VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0299/01 1750635
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 240635Z JUN 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9716
INFO RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 0532
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 0299

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000299 
 
STATE FOR IO/T, ISN/MNSA, ISN/RA 
NA-243-GOOREVICH/OEHLBERT, BRUNNS; NA-241 O'CONNOR, 
SIEMON; NA-21- CUMMINS, ILIOPULOS; 
NE- MCGINNIS, PERKO, CLAPPER 
NRC FOR OIP - DOANE, HENDERSON, SCHWARTZMAN 
ROME FOR USFAO 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY
 
SUBJECT:  IAEA:  JUNE BOARD WRAP UP 
 
Ref: a) UNVIE 279 b) UNVIE 281 c) UNVIE 286 d)UNVIE 289 e)UNVIE 293 
f) UNVIE 292 g) SECSTATE 61320  h) UNVIE 253 
 
¶1. (SBU) Despite Mission's efforts to improve the divisive 
atmosphere in the IAEA Board of Governors, a public row between 
Director General Elbaradei and Israel under the Syria agenda item 
detracted from this objective (ref d), as did continued divisions 
over the IAEA budget, which were likewise the subject of a direct 
intervention by ElBaradei (ref a).  Among our highest priorities for 
the June Board was the discussion of nuclear fuel assurances, which 
was included for the first time as a formal agenda item.  The Board 
agreed to continue consultations and discussions while the 
Secretariat further elaborates a conceptual framework for fuel bank 
proposals, thus laying the groundwork for future decisions(septel). 
On verification issues, the majority of Board members, with the 
notable exception of the NAM troika (Cuba, Egypt, Malaysia), 
seconded the Director General's call for Iranian and Syrian 
cooperation with respective IAEA investigations (refs c-e).  There 
was universal condemnation on the part of the Director General and 
Board members of DPRK's nuclear test and support for UNSCR 1874 (ref 
f.)  The discussion of the Safeguards Implementation Report 
registered general support for implementation of strengthened 
safeguards, including through the Additional Protocol and the 
state-level approach (septel).  Under this agenda item, the U.S. and 
likeminded delegations called for continued cooperation by Egypt. 
Iraq, seconded by the U.S. (and Japan under Any Other Business), 
requested an agenda item for the September Board meeting on its 
safeguards compliance (septel).  The Director General repeated his 
reservations about placing this issue on the agenda absent entry 
into force of an Additional Protocol. 
 
¶2. (SBU) This cable covers remaining agenda items from the June 
Board, including the Annual Report, Technical Cooperation Report, 
General Conference agenda items, Designation of Board members, 
Appointment of the Director General and De-restriction of Board 
documents.  The Board upheld the 1996 policy on de-restriction and 
the Board's existing authority to release documents.  Under the 
respective agenda items, the Board released the SIR report summary 
and the DG's report on Iran, as has been the practice, but there was 
no consensus to release the Syria report (ref d).  In addition, 
under Any Other Business, the U.S. and Netherlands highlighted the 
Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism Plenary in The Hague 
and the role of the IAEA on nuclear security.  End Summary. 
 
-------------  --------------------------- 
Agenda Item 1: DG's Introductory Statement 
-------------  --------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) In addition to his introductory comments on Iran (ref e), 
Syria (ref d), DPRK (ref f), assured supply (septel) and the budget 
(ref a), the Director General highlighted capacity building via the 
Technical Cooperation program in major areas including human health 
(the largest area), taking note of PACT support for Ghana in 
particular; food and agriculture and nuclear safety. Although the TC 
fund achieved a 94.7 percent rate of attainment (79.9 million USD), 
he noted the negative impact of the declining U.S. dollar and 
obstacles to implementation such as visa delays and denials of 
shipments.  The Director General also welcomed the launch of the 
WHO-IAEA Joint Program on Cancer Control and announced that the FAO 
had withdrawn its notice of termination of the 45-year old FAO-IAEA 
Joint Division.  The DG took note of the April 2008 Beijing 
Ministerial on nuclear energy at which he remarked no country had 
scaled back plans for nuclear power; thus, continued high demand for 
IAEA assistance should be expected.  The Director General then 
mounted a strong defense of nuclear security as a core function of 
the Agency, noting that it would be "irresponsible and 
incomprehensible" for the IAEA to not have a robust, well funded and 
independent nuclear security program.  With respect to nuclear 
verification, ElBaradei welcomed the conclusion of CSAs and 
Additional Protocols by Rwanda and Serbia but lamented that there 
were still 20 states with significant nuclear activities that have 
yet to bring into force an AP.  He also noted that the Agency 
planned to complete installation of an Ultra-high sensitivity SIMS 
by 2010 and made a pitch for funding upgrades at the Safeguards 
Analytical Laboratory. 
 
-------------  ----------------------- 
Agenda Item 2:  Annual Report for 2008 
-------------  ----------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) Most Member States making interventions on this agenda item 
commended the Secretariat for the format and quality of the Annual 
Report (GOV/2009/23) and the additional information, which 
highlighted major issues, challenges and emerging trends in the 
three pillars of nuclear technology, safety and security and 
verification.   Member States welcomed IAEA activities related to 
the promotion of nuclear energy and energy assessment services; 
innovation in reactor and fuel cycle technologies; nuclear 
applications in the areas of food, agriculture, water and human 
health, including the treatment of cancer; ensuring the availability 
of radioisotopes; meeting the Millennium Development Goals; nuclear 
knowledge management and human capacity building; safety-related 
activities, including, radiation and transport safety/the issue of 
denial of shipments, decommissioning and waste management; as well 
as nuclear security and verification activities.  Several member 
states also commented on the Agency's need for resources. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Ambassador Schulte delivered a wide-ranging U.S. statement 
on transforming President Obama's vision articulated in Prague of a 
world free of nuclear weapons, strengthening the nonproliferation 
regime and combating nuclear terrorism into a "new spirit of 
Vienna."  To realize this, Ambassador Schulte called for ensuring 
increased resources and authorities for the IAEA; continuation of 
investigations in Iran and Syria and support for denuclearization in 
the DPRK, establishment of nuclear fuel banks as part of a new 
framework for civil nuclear cooperation, and support for the IAEA 
nuclear security program.  (Full text available at 
www.vienna.usmission.gov.) 
 
¶5. (SBU) Argentina, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, 
appreciated the work of the Agency in supporting nuclear power with 
more than 50 states planning to introduce nuclear power, as well as 
non-power activities, in particular, food and agriculture programs 
and the Program of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT.) The Group also 
reiterated the importance of nuclear safety, commending the Agency 
for its work in the revision of international basic safety standards 
(BSS), and noting the results of an emergency exercise conducted in 
Mexico in July 2008, known as ConvEx-3.  Bolivia, speaking on behalf 
of GRULAC likewise highlighted IAEA assistance with the expansion of 
nuclear power in the region, nuclear applications, and safety 
activities including radiation and transport safety/the issue of 
denial of shipments.  GRULAC noted, in particular, IAEA programs 
related to development of nuclear infrastructure, review of Member 
States nuclear regulations, and establishing import-export guidance 
for radioactive sources.  Finally, GRULAC noted it was pleased with 
the IAEA's broad TC program in 2008. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Several other states, including developing countries such 
as Egypt and India, highlighted the growth of nuclear power and 
support rendered by the IAEA TC program.  China applauded the 
Agency's nuclear energy promotional efforts and confirmed plans to 
increase its nuclear power generation to 25,300 MW.  Uruguay 
heralded innovations in small and mid-size reactors to fulfill the 
demand for nuclear power, while others (including Russia, India, and 
France) specifically cited such efforts by INPRO.  Nuclear safety 
and security was also the focus of many interventions.  Speaking in 
its national capacity, Argentina noted IAEA programs on radiological 
protection and safety and security training.  Ireland called for a 
greater emphasis on nuclear transport safety issues, and New Zealand 
was critical of the report's coverage of maritime transport safety, 
in particular.  Noting the transit of nuclear materials via the Suez 
Canal, Egypt called for adherence to transport and liability 
guidelines.  Speaking as non-Board members under Rule 50, Morocco 
also focused on nuclear safety and security, while the ROK linked 
the global increase in nuclear power to implementation of the 3Ss 
(safety, security, safeguards). 
 
¶7. (SBU) Concerning safeguards, Algeria and Argentina were notably 
skeptical about the "disproportionate" focus in the Annual Report on 
implementation of the Additional Protocol.  Argentina stressed the 
AP was voluntary and was concerned over the Agency's 
characterization of safeguards conclusions for states without 
Additional Protocols.  Algeria saw the focus on APs as an 
"imbalance" that discounted efforts of states to live up to their 
CSAs, and called for implementation of NPT Revcon decisions on a 
NWFZ in the Middle East (Comment:  Although Algeria has signed an 
AP, it seemed to echo Egypt's stance on linking adoption of an AP to 
progress on a NWFZ. End comment.) Egypt complained about the 
inability of the IAEA to apply safeguards in non-NPT parties and 
called for disarmament by nuclear weapons states. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Also taking the floor under Rule 50, Israel delivered a 
short intervention asking for the deletion of para 17 on page 82 and 
para 81 on page 14 of the Annual Report (i.e. references to Israel's 
destruction of the Al Kibar site in Syria) as they did not conform 
to the Agency's standards and practices and were not based on 
evidence.  No one responded to this intervention which left Arab 
delegations paging through the report.  (Comment:  According to the 
Israeli Ambassador, the basis for Israel's citatation of IAEA 
"practices" is the DG's previous reluctance to explicitly name 
states other than the target state when reporting on 
verification-related investigations. End Comment)  Israel delivered 
a similar intervention under the Safeguards Implementation Report 
agenda item before launching a wholesale offensive under the Syria 
item that prompted the DG's response (ref d). 
 
-------------  ----------------------- 
Agenda Item 3:  TC Report for 2008 
-------------  ----------------------- 
 
¶9. (U) TC DDG Ana Mara Cetto summarized the Technical Cooperation 
Report for 2008 (GOV/2009/27), highlighting major areas of activity 
for the TCP in 2008, namely: health-related projects, food and 
agriculture initiatives, and nuclear safety, i.e. decommissioning of 
nuclear waste.  Cetto noted the increasing interaction between the 
IAEA and other United Nations offices, and asserted that the 
effectiveness of TC projects increased substantially in 2008 because 
of closer linkages between recipient countries' requests and 
respective priorities as listed in Country Program Frameworks 
(CPFs). 
 
¶10. (U) Canada and some G-77 countries expressed dissatisfaction 
with the geographic distribution of TC funds and called for a review 
of distribution.  Canada noted that Europe receives the most funding 
even though most of its membership is developed.  Spain considered 
the low percentage of TC funds for Latin America insufficient and 
was joined by Mexico in calling for more funding for the region. 
The Czech Republic, on behalf of the European Union, called for the 
redistribution of resources in order to support the most 
disadvantaged countries and regions.  As usual, the G-77 reiterated 
its call for "sufficient, assured, and predictable" funding for TC 
activities.  The U.S. and UK called on Member States to pay in full 
and on time any shares of the TCF or National Program Costs. 
Several Member States expressed concern about the lower rate of 
attainment in 2008 while many emphasized that the objective of the 
rate of attainment mechanism is to reach 100 percent.  China and 
Spain called on the Secretariat to protect TC funds from currency 
fluctuations while Switzerland went further to suggest TC funds be 
switched to a "more stable" currency than the U.S. dollar, but did 
not specify which currency.  Egypt and Malaysia suggested that the 
extra-budgetary, voluntary nature of some TC funding is deleterious 
to the Program's effectiveness and joined the G-77 statement is 
calling for predictable funding. 
 
¶11. (U) A number of G-77 countries and China took issue with DDG 
Cetto's announcement that CPFs would have to be modified every five 
years and are considered by the Division to be the guiding documents 
for a countries TC priorities.  G-77 members and China argued that 
CPFs are not legally binding documents and Member States should not 
be forced to strictly adhere to them or update them on a regular 
basis.  The EU called for CPFs to be made available to all Member 
States so potential donors could get a more detailed picture of a 
country's TC priorities.  DDG Cetto did not comment on whether CPFs 
would be released in the future. 
 
-------------  ----------------------------- 
Agenda Item 7:  Designation of Board Members 
-------------  ----------------------------- 
 
¶12. (U) Pursuant to Article VI.A.1, the Board of Governors  approved 
by consensus the designation of 13 countries to serve as Board 
members for 2009-2010:  Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, 
Germany, India, Japan, Russian Federation, South Africa, Switzerland 
(replacing Finland as part of the Western Europe rotation), the 
United Kingdom and the United States.  Under Article VI.A.1, 
designated Board members are the most advanced in the technology of 
atomic energy in their respective geographic areas. 
 
-------------  ----------------------- 
Agenda Item 8:  Appointment of the DG 
-------------  ----------------------- 
 
¶13. (U) The Board Chair took note of the results of May 25  informal 
straw poll for the DG race and informed the Board that none of the 
five candidates have withdrawn (including Belgian candidate Poncelet 
and Slovenian candidate Petric both of whom received no votes).  A 
Special Session of the Board will be convened July 2-3 to conduct 
the formal vote, beginning with elimination rounds on the morning of 
July 2. 
 
-------------  ----------------------- 
Agenda Item 9:  Provisional GC Agenda 
-------------  ----------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) The Director General consulted the Board of Governors on 
the Provisional Agenda for the 53rd IAEA General Conference in 
September.  Only the United States made a short statement taking 
note of the agenda item on Application of Safeguards in the Middle 
East and encouraging a holistic approach to safeguards 
implementation and compliance in the region.  The U.S. welcomed 
constructive consultations in the hopes of achieving consensus. 
Arab delegations were silent.  The Arab Group can request the 
introduction of an additional agenda item on "Israeli Nuclear 
Capabilities" up to 30 days prior to the General Conference. 
 
--------------  ----------------------------------------- 
Agenda Item 10:  GC/Representation of Other Organizations 
--------------  ----------------------------------------- 
 
¶15. (U) The Board approved by consensus three new requests for 
accreditation as observers to the 2009 General Conference on the 
part of the OPEC Fund for International Development, The Center for 
Nonproliferation Studies and the U.S. Civilian Research and 
Development Foundation, in addition to the previously accredited 
organizations listed in GOV/2009/21. 
 
--------------  ----------------------------------- 
Agenda Item 11:  De-restriction of Board Documents 
--------------  ----------------------------------- 
 
¶16. (SBU) Cuba, speaking on behalf of the NAM, supported the 
maintenance of the two-year de-restriction policy for Board 
documents, approved by the Board in 1996 as per GOV/2009/25.  The 
NAM statement stipulated that the Board should only de-restrict a 
document before two years on an "exceptional" basis, and should do 
so only with the consent of the state or states discussed in the 
report.  The NAM also expressed concern regarding the security of 
information provided by member states to the agency and agency 
documents published on the restricted GovAtom website.  Cuba 
subsequently reiterated these points in a national capacity.  The 
United States observed that the current policy has served the Board 
well and did not need to be altered, while reasserting the Board's 
authority to de-restrict documents earlier or later than the end of 
the normal two-year period. Canada seconded the U.S. position and 
stated that the policy should be adjusted on a case-by-case basis. 
 
¶17. (SBU) The Board Chair's summary of this short debate reflected 
that the Board upheld the current policy and that any decision to 
de-restrict documents prior to the two year policy should be made on 
an "exceptional basis."  The summary also noted that "several 
members" took the view that Board documents should be de-restricted 
prior to two years "only with the agreement of the country or 
countries concerned."  Canada objected to this summary noting that 
some states did not want to grant the states concerned "veto power" 
over de-restriction of Board documents (Note: The NAM position 
reflects Syria's objection to release of the DG report on Syria. End 
Note.) Australia also requested that the summary reflect the fact 
that not all states supported early de-restriction only on an 
"exceptional basis."  The Chair insisted (inaccurately) that 
Australia's view was reflected in the summary.  Closing the debate, 
Iran stated that in order for a document to be balanced and fair, it 
must be made public.  (Comment:  The Board Chair and Secretariat had 
sought to shelve this agenda item, inserted by the NAM, with minimal 
debate and reaffirm existing policy.  Since there was no resolution 
amending that policy, the Board's 1996 decision stands. End 
comment.) 
 
------------------ 
Any Other Business 
------------------ 
 
¶18. (U) Japan spoke under AOB in support of Iraq's request, seconded 
by the U.S. during the SIR report discussion, for an agenda item at 
the September Board on Iraq's safeguards compliance pursuant to 
UNSCR 707 (ref b).  At the conclusion of the AOB statements, the 
Director General reiterated his view that this was an issue for the 
UN Security Council and that placing the issue on the agenda for 
September was premature given that Iraq has not brought its 
 
Additional Protocol into force.  Without an AP in force, the DG 
could not draw a broad conclusion as to the completeness of Iraq's 
declarations and the absence of undeclared nuclear material. 
 
¶19. (U) The United States and The Netherlands, speaking under Rule 
50, highlighted the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism 
(GCINT) Plenary being held at the Hague.  The United States noted 
IAEA participation in GCINT and the IAEA's crucial role in promoting 
nuclear security best practices.  The Netherlands noted its pledge 
of 250,000 Euros to the IAEA nuclear security fund made at the GINCT 
Plenary on June 16. 
 
¶20. (U) Also under AOB, Canada updated the Board on the recent shut 
down of its medical isotope-producing reactor at Chalk River and the 
peer review of Canada's nuclear safety.  Full information on the 
cause and implications of the reactor shut down will be unavailable 
until the ongoing investigation concludes, Canada noted. Canada 
added that the peer review group found Canada's Canadian Nuclear 
Safety Commission does an "effective job," and the Canadian 
government is now implementing the peer review recommendations. 
 
¶21. (SBU) Finally, Serbia reported that on June 10 that the EU, 
Serbia, and Russia signed a nuclear energy cooperation agreement and 
that it is preparing to begin decommissioning work at Vinca in the 
fall and was testing relevant equipment.  Serbia noted that 
technical cooperation assistance from the IAEA played a major role 
in facilitating these projects. 
 
---------------- 
Senior Personnel 
----------------- 
 
¶22. (SBU) In closed session during the Board meeting the Director 
General informally consulted Governors on the following appointments 
to senior positions: 
 
-- Director, Division of Operations C, Department of Safeguards: 
Nobuhiro Muroya (Japan).  The DG noted Muroya's long experience in 
safeguards matters and his strong reputation among peers (we agree). 
 
 
-- Director, Division of Nuclear Power, Department of Nuclear 
Energy: Jong Kyun Park (ROK). Looking at the USDEL, ElBaradei noted 
that Park has studied in the U.S. then spent ten years working in a 
series of U.S. utilities. 
 
-- Representative of the Director General to the UN and Director of 
the NY office, Office of External Relations and Policy Coordination: 
 Geoffrey Shaw (Australia) (Note:  Mr. Shaw, a respected 
interlocutor, was a former senior advisor to DG ElBaradei.  End 
Note.) 
 
 
PYATT