VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0425/01 2571457
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 141457Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0040
INFO RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 0586
RUEHBW/AMEMBASSY BELGRADE PRIORITY
RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000425 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR IO/T, ISN/MNSA, ISN/RA 
NRC FOR OIP - DOANE 
DOE FOR NA-243-GOOREVICH/OEHLBERT, BRUNNS, 
NA-241 O'CONNOR,SIEMON; NA-21- CUMMINS, ILIOPULOS; 
NE- MCGINNIS, PERKO, CLAPPER 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY
SUBJECT:  IAEA/BOG: September Board Wrap-Up 
 
Ref:  a) UNVIE 397 b) STATE 92659 c) UNVIE 424 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) USDEL to the September 7-10 Board of Governors met our core 
objectives with respect to spotlighting Iran and Syria's failure to 
comply with NPT safeguards.  Despite an alarmist note struck by 
international media about Iran's breakout capability, Board 
delegations welcomed a moderated U.S. approach signaling readiness 
for engagement.  Board debate on Iran and Syria will be reported 
septels.  The Board also registered strong concerns about the DPRK's 
provocative actions since the expulsion of IAEA inspectors in April 
(septel), even as the Director General had nothing to report.  U.S. 
and like-minded efforts to highlight nuclear security as a core IAEA 
function met with skepticism on the part of the G-77 led by 
Argentina, as well as by Switzerland, in contrast to a high-minded 
South African statement and those of G-77 moderates.  The divisions 
exposed in the nuclear security debate were disappointing and in 
urgent need of redress, both in Vienna and capitals.   The "Any 
Other Business" discussion of fuel assurances did not substantively 
advance the issue, as the G-77 reiterated concerns raised in the 
June Board, but did reaffirm the wide range of Board members and 
other states interested in moving ahead.  The UK presented its 
enrichment bond proposal while Russia announced its intention to 
submit the Angarsk fuel reserve proposal for Board approval at an 
upcoming session. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Leading into the General Conference, the DG report on 
Middle East Safeguards elicited criticism from NAM/Arab Board 
members of Israel as the NPT outlier in the region and calls for a 
NWFZ not contingent on the peace process.  The Africa Group joined 
the NAM in expressing this view and the NAM statement, delivered by 
Egypt, also urged consideration of the Israeli Nuclear Capabilities 
item in the GC.  The U.S. and Israel underlined the issue of 
compliance and called for renewed consensus on Middle East issues so 
as to not repeat the outcome of last year's General Conference. 
Iran then levied invective against the "illegal Zionist regime" and 
called for protection against armed attacks, prompting the Board 
Chair to ask that everyone comport themselves as diplomats.  On a 
loftier note, the Board paid a long tribute to outgoing Director 
General ElBaradei who was visibly moved by the adulation.  Other 
Board items covered below also include nuclear safety, nuclear 
applications, safeguards agreements and personnel matters.  End 
Summary. 
 
-------------  -------------------------- 
Agenda Item 1: DG's Introductory Statement 
-------------  --------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) In addition to his assessment of verification issues in 
Iran, Syria and DPRK (septels), the Director General commented on 
nuclear applications and nuclear security, among other agenda items, 
as well as fuel assurances.   He sounded a cautionary note on 
funding for the Safeguards Analytical Lab (SAL) and the IAEA budget. 
 Despite extra-budgetary funding for SAL and Austria's commitment to 
provide land, the DG reported a considerable funding shortfall to 
address safety and security of the nuclear materials lab.  The 
overall IAEA budget was insufficient and would draw (as yet 
unspecified) "consequences" as to the quality of services offered to 
Member States, he warned.  The Director General fully embraced 
multilateralization of the fuel cycle and noted that the time has 
come for concrete steps, particularly in light of momentum toward 
disarmament.  Regarding nuclear applications, the DG reported 
progress on PACT and IAEA-WHO cooperation and cited efforts to 
redress the shortage of medical isotope molybdenum-99.  He noted 
increased IAEA projections for nuclear power, fed by developing 
world demand; a three-fold increase in TC projects on the 
introduction of nuclear power, and the launch of the IAEA's 
Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) service.  The DG 
also highlighted IAEA assistance on decommissioning and waste 
management and announced that funding had been secured for removal 
of spent fuel from the Vinca reactor in Serbia.  Turning to nuclear 
security, the DG cited the low rate of recovery of material reported 
stolen or lost in the Illicit Trafficking Database (TDB).  He 
encouraged all Member States to participate in the ITDB program and 
to do their utmost to ensure safety and security of nuclear 
materials.   On safeguards, he noted that 26 non-nuclear NPT parties 
have yet to include comprehensive safeguards agreements and more 
than 100 States have yet to bring the Additional Protocol into 
force.  The DG also reported no progress in his efforts toward a 
NWFZ in the Middle East or agreement on an agenda for a regional 
Forum. 
 
--------------  --------------------------- 
Agenda Item 2:  Applications for Membership 
--------------  --------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) The Board recommended the membership applications from 
Cambodia and Rwanda to the General Conference for approval.  The NAM 
welcomed the fellow NAM members to the IAEA and Australia and South 
Africa also spoke in support.  South Africa highlighted the 
development role of the IAEA. 
 
-------------  ------------- 
Agenda Item 3: Nuclear Safety 
-------------  -------------- 
 
¶5. (U) This item focused on the Measures to strengthen international 
cooperation in nuclear, radiation and transport safety and waste 
management, GOV/2009//48-GC(53)/2 , which was prepared pursuant to 
resolution GC(52)/RES/9 and provides updates on Agency activities in 
nuclear, radiation, transport and waste safety.  Argentina delivered 
an extensive G-77 statement, which highlighted many of the 
activities that IAEA performs in safety and for developing 
countries.  The Group emphasized, as did national statements from 
the G-77, the need for the IAEA to do even more.  The G-77 praised 
several new initiatives, such as the Seismic Safety Center, the 
mobile hot cell, and the new uranium mining review missions.   The 
Group also complimented the Agency's human capacity building efforts 
but complained that there were not enough training opportunities, in 
enough countries, and that much more needed to be done. 
 
¶6. (U) Statements from developed countries also praised the IAEA's 
work on nuclear safety, but emphasized, much more than in the past, 
the need for all Member States to sign up and adhere to safety 
conventions.  Several statements countered the traditional G-77 view 
that the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive 
Sources is non-binding.  Canada and Safety and Security DDG 
Taniguchi, in his concluding statement, emphasized that the issue 
was not the "legally binding" nature of the conventions or codes. 
Taniguchi underlined that safety should be a priority and any code 
or convention that a Member State signs up to should be implemented; 
what was important were the actual safety activities undertaken. 
 
¶7. (U) The biggest surprise under the safety agenda item was the 
insistence by Malaysia and Egypt on reference to military 
activities.  Both countries stated in the context of emergency 
response that any accident or incident in territorial waters that 
results from military activities should be addressed by the IAEA, 
and that no one should be exempt from meeting international 
requirements.  This mirrors language that they have proposed for 
this year's General Conference safety resolution. 
 
-------------  ---------------- 
Agenda Item 4: Nuclear Security 
-------------  ---------------- 
 
¶8. (U) DDG Taniguchi introduced the agenda item on Nuclear Security: 
Measures to Protect Against Nuclear Terrorism.  He reviewed three 
documents: the Nuclear Security Report 2009 (GOV/2009/53), the 
Nuclear Security Plan 2010-1013 (GOV/2009/54) and a third, much 
longer internet publication, entitled, "Implementation of the IAEA 
Nuclear Security Plan 2006-2009: Progress Report."  Taniguchi 
explained his attempts to present Member States with a solid future 
strategy and emphasized that there was "still a long way to go 
before our goals are met."  Perhaps in an attempt to preempt G-77 
objections to Office of Nuclear Security (ONS) activities, Taniguchi 
asserted that nuclear security was clearly the responsibility of the 
State, but that "international cooperation is also key." 
 
¶9. (SBU) Predictably, the G-77 statement, read by Argentina, opened 
by commenting that the responsibility for Nuclear Security rests 
with the State.  Less predictably (and more damagingly) the 
statement went on to needle ONS on a number of highly-politicized 
topics: 
 
- Nuclear Security is not a statutory function of the Agency. 
 
- The criteria for reporting incidents to the IAEA's Illicit 
Trafficking Database (ITDB) are wide and don't reflect the actual 
significance of each incident. 
 
- The Secretariat should prove - with empirical evidence - that the 
risks of using radiological material in a terrorist attack are, in 
 
fact, "high." 
 
- IAEA resources should not be used in ventures that are of interest 
to "only a few." 
 
- The Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Sealed Sources 
is not legally binding, and should not be used to deny the peaceful 
use of nuclear material. 
 
- The cost of ONS has markedly increased, and should not be carried 
out at the expense of promotional activities (so maintain the level 
of contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund). 
 
(Comment: The bulk of the G-77 may have been widely critical of ONS, 
but it did not, as one Secretariat member pointed out, question the 
importance of the activity itself.  ONS staff were similarly 
relieved that the statement was not even harsher.  Following the 
statement, a member of the G-77 approached to Msnoff to comment 
(with some self-congratulation) that "it wasn't so bad, was it?" 
Despite these positive reactions, it is clear that Nuclear Security 
has fallen out of favor with the G-77 as a group and has become -- 
like safeguards - increasingly politicized.  End Comment.) 
 
¶10. (U) The U.S. statement thoroughly covered our priorities, 
including physical protection, security culture, border controls and 
waste repatriation.  The statement also noted that despite the 
achievement of including greater resources for ONS in the regular 
budget, these resources would not take the place of voluntary 
contributions.  Finally, the U.S. statement described the importance 
the Administration places on combating nuclear terrorism and 
previewed the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit in Washington.  Other 
Western and EU countries followed suit, highlighting the importance 
of adhering to the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical 
Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM), its 2005 Amendment, and 
urging States to participate in the IAEA's Illicit Trafficking 
Database (ITDB).  Many Board members urged Member States to 
contribute to the Nuclear Security Fund, while New Zealand, Canada, 
Australia and Germany announced (or re-announced) their own 
contributions. 
 
¶11. (SBU) In an unexpected twist, Switzerland emphasized that 
Nuclear Security was not a core activity of the IAEA.  While this 
sentiment has become a mantra of the G-77, a "like-minded" country 
had not previously expressed this view.  A Swiss diplomat avoided 
explaining Switzerland's position.  In another unexpected twist, 
Argentina intervened strongly in its national capacity to take 
exception to many aspects of the Agency's Nuclear Security 
activities.  Ambassador Curia questioned the concept of a "nuclear 
security regime" that is separate from the realm of safety 
activities.  He questioned the evidence of a "consistent pattern of 
trafficking," and wondered whether there really was a need for 
regional support centers.  Curia also warned that instruments can 
easily become mandatory, and from there - binding.  He "hoped" that 
the Nuclear Security Plan would be revised (but luckily did not make 
an explicit request to that end).  Curia rehashed these points in a 
second intervention at the end of the session, but was defused by 
Board Chair Feroukhi, who asked Curia "not to repeat himself," as 
his views would be reflected in her oral summary. 
 
¶12. (U) The most positive interventions of the session came from 
Germany and South Africa.  German Ambassador Luedeking revisited the 
numerous assertions that "Nuclear Security is primarily the 
responsibility of the State," describing this repetitive claim as 
unhelpful, and irrelevant to the role of the IAEA and international 
cooperation.  He also countered the quibbling over binding or 
non-binding instruments, stressing that the important thing about 
these instruments is that they raise the standard of Nuclear 
Security and "you should endeavor to meet them."  South African 
Ambassador Abdul Minty, for his part, also issued a high-minded 
statement that described terrorism as a continuing threat and the 
instruments of cooperation as important.  He commended the Agency 
for its excellent work on Nuclear Security.  Ghana, Mexico and 
Romania also issued helpful statements that described the ways in 
which ONS had assisted their countries in removing spent fuel, 
training their personnel and protecting the populace. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Comment:  Mission is disappointed that the G-77 spoke so 
strongly against Nuclear Security, continuing to deny its status as 
a "statutory activity" and downplaying the threat of nuclear 
terrorism as something that must be proved with empirical evidence. 
Argentina's intervention was particularly unhelpful, and possibly 
deserves attention in Buenos Aires or Washington (especially in 
light of Argentina's possible participation in the Washington 
Nuclear Security Summit).  A Secretariat member also indicated that 
the Argentine Ambassador, like his predecessor, had a personal axe 
to grind on this issue with DDG Taniguchi.   More than anything, the 
debate in the Board demonstrates that the issue of Nuclear Security 
is becoming increasingly polarized between the G-77 and Western 
states.  In the future, Nuclear Security could follow the path of 
Safeguards issues, becoming the basis for philosophical divisions 
upon which common ground becomes increasingly elusive.  The 
Washington Summit therefore provides an important opportunity to 
re-establish consensus on this important topic. End Comment. 
 
-------------  -------------------- 
Agenda Item 5: Nuclear Applications 
-------------  -------------------- 
 
¶14. (U) The Board took note of the DG report on nuclear science, 
technology and applications GOV/2009/49 prepared pursuant to 
relevant GC resolutions.  More than 20 Member States commended the 
Agency's nuclear applications programs and encouraged the 
Secretariat to intensify its efforts in both nuclear power and 
non-power applications.  Several Member States noted the substantial 
increase in the requests for assistance in national energy studies 
exploring nuclear power as an option for their energy mix and 
encouraged the Agency's activities in this regard, including the 
range of technical publications being developed to help interested 
states in their understanding of necessary infrastructure.  Many 
Member States emphasized the importance the Program of Action for 
Cancer Therapy (PACT) and its efforts in developing an Agency-wide 
strategy for its implementation.  They appreciated the contributions 
and pledges made by Member States and other organizations to PACT 
and called on more Member States to provide support.  Several 
members welcomed the entry into force of the WHO-IAEA Joint Program 
on cancer control and looked forward to maximizing the benefits of 
the Joint Program.  Several members, including Australia, France, 
and South Africa, among others, addressed the issue of the shortages 
of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) and the efforts to remedy the problem. 
Other Member States touted the importance of innovative small and 
medium sized reactors; nuclear desalination; INPRO; the use of 
isotope hydrology; water resources management; and the expansion of 
the use of Sterile Insect Technique (SIT). 
 
¶15. (U) Argentina speaking on behalf of the G-77 and China welcomed 
the Agency's work on many of these non-power applications and called 
for greater cooperation between the TC and Nuclear Applications 
departments.  The G-77 highlighted PACT, in particular, and advised 
that it would table a resolution on PACT in the General Conference. 
It sought recognition of PACT as a "core Agency function" and asked 
Member States to assure funding.  Many national statements, 
including the U.S., China, Japan and The Philippines signaled strong 
support for PACT.  The African Group (Ghana) also highlighted PACT, 
in addition to tse tse fly eradication and IAEA cooperation with FAO 
and WHO.  Ghana, in a national capacity, raised impediments faced by 
LDCs in securing equipment and materials.  Burkina Faso and Algeria 
focused on tse-tse fly and malaria projects.  Mexico advised that it 
had made major advances in SIT.  Notably, a very moderate Cuban 
statement cited its priorities (PACT and isotope hydrology) but 
refrained from its customary criticism of the U.S. embargo.   GRULAC 
(Brazil) cited PACT projects in Latin America and urged the Agency 
to bolster nontraditional partnerships on the PACT model.  It noted 
cooperation with the Pan-American Health Organization.  Canada also 
applauded PACT partnership with WHO.  Russia expressed interest in 
expanding cooperation with the IAEA-FAO joint program. 
 
¶16. (U) The G-77 further encouraged the Agency to expand its role in 
promoting nuclear energy in developing countries.  They underscored 
the importance of INPRO and supported the Agency's work in uranium 
exploration, mining, and waste management.  Russia highlighted the 
participation of 30 Member States and the European Commission in 
INPRO and was committed to ensure funding for INPRO.  GRULAC 
appreciated Agency support for nuclear power and highlighted the 
IAEA's work in technical cooperation that extended throughout the 
nuclear fuel cycle.  GRULAC regretted the lack of voluntary funding 
for small and medium-size reactor (SMR) projects.  Russia, India and 
the ROK also noted the importance of SMR projects.  Canada cited the 
Agency's three-fold increase in nuclear power-related TC projects. 
China noted the success of the Beijing Ministerial on nuclear energy 
and said it was speeding up its nuclear energy development, having 
approved construction of 25 nuclear power plants.  France previewed 
its GC resolution on nuclear power and a planned international 
conference on development of nuclear power programs.  Japan 
highlighted the 3 "S's" (safety, security and safeguards) and 
infrastructure development.  The Philippines supported Agency 
efforts in infrastructure development and Malaysia said it was 
considering nuclear power.  Sounding a cautionary note, Switzerland 
voiced concerns by safety experts about nuclear power programs in 
newcomer states and Australia also cited the 3 "S's" in this 
context. 
 
¶17. (U) At the conclusion of the item, Nuclear Applications DDG 
Burkart acknowledged high-demand for PACT assistance could not 
always be met.  He also noted Member States' requests for access to 
laser spectrometry for managing water resources.  Nuclear Energy DDG 
Sokolov noted support for nuclear infrastructure development and 
uranium exploration/mining.  He also clarified that the IAEA was not 
proposing legally-mandated steps to developing nuclear power 
programs, but guidelines based on the lessons learned from other 
states. 
 
-------------  ------------------------------ 
Agenda Item 6a: Safeguards Agreements and APs 
-------------  ------------------------------ 
 
¶18. (U) The Board approved comprehensive safeguards agreements (CSA) 
and Additional Protocols (AP) submitted by Vanuatu, Congo, and 
Kenya.  The NAM (Egypt) and EU (Sweden) welcomed the agreements. 
The U.S. and Australia supported CSAs together with an AP as the 
verification standard and New Zealand called on other states that 
not yet done so to bring these agreements into force.  South Africa 
noted the necessity of a strengthened safeguards system in building 
confidence and facilitating the transfer of nuclear technology. 
South Africa also called for non-nuclear weapons states to fulfill 
nonproliferation obligations under Article II of the NPT. 
 
-------------  --------------------------- 
Agenda Item 6b: Agency Staff as Inspectors 
-------------  --------------------------- 
 
¶19. (U) The Board approved the designation of the Agency staff 
listed in GOV/2009/59 as inspectors.  The individuals will be 
automatically designated 60 days after the Board session, absent any 
objections. 
 
-------------  ----------------------- 
Agenda Item 7a: Middle East Safeguards 
-------------  ----------------------- 
 
¶20. (SBU) Surprisingly, the Africa Group (Angola) launched the first 
salvo against Israel, largely quoting from the July 2008 NAM Summit 
in Sharm el Sheik on the serious threat posed by Israel's nuclear 
arsenal.  The Africa Group notably disputed Israel's contention that 
a NWFZ be contingent on the peace process and called for urgent 
practical steps toward a NWFZ in the region.  (Comment:  This 
indicates that the Arabs have done their homework with African 
states leading into this year's GC. End note.) The NAM (Egypt) 
followed suit with a full recitation of the Summit language 
including urgent consideration of the Israeli Nuclear Capabilities 
item at the IAEA General Conference.  The NAM statement also cited 
access by Israeli scientists to the nuclear facilities of one 
weapons state.  The NAM regretted that the Director General was 
unable to make progress on a Middle East NWFZ due to Israel's stance 
on the peace process, and insisted that the agenda for a Middle East 
Forum reflect the international consensus in support of a NWFZ. 
 
¶21. (SBU) Egypt's national statement went further in citing the 
persistent double standard as undermining the NPT and the convoluted 
logic of putting the peace process ahead of disarmament.  Egypt 
fully supported the DG's efforts to convene a Middle East Forum and 
blamed Israel for hampering the Forum and rendering it meaningless. 
Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cuba and non-Board member Libya rounded out 
the blame Israel chorus.  Cuba also specifically called for the U.S. 
to stop transferring equipment and material to Israel.  By far the 
most acerbic statement came from Iran, calling for protection from 
armed attacks and condemning the "illegal Zionist regime," a non-NPT 
party that dared to criticize others.  Iran also called for an IAEA 
fact-finding mission to Israel, eliciting barely suppressed chuckles 
from the Secretariat staff. 
 
¶22. (U) Russia, South Africa and Germany made moderate interventions 
in support of a Middle East NWFZ and/or the Forum.  Russia called 
for universalization of the NPT and noted that all Middle East 
countries with "one exception" were subject to IAEA safeguards. 
Germany regretted persistent differences with Israel in the region 
and called for confidence building, including a Forum.  Germany 
noted that Israel and Egypt's responses to the Forum agenda 
indicated possible areas of agreement.   The U.S. statement focused 
on finding renewed consensus on this issue including in the General 
Conference. 
 
¶23. (U) Taking the high road, Israel noted that the outcome of last 
year's GC did not benefit the IAEA or Member States and called for 
renewed consensus and compromise so as to avoid another repeat of 
these "drastic events."  Israel was willing to engage immediately, 
the alternative being continued bickering leading to the derailment 
of the General Conference.  Like the U.S. statement, Israel took 
note that the DG's report did not include "compliance" in accordance 
with last year's GC resolution.  Israel noted that of the five 
states that had been in breach of their safeguards obligations, only 
one was located outside of the Middle East; thus compliance was 
essential to a free zone. 
 
¶24. (U) After Iran had the inflammatory last word on this item, the 
Board Chair implored everyone to comport themselves as diplomats and 
talk things out.  She somehow managed to sum up the debate in a 
reasonable fashion. 
 
-------------  ------------------ 
Agenda Item 7b: Personnel Matters 
-------------  ------------------ 
 
¶25. (U) On the issues of staffing and women in the Secretariat, the 
United States urged the IAEA to continue its efforts towards 
appointing well-qualified women into the professional and senior 
staff level.  The U.S. complimented the IAEA's efforts to date 
toward making progress in gender balance and encouraged the IAEA to 
further raise awareness of the issue.   Argentina (on behalf of the 
G77 and China), Brazil (on behalf of GRULAC, Denmark (on behalf of 
the Nordic countries) and South Africa also intervened on personnel 
issues.  All echoed the U.S. position on promoting women in the 
Secretariat.  Argentina, Brazil and South Africa and called for 
greater efforts toward appointing staff from developing countries. 
Argentina noted that several Latin American and Caribbean countries 
had seen a drop in representation over the past two years, and 
encouraged the provision of fellowships, scholarships and training 
programs to increase developing country representation.  South 
Africa noted that some "highly advanced" Member States occupy the 
majority of staff positions at the IAEA. 
 
-------------  --------------------------- 
Agenda Item 8: Tribute to Director General 
-------------  --------------------------- 
 
¶27. (U) The Board submitted a draft "Tribute to the Director 
General" resolution to the General Conference, granting DG ElBaradei 
the title of Director General Emeritus.  The G-77 and China, the 
NAM, African, North American, Latin American, and South East Asian 
and Pacific, and a large number of Member States spoke in tribute to 
the outstanding work of the Director General over his twelve-year 
tenure, including the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. 
 
¶28. (U) Developing world statements emphasized the DG's role in 
championing the work of the Agency in the promotion of nuclear 
energy for peaceful purposes.  Many of these states enumerated the 
projects from which they directly benefited under his leadership and 
lauded IAEA efforts on treatment of disease, including through PACT. 
 Some reiterated the DG's views on combating poverty and 
contributing to sustainable development via TC being as important as 
nonproliferation.  Many Member States noted the DG's strong 
commitment to fairness, impartiality and justice.  These states 
noted the DG set a high bar for leadership of international 
organizations, and emphasized that he would leave behind an 
indelible mark in the history of the IAEA.  Other states noted the 
challenges that the DG faced in seeking to prepare the Agency for 
the future by initiating the 2020 effort.  Still others praised the 
DG for setting up the nuclear security fund, for working to 
strengthen safeguards, prepare against the threat of nuclear 
terrorism, and to address safeguards verification.   Some states 
emphasized the DG's efforts in tackling difficult issues including 
on international nuclear fuel banks, inspections beyond those 
required by safeguards agreements, and verification of military 
stocks of nuclear material.  Other Member States highlighted the 
linkage advocated by the DG between nuclear nonproliferation and 
disarmament, furthering the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. 
 
 
¶29. (U) Iran stated that it trusted the DG as an international civil 
servant.  Under his tenure, Iran noted that the Director General 
faced undue challenges and pressures by the international community. 
 Iran said the DG had a talent for making everyone either equally 
satisfied or equally dissatisfied.  This characteristic was a 
tribute to his impartiality. 
 
¶30. (U) Director General ElBardei delivered a lofty statement about 
peace, dignity, human freedom and common values.  He cautioned that 
the international community could rise to new heights, or could 
stoop to new lows.  None of the world's problems could be solved 
alone, and this truism held for the IAEA as well.  He noted that the 
Agency faced many challenges and called for dialogue to resolve 
them.  The IAEA had metamorphosized into a major international 
player during his tenure, the DG observed.  He said he had been 
"accountable to all of you, but not to any one of you" and 
elaborated that impartiality did not mean neutrality, but sticking 
to what was in the Statute.  It was important to look at the big 
picture, e.g., the linkage between poverty and violence, and between 
nonproliferation and disarmament, he advised referencing President 
Obama's statements on these subjects.  The Director General paid 
tribute in turn to his staff and added that it would be "nice if 
member states could act as one."  He closed by saying that the 
Agency was left in the good hands of his successor, Ambassador Yukio 
Amano, who would provide competence, courage, and vision to the 
Agency. 
 
----------------------------------- 
AOB: Assured Supply of Nuclear Fuel 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶31. (U) Unlike the June Board, debate on fuel assurances was 
uneventful and did little to push the ball forward or, fortunately, 
pull back from positions taken at the June Board.  Debate was led of 
by the UK, which described its proposal for a Nuclear Fuel 
Assurance.  The proposal had been circulated the week before the 
Board as GOV/INF/2009/7 and was the subject of a briefing by UK 
experts on Tuesday, September 8.  The essence of the proposal is a 
trilateral agreement among a supplying State, a recipient State and 
the IAEA that supply, based on an existing or about to be concluded 
contract, would not be interrupted for non-commercial reasons as 
long as the commitments made by all parties as set out in the 
agreement continue to be met.  The assurance could also be available 
as a "stand-by assurance" where a supplier was a contractual standby 
supplier for a supplier in another State.  A model agreement would 
be approved by the Board.  The agreement would set out conditions 
for the supply to take place, and the commitments provided by both 
the supplier and the recipient.  The UK reported that a draft model 
agreement was being finalized.  One advantage noted by the UK is 
that this assurance could apply to any form of supply - uranium, 
enrichment or fabrication services.  The UK indicated that it was 
open to bilateral discussions. 
 
¶32. (U) The G-77 statement (delivered by Argentina) was short.  The 
Group recalled the G-77/ NAM Joint Statement at the June Board and 
indicated that the issues and concerns raised remain fully relevant. 
 The Group saw no development toward convergence of views on these 
issues and concerns.  The NAM statement (delivered by Egypt) simply 
associated itself with the G-77 statement.  (Comment: During the 
course of the meeting, there was a fear that the G-77 might revert 
to its earlier formulation of "it is premature to consider the 
issue" vice the more constructive view that it was "premature to 
take a decision on the issue."  The statement as delivered appears 
to invite further consideration.  End comment.) 
 
¶33. (U) A short EU statement (delivered by Sweden) took note of the 
proposals put forth by EU Member States.  The EU noted the 
differences in view presented in June and stated its belief that it 
was possible to find answers to the questions and doubts expressed 
and invited all parties to engage in consultations and discussions. 
Japan expressed the view that while some were hesitant to conduct 
open discussions on the issue,  it was useful to discuss it in an 
open and transparent manner.  Japan also recalled its own previous 
proposal, which it believes would enhance the transparency and 
predictability of the front-end market.  Russia reported that it 
continued to work on the proposal it made in June and that it hoped 
to include all details and submit it to the Board in one of its 
upcoming session.  (Comment: The Russian statement did not/not 
mention the November Board specifically. End Comment .)  Germany 
took note of its own proposal and invited further discussion with 
those interested in the proposal.  Responding to the private U.S. 
approaches urging intervention, Albania, Norway and the UAE all 
expressed support for fuel assurances and looked forward to further 
discussions to resolve concerns.  India, on the other hand, 
reiterated its position that before discussing specific proposals 
States should reach consensus on norms for such proposals: that they 
would operate under predetermined, non-discriminatory conditions, 
that they would be available to all States, and that no State would 
be required to give up rights.  India's view was that the only 
condition should be that a State is in compliance with its 
safeguards obligations.  India again stood out as the most 
persistent critic of fuel assurances (ref c). 
 
¶34. (U) In other AOB statements, Serbia described progress on its 
Vinca decommissioning project, expressing appreciation to all 
involved parties, specifically the IAEA, the United States, the 
Russian Federation, the Czech Republic and the Nuclear Threat 
Initiative.  South African Ambassador and former DG candidate Minty 
offered a salute to the Board Chair and a tribute to her handling of 
the difficult issue of selection of a new Director.   The Board 
Chair announced that the Ambassador of Finland had agreed to chair 
the U.S.-suggested Budget and Finance Working Group and that India 
and Germany were still consulting on the position of External 
Auditor. 
 
DAVIES