-- NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES AT FORMER CHEMICAL 
WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES -- 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶20.  (U) The Council considered and again decided to defer 
the DF production facility Volgograd, Notification of Changes 
to Chemical Process Equipment (EC-34/DG.1 dated 4 June 2003) 
and the Facility for Filling of Non-chemical parts of 
chemical munitions, Volgograd, EC-34/DG.3, dated 10 June 
2003) until the next regular session.  The Russian delegation 
noted their ongoing efforts with the Technical Secretariat to 
ensure that the changes in the above notifications are 
included in the combined plans for conversion and 
verification as required under Part V, paragraphs 79-80 of 
the Verification Annex.  Moreover, Russian experts expect 
that the Combined plans will be completed and ready for 
circulation at the next regular session.  U.S. experts were 
pleased to note that the Russian delegation was including 
such changes, and look forward to reviewing the plans.  As a 
result of ongoing discussions between the Russian delegation 
and the Technical Secretariat on these plans, the EC 
considered and decided to take this issue up at its next 
session. 
 
¶21.  (U) The Council considered and noted with no objection 
the Russian notification of changes in the production 
activity at the former chemical weapons production facility 
(chloroether production), Novocheboksarsk (EC-36/DG.2, dated 
19 January 2004).  The U.S. delegation had no objection and 
joined consensus in approving this document. 
 
¶22.  (U)  During the discussions on the DG's report on 
progress at Russian CW production facilities where conversion 
is still in progress, U.S. delegation made an intervention 
from the floor as noted in the guidance cable and outlined 
the U.S. concerns. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM NINE:  FACILITY AGREEMENTS 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶23.  (U)  The Council considered and approved the draft 
decision approving the facility agreement regarding on-site 
inspections at the chemical weapons destruction facility 
located at Gorny, Saratovskaya oblast (EC-35/DEC/CRP.1, dated 
23 September 2003, and Corr.1, dated 1 March 2004).  Del met 
with Russian experts and the TS to go over this agreement and 
the stipulated changes.  Russian experts and the TS explained 
in detail such inspection activities as sampling, data 
authentication measures and monitoring.  As a result the 
delegation was able to join consensus and approve this 
agreement. 
 
¶24.  (U) The Facility Agreement for the Chemical Agent 
Disposal Facility at Pine Bluff Arsenal (EC-36/DEC/CRP.5) was 
approved by the Council.  The Facility Agreement for the 
Aberdeen Proving Ground Chemical Agent Disposal Facility 
(EC-32/DEC/CRP.6) was once again blocked by the Russian 
Federation, and the Facility Agreement for the explosive 
destruction system at Dugway Proving Ground 
(EC-36/DEC/CRP.10) was deferred by the Chinese to allow time 
for its further review and consideration in Beijing.  The 
Council noted the agreed modifications to two U.S. Schedule 1 
Facility Agreements (EC-36/S/1) and noted modifications and 
updates to an additional five U.S. Facility Agreements for 
CWPFs (EC-36/S/2).  The Council also noted the agreed 
modifications and updates to five U.S. Facility Agreements 
for CWDFs. 
 
¶25.  (U)  The Council approved the Belgian Facility Agreement 
for a Schedule 1 protective purposes facility 
(EC-31/DEC/CRP.1).  Based on a recommendation from China from 
the floor of the Council, the Council agreed that the 
Facility Agreements for Spain and the Slovak Republic's 
Schedule 1 facilities for protective purposes 
(EC-36/DEC/CRP.1 and EC-36/P/DEC/CRP.2, respectively) would 
automatically be considered approved by the Council on April 
23, 2004, if no member of the Council expressed opposition 
before that date. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
AGENDA ITEM TEN:  CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ISSUES 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶26.   (U) Schedule 2/3 Captive Use:  The Council approved the 
decision (EC-34/DEC/CRP.5/Rev.3) on the understanding of 
"captive use" in connection with declarations of Schedule 2/3 
production.  This closes one of the long-open agenda items 
before the industry cluster.  In sidebar discussions between 
the U.S. and Indian delegations, it became clear the Indians 
were looking for a face-saving way of accepting the document. 
 This was, presumably, due to the recent history of political 
attention (e.g., demarches) given by the U.S., UK, Canada and 
other State Parties and international industry organizations. 
 Del and the Indians worked on a non-substantive addition to 
the operative paragraph, which proved acceptable. 
 
¶27.   (U) Schedule 1 Captive Use: The Council agreed to 
continue consultations on the issue of Schedule 1 chemicals 
in captive use situations.  The German delegation circulated 
an updated, non-paper on the issue for consideration at the 
next industry cluster session. 
 
¶28.   (U) Schedule 2 Facility Agreements:  The Council agreed 
to continue consultations on the issue of Schedule 2 Facility 
Agreements.  Despite attempts by the facilitators to find 
compromise report language which instructed the TS to be more 
flexible in their decisions on whether to conclude a facility 
agreement (taking into account plant site complexity, 
activities, likelihood of inspection and requests of the 
inspected State Party), both the Indian and Iranian 
delegations blocked consensus.  The Indian and Iranian 
delegations view Schedule 2 Facility Agreements as a treaty 
requirement and are concerned with any "watering down" of the 
obligation to conclude a facility agreement.  Specifically, 
they oppose efforts they perceive are designed to bring the 
Schedule 2 negotiation process in line with that of Schedule 
3 and Other Chemical Production Facility agreements which are 
only concluded "unless requested" by the inspected State 
Party.  The proposed text had the support of the vast 
majority of States Parties in that it reduces the 
administrative burdens on both the TS and States Parties and 
clearly met the requirements of the treaty by providing the 
TS with the criteria necessary to "agree that it (facility 
 
SIPDIS 
agreement) is not needed." 
 
¶29.   (U) Clarification of Discrepancies:  On the issue of 
clarification requests of transfer discrepancies, the Council 
simply acknowledged they received a report of the facilitator 
on this issue.  The EC was unable to reach a consensus on 
draft report language designed to review the discussion on 
the topic held during the February 2004 round of 
consultations. The draft text encouraged the TS to continue 
to seek efficiencies in the clarification request process. 
The draft language also reflected that, during the 
consultations, some States Parties suggested that the TS 
consider the "relevant production thresholds" in determining 
what should be considered "significant" and, therefore, in 
need of clarification when balancing transfer discrepancies. 
The Indians, South Africans and Iranians opposed inclusion of 
status report text on an issue still under consultation.  An 
attempt to circulate the draft status report as an EC 
document and then cite the document in the report was also 
rejected. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
AGENDA ITEM ELEVEN:  CHANGES TO THE LIST 
OF APPROVED EQUIPMENT AND TO THE TECHNICAL 
SPECIFICATIONS FOR APPROVED EQUIPMENT 
------------------------------------------ 
¶30.  (U) The Council approved the list of approved equipment 
(EC-35/DG.1, dated 10 Oct 03) and recommended that the 
Conference at its Ninth Session approved the item for 
inclusion in the list of approved equipment.  The Council 
also approved the revisions to the specifications for the two 
items of approved equipment (EC-36/DEC/CRP.3). 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
AGENDA ITEM TWELVE:  LIST OF NEW VALIDATED DATA FOR INCLUSION 
IN THE OPCW CENTRAL ANALYTICAL DATABASE 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶31.  (U)  The Council considered the note by the 
Director-General on the list of new validated data for 
approval by the Council for inclusion in the OPCW Central 
Analytical Database (EC-36/DG.6, dated 5 February 2004), and 
adopted a decision on said list (EC-36/DEC/CRP.6, dated 5 
February 2004) without comments or amendments. 
 
---------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM 13:  ABAF Report 
---------------------------- 
 
¶32.  (U) The EC noted the report of the Advisory Body on 
Administrative and Financial Matters and the Director 
General's note on the ABAF Report.  With reference to the 
implementation of Results-Based Budgeting, South Africa 
proposed report language that the "Council requested the TS 
to implement only the recommendations by ABAF which have been 
adopted by the Executive Council."  However, the U.S. 
objected to that report language, and South Africa withdrew 
the proposal. 
 
--------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM 14:  Financial Issues 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶33.  (U)  Income/Expenditure, RBB, and Insurance Reports: 
The EC noted Income and Expenditure reports for the months 
November, December, and January, and noted that consultations 
continued on introducing Results-Based Budgeting.  The 
Council also noted the TS proposal on Non-Service Incurred 
Death and Disability (EC-36/S/10, faxed to AC/CB on March 
23), but only after deferral by the U.S. and considerable 
debate.  Director of Administration Schulz provided a status 
report on his consultations with an insurance consultant that 
helped assuage persistent questions about how the new 
coverage would be introduced.  The EC report drew on language 
proposed by the facilitator Ian Mundell (Canada) calling for 
immediate action to bring practice into conformity with 
existing regulations and phase out non-service incurred death 
and disability insurance coverage.  The report language was 
FAXed to AC/CB and was adopted by the EC exactly as had been 
approved by Washington. 
 
¶34.  (U)  Reorganization of the Travel Management Function: 
The EC noted the TS report on the reorganization of the 
travel management function.  On the margins of the EC, 
Director of Administration Schulz informed us that two firms 
were under consideration to undertake travel software 
development.  Schulz did not indicate when the final 
selection would be made, emphasizing that working directly 
with an outside contractor to obtain tickets would generate 
much more savings than automation would, perhaps 50% off 
current rates.  He commented that the sharpest increase in 
travel costs was due to top management at OPCW, whose travel 
costs had increased from 30,000 to 140,000 Euros. 
 
¶35.  (U) Home Leave Entitlements Policy (EC-36/S/4):  With 
inclusion of a non-substantive amendment proposed by India, 
the EC adopted U.S. report language as provided by Washington 
that mandates cost savings.  USDel recalled that the DG had 
undertaken to provide specific guidance on home leave travel, 
and the report language specified that the home leave policy 
ensure that costs were as economical as possible. 
 
¶36.  (U)  Article IV/V:  On the margins of the EC, Article IV 
and V funding facilitator Johan Verboom (Netherlands) hastily 
reconvened informal consultations on March 23 to explore 
whether it might still be possible to reach consensus on a 
draft decision for consideration by EC-36.  He and Peter 
Beerwerth (Germany) then tabled two new alternative texts for 
consideration (both faxed to AC/CB): 
 
-- Verboom's text was a revision of his March 15 draft 
decision, modified to address the "inequity" problem that 
Beerwerth had identified at the last round of informals on 
March 18 (see Weekly Wrap-up cable dated March 19), plus 
other minor fixes proposed by delegations. 
 
-- Beerwerth's contribution was threefold:  proposed 
revisions to Financial Regulations, an alternative draft 
decision, and a covering explanatory note.  He intended this 
to address the Art IV/V cashflow problem and associated 
Financial Regs at one swoop, but it also introduced new 
elements, including a 60-day deadline for Possessor States to 
pay Art IV/V verification invoices. 
 
¶37.  (U) Recognizing that there was little point in delving 
immediately into the substance of two texts, Verboom sought 
the views of delegations on the possibility of consulting 
with capitals overnight and discussing the drafts on March 
24, in hopes of reaching consensus on a single text before 
the EC wrapped up on March 26.  He and Beerwerth explained 
the need for quick action by noting that if there were no 
agreement at EC-36, the External Auditor would formalize the 
budget surplus for 2002, which Financial Regulations then 
require to be refunded to States Parties, rather than being 
applied to the Working Capital Fund.  Nevertheless, many 
delegations reported that their capitals would not have time 
to study and decide on a compromise text, especially on the 
new elements contained in Beerwerth's proposal, in time for 
an EC-36 decision. 
 
¶38.  (U) Russia put down a marker that any move to impose a 
60-day deadline for repaying invoices for Art IV/V 
verification costs would lead to "extensive consultations 
with our capital."  Italy did not voice objection to 
capitalizing the Working Capital Fund at 9 million Euros or 
to moving to cap of 2/12 of the regular budget, as it had in 
earlier consultations, but neither did it state its agreement 
to those changes.  Numerous delegations stated that their 
capitals would need to examine new language in both texts 
addressing the "inequity" issue.  This language would require 
those SPs which had not fully paid their assessed 
contributions to make additional, advance payments to top up 
the WCF, while those who had paid up would simply recycle 
their refund from previous years' surpluses into the WCF. 
Remaining surplus funds would be paid out to SPs in 
proportion to their paid, assessed contributions.  These 
questions will be discussed in the intersessional period. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
AGENDA ITEM 15:  OIO And External Auditor Reports 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶39.  (U) The EC considered and noted documents EC-36/DG.7 and 
EC-36/S/3.  Facilitator Ian Mundell (Canada) effectively made 
the U.S. points outlined in the guidance cable and stated the 
hope that subsequent reports on the implementation of 
recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight and of 
the External Auditor would provide a higher level of detail. 
Chiho Komuro (Japan) will succeed Mundell as OIO/EA 
facilitator, and has already expressed support for the U.S. 
push to improve the operations of the OIO and to press for 
"value for money" audits by the External Auditor. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM SIXTEEN:  Election of EC Chairman 
and Vice Chairman 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶40. (U) The Council elected Jose Antonio Arrospide Del Busto 
(Ambassador of Peru) as Chairman of the Executive Council 
beginning with EC-37 (June 2004).  Netherlands, Algeria, 
Pakistan, Russian Federation were elected as WEOG 
Vice-Chairs.  The Peruvian Ambassador stated that he would 
inform delegations when a decision had been reached on a 
suitable date for a special EC in May once the new Bureau is 
in place. 
 
---------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM 17: Any Other Business 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶41. (U) Tenure Implementation: The substance of the Director 
General's report on implementation of the tenure policy was 
not discussed by the EC.  Rather than "consider" the report, 
the Council decided that the report would be "received" by it 
and that it would be deferred to a future session.  Sudan 
(speaking for African Group), along with Italy, Pakistan, 
Sri-Lanka, Germany, Japan all made interventions asking for a 
deferral. 
 
¶42.  (U)  That did not stop a flood of interventions by 
delegations who wished to make sure they were on the record 
on what was recognized as a clearly pressing issue.  There 
was criticism of varying degrees of harshness in the 
speeches, but the DG largely came away unscathed.  There were 
many comments about the importance of staff morale.  In that 
regard, the DG informed the delegations that there were 
efforts under way by the TS to provide various types of 
transition assistance for staff who were separated under the 
tenure policy.  As Washington still has questions about the 
prospect of converting internationally recruited general 
service posts to local status, and opposed the voluntary 
non-renewal option, Ambassador Javits emphasized to DG 
Pfirter the importance of stating that such initiatives are 
still in the category of "work in progress" and will require 
consultations with States Parties.  The DG subsequently made 
that point very clear to the EC. 
 
¶43. (U) On conversion of internationally recruited GS posts 
to local status, Sudan (on behalf of the African Group) made 
a strong pitch for geographical representation arguing that 
Africa is badly underrepresented in the TS and called for a 
"quota system" (no further detail provided).  The DG stated 
that he was committed to geographical distribution -- to the 
extent possible -- and that this concept is just an idea that 
could, perhaps, be implemented for a one-year trial.  He 
argued that he was not trying to cut back the number of 
international slots at the TS, but merely trying to take 
advantage of the potentially large pool of international 
locals in the Netherlands. 
 
¶44. (U) Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) recommendations to 
the First RevCon:  As instructed, Del made an intervention to 
jumpstart the SAB on studying scientific and technological 
developments.  India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran all made 
interventions stating that the Council could only "receive" 
the report rather than "consider" it. Iran stated that 
informal consultations may be required on the document. 
 
¶45.  (U)  Javits sends. 
SOBEL