VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1530/01 1921046
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 111046Z JUL 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6283
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001530 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR DICASAGRANDE 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR 
46TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION, JULY 4-7 
 
REF: STATE 109387 
 
This is CWC-61-06. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) It has been clear for some time that EC-47 in 
November would be a crucial (and difficult) session.  The 
twin goals for EC-46 were to 1) lay a solid foundation for 
EC-47 approval of the U.S. request for an extension of its 
100% destruction deadline, and 2) establish an atmosphere and 
framework conducive to reaching key decisions at EC-47 on 
Article VII obligations.  Both goals were achieved.  On the 
extension request, delegations continued to respond 
positively to the transparent U.S. approach.  However, Russia 
made clear that it has a different approach in handling its 
extension request, particularly on the UK proposal for site 
visits.  As a result, other delegations appear energized to 
play some type of role concerning the Russian request, which 
may have some (still to be determined) spillover effect on 
the U.S. request. 
 
¶2.  (U) On Article VII, the immediate task was achieving 
substantive report language, but the overarching goal was to 
re-establish a positive negotiating atmosphere.  There were 
no key milestones for EC-46 from the decision at the 10th 
Conference of States Parties.  Those are all lined up for 
EC-47, and it would have been virtually impossible to reach 
agreement in November if EC-46 had crashed and burned on 
Article VII.  A tortuous negotiating procedure finally 
generated solid report language and a constructive 
atmosphere.  Notably, the Technical Secretariat said it felt 
it has a clear Article VII mandate and direction from 
delegations. 
 
¶3.  (U) In addition, the EC made some important decisions. 
Financial rules were finally approved for the OPCW.  The 
Libyan extension requests were approved, as well as the 
China/Japan extension request on abandoned CW.  Moreover, the 
Director General put forth his proposed zero nominal growth 
budget for 2007.  And the first meeting was held for the 
working group preparing for the Second Review Conference. 
However, the key goal for EC-46, which was achieved, was to 
lay the foundation for success at a challenging EC in 
November.  End Summary. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
U.S. and Russian Destruction Deadlines 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) The U.S. presented its draft decision to the EC, 
highlighting that approval would not affect its obligation to 
destroy all CW by April 29, 2012, and the acceptance, in 
principle and under appropriate conditions, of site visits. 
The U.S. requested support for the decision at EC-47, and the 
document was quickly deferred, without comment from any other 
delegation.  A more detailed report on the state of play 
concerning the extension request and recommendations from the 
del will be provided septel. 
 
¶5. (U) In contrast to the U.S., the Russians appeared 
determined to draw as much attention as possible to their 
deadline extension request.  Several delegations (UK, France, 
Germany and Mexico) requested deferral of the decision, with 
the first three emphasizing the absence of a provision for 
site visits.  Russia then noted that the UK proposal from 
EC-45 had no official status and indicated it was unclear to 
which agenda item it even applied.  In subsequent bilateral 
discussions, the UK noted Russia exhibited little to no 
flexibility on incorporating language on site visits in their 
decision text. 
 
¶6. (U) When the EC returned to the issue later in the 
session, Russia's unwillingness to concede the need to defer 
the decision to EC-47 drew statements from France, Germany, 
Ireland, Finland, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Norway, 
 
Sweden, Belgium, Brazil and the UK (which had coordinated the 
reaction) pressing for acceptance of site visits.  Russia 
voiced opposition to this, arguing that it was not a good use 
of time, money and effort, and that Russia still intended to 
meet the 2012 deadline.  Russia also argued there were no 
basis in the CWC for such visits, and that this could be 
discussed in consultations after approval of the Russian 
decision.  The Russian delegation also stated that this 
should not be an annual exercise, captured in the draft 
decision, but instead could be on conducted on a case-by-case 
basis, if necessary. 
 
¶7. (U) Finally, Russia introduced last minute changes to EC 
report language to add references to the original Russian 
extension request in 2001 and the 2003 CSP decision that 
extended the 100 percent deadline in principle.  Though 
factually correct, this raised concerns among many EU 
countries over the implication that, given the "in principle" 
extension already granted, Russia was under no real pressure 
to negotiate the terms of its current draft decision.  The 
U.S. del requested that equivalent report language be added, 
referring to a virtually identical 2003 CSP decision on U.S. 
deadlines.  This provoked a response from Iran, who used the 
opportunity to highlight the differences between U.S. and 
Russian circumstances.  The issue was resolved with the 
addition of previously approved text affirming that the 2003 
CSP decisions did not alter U.S. or Russian obligations under 
the treaty. 
 
----------- 
Article VII 
----------- 
 
¶8. (U) The EC noted the DG's report, and after extensive 
consultations in both informal and small group settings, 
delegations finally agreed on Article VII report language. 
India, supported by Algeria, Iran, India, Mexico, Pakistan, 
and Algeria, presented competing draft report language, 
noting progress and exhorting implementing states to continue 
their efforts.  The U.S., supported by Australia, Belgium, 
Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Japan, 
New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland and the UK, preferred 
stronger language, reflecting the work that needs to be 
completed by EC-47. 
 
¶9. (U) The U.S. noted that the necessary elements for 
implementing states are establishment of National 
Authorities, finalizing drafts of implementing legislation, 
submitting plans for enacting legislation, and requesting 
assistance.  A paragraph should also encourage states willing 
and able to do so to assist implementing states.  Acceptance 
of the latter element was the most difficult.  Finally, only 
Pakistan was unwilling to accept the assistance paragraph, 
noting strict instructions from capital.  After yet another 
small group session, Pakistan reluctantly accepted revised 
language (in nearly incomprehensible English, with many 
clauses and sub clauses) regarding the provision of 
assistance to implementing states. 
 
¶10. (U) After the report language was approved, Iran 
intervened to protest the protracted Article VII negotiation 
process.  Although many critical issues were on the EC-46 
agenda, Iran and other small delegations were unable to 
attend to them because of the endless Article VII sessions. 
Iran pleaded for the facilitator to change the way he manages 
the effort, in order to allow time to focus on other issues. 
(Note: Privately, the Iranian told del rep that the 
facilitator was not holding bilateral discussions on his 
drafts, which prevented him from presenting delegations with 
a near consensus text.  In the Iranian's opinion, this 
resulted in the on-going difficulties negotiating the draft 
language.) 
 
----------- 
China/Japan 
----------- 
 
¶11. (U) The EC approved, without discussion, the joint 
 
China/Japan request to extend the deadline for completing 
destruction of CW abandoned in China by Japan to April 29, 
¶2012.  (Comment:  the Japanese del privately confirmed that, 
because of sensitivity to Chinese concerns, the abandoned CW 
in China, though all pre-1946 and mostly in deteriorated 
condition, would not also be considered "old CW."  This 
explains why the reference to old and abandoned CW in the 
original draft decision, which was added by the TS on its 
own, was removed at the request of Japan and China.  End 
comment.) 
 
¶12. (SBU) U.S./PRC bilateral consultations:  On the margins 
of the EC, del reps from Washington discussed informally with 
MFA representatives from Beijing the Chinese proposal to hold 
bilateral discussions on CWC implementation issues in the 
fall.  The PRC representatives were Chen Kai of the MFA 
office responsible for CBW issues (and previously on the 
Chinese OPCW delegation), and a Mr. Yu from the Japanese ACW 
office.  The U.S. confirmed that it planned to respond to the 
China's proposal in the near future, and informally suggested 
that the meeting be held the week following EC-47, which is 
scheduled for November 7-10.  Kai indicated China was very 
flexible regarding the carrying out of these discussions and 
saw this as hopefully the first in a series of meetings. 
 
¶13. (SBU) The PRC reps indicated that China planned to open 
the discussions with detailed presentations about the status 
of CWC implementation in the areas of industry and ACW.  Kai 
also mentioned previous bilateral discussions on CWC 
declarations, and expressed a willingness to continue such 
talks.  Yu, who said that the ACW office was taking the lead 
from the CBW office, said that Japan and China are nearing 
the end of the initial design phase of the destruction 
facility, and would soon start the "analysis period," when 
the plan would be evaluated in terms of feasibility, safety 
and environmental impact.  Yu said that his office was 
particularly interested in, inter alia, the U.S. perspective 
on these aspects, and ultimately would be interested in 
visiting a U.S. CW destruction facility.  U.S. reps said that 
they would communicate PRC thinking on the bilateral 
discussions of the ACW issue to Washington.  Both sides 
agreed that it would be useful if materials for the 
discussions could be exchanged in advance. 
 
¶14. (SBU) Del rep informed a member of the Japanese 
delegation about the current status of the issue of 
U.S./China bilateral discussions.  Del rep offered 
reassurances that the U.S. would continue to keep Japan fully 
informed in advance of further actions, including, if 
possible, explaining to the Japanese what the U.S. intended 
to present on the CW destruction issue.  The Japanese rep 
expressed appreciation. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
Second Review Conference Working Group Meeting 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶15. (U) Ambassador Parker (UK) chaired the first preparatory 
meeting for the Second Review Conference on July 7.  Most of 
the discussion focused on dates for future meetings and the 
structure and themes.  Delegates agreed on the following 
three dates for meetings: Friday, September 29; Monday, 
November 13 (the Monday after EC-47); and Monday, December 4 
(the Monday of the CSP that starts on Tuesday).  Thereafter, 
Ambassador Parker will hold meetings every 4-6 weeks. 
 
¶16. (U) Parker said that the informal bureau had already met 
once and decided that the meetings and the RevCon itself 
should be structured in such a way that all delegations will 
be able to contribute.  To that end, Parker committed to 
notify all delegations well in advance of meetings and any 
other activities related to the conference.  He also said 
that informal papers and other documents related to the 
conference, including an informal summary of each meeting, 
would be posted on the external server.  Parker proposed that 
the first RevCon report would serve as a starting point for 
discussions. 
 
¶17. (U) The DG said that the TS had begun work on a summary 
of TS activities since the last RevCon and he hoped to have 
the report ready in time for the next meeting. He also 
informed delegates that former senior advisor Ralf Trapp had 
been hired on a consultancy basis to serve as an advisor to 
the RevCon.  The DG told delegates that he has already asked 
the Scientific Advisory Board and the International Union of 
Applied Chemistry to provide their thoughts on the RevCon. 
The DG said that the Congress Center was available from April 
7-18, 2008 for the RevCon, and Parker asked that delegates 
inform him by the end of September if any had a problem with 
those dates. 
 
¶18. (U) On the subjects to be covered at the conference, the 
UK suggested that there should be a focus on issues that 
remain outstanding from the first RevCon.  The UK also laid 
down a marker and said it did not believe that any amendments 
of the CWC would need to be considered to deal with new toxic 
chemicals.  The UK also said it would be premature to discuss 
destruction deadlines at the RevCon.  They called for solid 
input from the SAB and a greater focus on assistance and 
protection as well as universality and Article VII at the 
conference. 
 
¶19. (U) Germany and Japan generally supported the UK view, 
with Japan adding that the modalities for including NGO and 
other non-SP participation would have to be closely examined. 
 The Japanese also supported using the First RevCon as a 
starting point for discussions.  India said they were opposed 
to an issues-based approach to the conference and would 
prefer instead to go article by article through the CWC. 
Iran supported the Japanese proposal that non-SP 
participation be closely studied. 
 
¶20. (U) EC-46 results are outlined below, with numbering from 
the annotated provisional agenda. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
Item 3 - Statement by the Director General 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶21. (U) DG Pfirter gave his customary overview of the 
activities of the Technical Secretariat.  He noted the 
extension requests for destruction of Category 1 chemical 
weapons, and also referred to the extension request of China 
and Japan concerning abandoned CW.  Pfirter said six CW 
destruction facilities were operational, and three additional 
CWDFs will resume or start operations in July.  He also noted 
the destruction delay in Albania.  He mentioned the 
uncertainty in a Schedule 2 inspection in Germany, and that 
the TS and Germany are working on the issue.  The 
Verification Information System has had consistent progress, 
but needs cooperation from States Parties; he cited the 
necessity to move to electronic submission of declarations. 
The TS is preparing to provide assistance to facilitate this 
transition, utilizing meetings of National Authorities, 
seminars and workshops. 
 
¶22. (U) On International Cooperation and Assistance, Pfirter 
cited TS work to improve national capabilities, assistance 
and protection courses and training in advanced live-agents. 
He commented on implementation support activities, and noted 
progress on Article VII and member states assistance in 
Technical Assistance Visits.  The DG expressed thanks for 
"the remarkable way in which the U.S. has been assisting us." 
 
¶23. (U) The DG noted the universality workshop in Rome in 
October, reporting that he wrote to the Foreign Ministers of 
Egypt, Israel, Lebanon and Syria inviting them to send 
high-level representatives to the meeting.  He also mentioned 
the universality workshop in Africa, hosted by Algeria in 
November.  Pfirter reported on work preparing for the 10th 
anniversary of the CWC in 2007.  He was also pleased to note 
the progress on preparations for the Second Review Conference 
in 2008.  The DG spoke about his proposed 2007 budget, 
reiterating the points he made when he presented it to 
delegations on June 28, and he was pleased to note the 
appointment of Walter Leon (Belgium) and Hela Lahmar 
 
(Tunisia) as the new budget co-facilitators.  The DG also 
highlighted the approval of the OPCW's Financial Rules after 
a delay of nine years. 
 
¶24. (U) Pfirter mentioned his note cataloging instruments 
signed by the TS with governments of SPs and organs of 
equivalent function, and proposed this list be updated in the 
annual report of the OPCW.  In regard to the tenure policy, 
he submitted his annual report on implementation, stressing 
that he is still fine-tuning the document he will present to 
the EC this autumn about possible modifications on tenure 
policy.  He regretted the late circulation of documents for 
EC-46, in particular the Verification Information Report, 
noting the short time frame between EC-45 and EC-46.  He has 
asked the Deputy DG and Office of Internal Oversight to look 
into this matter and report back to him. 
 
----------------------- 
Item 4 - General Debate 
----------------------- 
 
¶25. (U) There were only 14 speakers, a relatively small 
number.  With the exception of Sudan, the main topic was 
extension requests, and the second was Article VII.  (Sudan 
reversed the order.)  Delegations stressed that destruction 
should not go beyond 2012, implying that destruction beyond 
that date would damage the CWC.  Japan and China made note of 
their joint extension request on Japanese ACW in China. 
Russia said although progress has been made on destruction, 
there is a lot to be done.  They noted nearly all possessor 
states are having trouble meeting deadlines.  (Note:  This 
was the only topic Russia discussed in its speech.) 
 
¶26.  (U) A few delegations, including Finland for the EU, 
Mexico and ROK mentioned the possibility of visits to 
capitals and sites to increase transparency on this issue, 
with the EU emphasizing the political dimension of holding 
discussions in capitals.  On Article VII, most delegations 
acknowledged progress made to date and NAM delegations 
praised the cooperation and assistance approach, encouraging 
continued use of this approach.  Sudan, on behalf of the 
Africa Group, noted their concern on under-representation of 
Africans in the TS. 
 
¶27. (U) (Note: During the writing of the EC-46 report, Sudan 
asked for an addition to the General Debate paragraph 
reflecting the Africa Group's stated concern on this matter. 
The U.S. stressed that a precedent of listing key items 
raised by all speakers in the debate would lead to an 
unwieldy process.  The DG stated that the TS always has 
equitable geographical representation in mind while staffing 
the TS.  He also gave his personal assurances this will 
continue to be the case.  Sudan accepted these reassurances 
from the DG.) 
 
¶28. (U) Most delegations praised the DG's 2007 zero nominal 
growth budget and welcomed the budget co-facilitators.  ICA 
was an important topic for the NAM, calling for additional 
funding.  They also noted the need for complete 
implementation of Article XI.  Nearly half of the delegations 
called for completion of a new OCPF site selection 
methodology, some of whom noted political elements should not 
be included in the methodology.  Finally, most delegations 
were pleased work has begun on the second RevCon. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
Item 5 - Status of Implementation of Convention 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶29. (U) Item 5.1:  The EC agreed to defer until the next 
session the verification plan for the CWDF in India. 
Although the TS and India continue to discuss the remaining 
outstanding issues, the U.S. again stated that it was unable 
to join consensus on this plan and the associated facility 
agreement until all issues have been resolved.  (Comment: 
Senior TS reps informed del that India is finalizing its 
approval of the most recent draft Facility Agreement proposed 
by the TS.  As this draft apparently makes direct reference 
 
to a need to address continuing concerns at the facility, 
this is surprising, but welcome, progress.  End comment.) 
 
¶30. (U) Item 5.2: The EC approved the Albanian agreed 
detailed plan for verification of the destruction of CW for 
the Qaf-Molla CWDF. 
 
¶31. (U) Item 5.3:  At the request of the U.S., the combined 
plan for the destruction and verification of the Aberdeen 
Proving Ground, HD Production, Distillation, and Fill 
Facility was deferred until the next EC session due to late 
distribution of the document by the TS. 
 
¶32. (U) Item 5.4 and 5.5:  The EC approved the three 
corrections to the detailed plan for destruction for the 
VX-type substance and filling it into munitions at 
Novecheboksarsk. 
 
¶33. (U) Item 5.6: the EC approved the corrections to the 
detailed plan for conversion for the CWPF at Volgograd. 
 
¶34. (U) Item 5.7:  The EC agreed to note the Note by the TS 
on the progress in converting CWPFs for purposes not 
prohibited under the CWC. 
 
¶35. (U) Item 5.8: The U.S. and Russia gave a brief account of 
their progress to date on Category 1 CW destruction.  No 
other possessor state spoke under this agenda item. 
 
¶36. (U) Item 5.9: The EC noted the DG's report on the 
progress made by SPs that had received extensions to their 
CWC destruction deadlines. 
 
¶37. (U) Item 5.10:  United States Extension Request:  Noted 
above. 
 
¶38. (U) Item 5.11:  Russian Extension request:  Noted above. 
 
¶39. (U) Item 5.12:  Libya:  The EC approved, without 
discussion, the recommendation to the CSP establishing new 
intermediate destruction deadlines, as well as extending the 
100 percent deadline. 
 
¶40. (U) Item 5.13:  China/Japan Request on ACW:  Noted above. 
 
¶41. (U) Item 5:14: Albania: The facility agreement for the 
CWDF at Qaf-Molla was adopted by the EC. 
 
¶42. (U) Item 5.15: Schedule 2 facility agreements.  The EC 
agreed to note the Note by the DG updating on the progress of 
Schedule 2 facility agreements.  This result was achieved 
after lengthy discussions between the TS, Italy, Germany, 
Japan, and France, with assistance by the U.S.  Italy's 
concern was that the Annex to the DG's Note contained the 
positions of the SPs (for example, the language for France 
says "France does not want to finalize any facility 
agreements at present") and that this implied a willingness 
by the TS to go against the language of Verification Annex 
Part III.  (It should be noted that the TS has requested 
Italy to finalize nine Schedule 2 facility agreements, to 
which Italy agreed.  It appears that Italy wants other SPs to 
be held to this same standard.)  Amended language was agreed 
upon, and the TS agreed to a corrigendum to the Annex. 
 
¶43. (U) Item 5.16: Article VII.  Noted above. 
 
¶44. (U) Item 5.17: Full implementation of Article X. The 
previously agreed language was approved. 
 
¶45. (U) Item 5.18: Report by DG on readiness of the TS to 
conduct a challenge inspection.  The EC deferred, at U.S. 
request, consideration of the document to EC-47 due to late 
distribution of the document. 
 
¶46. (U) Item 5.19: 2005 Verification Implementation Report. 
The EC deferred the 2005 VIR until EC-47 due to late 
distribution of the document. 
 
¶47. (U) Item 5.20:  Transfers of Schedule 3 chemicals.  This 
item was added to the agenda at the beginning of the EC 
meeting, upon a recommendation by the facilitator (Arya 
Sandeep, India) to the EC chair that he expected there to be 
consensus reached during the week.  This move, in and of 
itself, angered some delegations (e.g., the Netherlands). 
Del rep made a recommendation in the consultations of last 
week on a preambular paragraph that would incorporate a 
reference to the CSP-10 decision concerning universality, 
with a hope that this would eliminate out-of-context 
references to pieces of this decision in the operative 
paragraphs.  Although this suggestion was well-received and 
spurred the spirit of progress, eventually the gap between 
Iran and the other interested delegations could not be fully 
closed.  The item was deferred, at Germany's recommendation 
and supported by the U.S.  The facilitator is leaving, and 
the TS and Industry Cluster vice-chair are already soliciting 
ideas on his replacement. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
Item 6 - Draft Report of the OPCW for 2006 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶48. (U) The Council considered the draft report of the OPCW 
for 2005 (EC-46/CRP.2, dated June 30, 2006).  Initially Iran 
had asked that the report be deferred, as it could not accept 
the language in paragraph 1.31 related to challenge 
inspections.  Ultimately the U.S., UK and Iran agreed on 
compromise language for this paragraph and the report was 
considered.  The TS will post the report on its website. 
 
------------------------------------ 
Item 7 - Lists of New Validated Data 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶49. (U) Items 7.1 and 7.2: It was announced that the TS Note 
assessing the implications of the data contained in the lists 
of validated data set out in EC-42/DEC/CRP.5, dated 9 
September 2005, was not yet available.  As a result, 
consideration and approval of these lists of new validated 
data were deferred to EC-47. 
 
¶50. (U) (Note: The Del has seen drafts of this TS Note, as 
prepared by the staff of the OPCW Laboratory, in coordination 
with the Validation Group.  Because the lists of validated 
data in question contain unscheduled degradation products and 
riot control agents (RCA), there is apparently concern within 
some delegations about this data being used during routine 
inspections.  To this end, this TS Note states in part that 
the inclusion of this unscheduled degradation product and RCA 
data would have the following implications: (1) data would 
not be used in routine inspections under Article VI; (2) data 
would not impact any declaration requirements; (3) data for 
RCA would only be used in inspections related to alleged use; 
(4) data for unscheduled degradation products would only be 
used in inspections related to alleged use or in challenge 
inspections; and, (5) subject to facility agreements, the 
data may be used in chemical weapons destruction site 
monitoring.  The Del does not anticipate any USG concerns 
with this type of Note, but there is a possibility that 
delegations like the UK might not want the TS to be 
restricted in any way in how they use this data, even though 
the Note clearly expresses TS views.) 
 
¶51. (U) Item 7.3: In accordance with the DG Note (EC-46/DG.1, 
dated 7 June 2006), the Council considered and approved the 
lists of new validated data found in EC-46/DEC/CRP.1, dated 
16 June 2006 without any comment from delegations. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
Item 8 - Establishment of an OPCW Office in Africa 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶52. (U) Facilitator Andres Rugeles (Colombia) made an oral 
report to the EC on the status of this issue.  In the 
intersessional period he met with the TS to request 
information on how other international organizations with 
regional offices operate, including how and whether the OPCW 
 
can utilize the UN relationship agreement.  He has also met 
with African Ambassadors to request their feedback on a 
proposed location, technical functions, administration and 
interaction with the TS program of work for the Africa 
Office.  Rugeles indicated he will work with both the TS and 
Africa Group to compile the information he has requested.  He 
plans to hold open-ended consultations taking this 
information as a base to work from.  The head of the Africa 
Group (Sudan), expressed his desire for the consultations to 
begin prior to the summer recess.  He also encouraged 
delegations to continue their support for an OPCW Office in 
Africa. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
Item 9 - Administrative and Financial Matters 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶53. (U) Item 9.1:  Draft Programme and Budget for 2007.  The 
EC received the Draft Programme and Budget for 2007.  The 
U.S., Russia, Japan, Sudan and Germany expressed initial 
support for the proposed budget.  Germany called on all SPs 
to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time. 
 
¶54. (U) Item 9.2:  Regularize the payment of dues to the 
OPCW.  The EC deferred action on this item to allow for 
continued consultations. 
 
¶55. (U) Item 9.3:  Audited financial statements for period 31 
December 2005.  The EC considered the financial statements of 
the OPCW for 2005 and the External Auditor's report.  The 
facilitator Chiho Komuro (Japan) also gave an oral report. 
 
¶56. (U) Item 9.4:  OPCW financial rules.  The EC considered 
and approved the Draft Financial Rules.  Prior to approving 
the rules, facilitator Richard Snelsire (U.S.) noted that the 
word "the" had been deleted from the agreed text in rule 
10.6.04(d) in the last sentence preceding "(inspection 
requirements."  Del will send a letter this week to the TS 
Legal Advisor making clear the USG position that 10.6.04(d) 
does not/not in any way require that vendors must certify 
that inspection equipment must be available to all SPs to be 
eligible for purchase. 
 
¶57. (U) Item 9.5:  Report by DG on implementation of OPCW 
policy on tenure.  The EC considered and noted the report. 
The U.S. noted from the floor that future reports on the 
impact of tenure should be more comprehensive in nature. 
 
¶58. (U) Item 9.6:  Transfer Between OPCW Provident Fund and 
UN Joint Staff Pension Fund.  This item was withdrawn from 
the agenda. 
 
--------------------- 
Item 10 - ABAF Report 
--------------------- 
 
¶59. (U) The EC considered and noted the report and the DG's 
note commenting on the ABAF report.  The Council also noted 
the resignation from ABAF of Michael Szlezak.  Del rep 
intervened to give points per guidance. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
Item 11 - Note by DG on Instruments Signed by the Secretariat 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶60. (U) The Council noted the note (EC-45/DG.11, dated May 
11, 2006 and Add.1., dated June 26, 2006). 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
Item 12 - Credentials of Representatives to the EC 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶61. (U) This item was approved without discussion. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Item 13 - Provisional Agenda for CSP-11 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶62. (U) The EC, without discussion, "drew up" (i.e., 
approved) the provisional agenda for CSP-11. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
Item 14 - Dates for Executive Council Sessions in 2007 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶63. (U) The EC approved the proposed dates for regular 
sessions of the EC in 2007.  Per guidance, the EC approved 
report language noting that intersessional activity would 
continue through mid-July.  The EC, at the UK's request, also 
approved report language that requested the TS to provide by 
EC-47 a projected plan of work for the EC in 2007 so that the 
EC could determine if four full EC sessions would be needed. 
The dates are: Forty-Eighth: March 13-16; Forty-Ninth: June 
26-29; Fiftieth: September 25-28; Fifty-First: November 27-30. 
 
¶64. (U) 2008 CSP:  Del rep informed Alexander Khodakov, the 
director of the Secretariat for the Policy-Making Organs, 
that the U.S. wished to have the 2008 CSP in December. 
Khodakov said the U.S. request was sufficient for the TS to 
arrange a provisional reservation with the Congress Center in 
The Hague.  The specific dates for December 2008 could then 
be put to the EC for consideration at EC-47 with approval at 
CSP-11 in December 2006. 
 
---------------------------- 
Item 15 - Any Other Business 
---------------------------- 
 
¶65. (U) No topics were discussed under this item. 
 
¶66. (U) Ito sends. 
ARNALL