VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0632/01 2951801
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 221801Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3379
INFO RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS PRIORITY 1052
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 0739
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 1822
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN PRIORITY 4168
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PRIORITY 1906
RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA PRIORITY 0259
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 1921
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 0187
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 2245
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 4600
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1449
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY 0682
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000632 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR 
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP> 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (BROWN, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO) 
NSC FOR LUTES 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/22/2019 
TAGS: PARM PREL AORC EIND OPCW CWC AU FI GM ID TU
UK, AG 
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION, 
OCTOBER 13-16, 2009 (EC-58) 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 617 
     ¶B. THE HAGUE 627 
     ¶C. THE HAGUE 628 
     ¶D. STATE 107329 
     ¶E. BEIK-ISN/CB EMAIL (10/09/09) ON EC VISIT REPORT 
     ¶F. GRANGER-ISN/CB EMAIL (10/09/09) ON IRANIAN 
        STATEMENT 
     ¶G. STATE 105819 
     ¶H. THE HAGUE 604 
 
Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) 
 
(U) This is CWC-63-09 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) The 58th session of the Executive Council 
(EC) of the Organization for the Prohibition of 
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was a remarkable success. 
The Council approved by consensus a recommendation 
to the Conference of States Parties (CSP) to 
appoint Ahmet Uzumcu of Turkey to be the next 
Director- General (DG) for the Organization.  The 
EC also recommended that the draft budget and plan 
of work be forwarded to the CSP, only the third 
time in history the budget has been approved on 
schedule by the Council.  After more than ten years 
of off-and-on negotiations, including an intense 
final round the past two weeks, the EC also decided 
on limits for low concentrations of Schedule 2A/2A* 
chemicals, a compromise that satisfied no one but 
achieved a long-overdue agreed standard. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Destruction issues dominated the Council's 
time, with two new initiatives proposed -- one (by 
South Africa) to examine the gaps in the Chemical 
Weapons Convention (CWC) covering destruction of 
chemical weapons (CW) in combat situations, and the 
other (by Brazil) to begin a dialogue on how the 
Organization might deal with delays in the final 
destruction deadline of April 2012.  Iran, as 
always, targeted the United States for criticism, 
both in the report of the EC visit to the Pueblo 
and Umatilla CW destruction sites and in the most 
recent U.S. 90-day report on destruction progress. 
After a series of lengthy negotiations in a small 
group setting, Iran took the issue to the plenary 
Council, maintaining their opposition to "noting" 
any reports that contained dates for the U.S. 
program beyond 2012.  The final surreal compromise 
proposed Friday evening was to take the projected 
dates out of the U.S. report and the Technical 
Secretariat (TS) report on destruction progress; as 
one western delegation put it, a blow to the 
transparency the reports were intended to produce. 
 
¶3. (SBU) This EC was also notable for beginning to 
debate issues during the sessions in which they 
were scheduled, rather than in last-minute 
wrangling over report language as has been done so 
often in the past.  The Chairman kept control of 
often in the past.  The Chairman kept control of 
the agenda, and, as with his handling of the 
Director-General search, kept the Council with him 
in addressing issues properly on the floor without 
endless interventions.  Delegations, including 
Iran, produced draft report language early on items 
such as Articles VII, X and XI, and began 
negotiations over text before the final session. 
 
¶4. (SBU) DEL COMMENT:  As this EC neatly wrapped up 
quite a lot of business, the upcoming Conference of 
States Parties (November 30 to December 4) provides 
an ideal opportunity for a major U.S. policy 
address to the membership of the CWC to look toward 
the future and the tenure of a new Director- 
General.  END COMMENT. 
 
¶5. (SBU) This cable reports on the major events of 
EC-58, following the update on the DG selection 
(ref A); the low concentration solution (ref B); 
and the donors' meeting, destruction informals and 
Iraqi assistance (ref C).  Septels will follow on 
bilateral meetings with the Libyan, Chinese and 
Russian delegations. 
 
-------------------------- 
DIRECTOR-GENERAL SELECTION 
-------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) While a surprise to some, the consensus 
agreement by the Council to recommend Ahmet Uzumcu 
of Turkey to the Conference of States Parties as 
the next Director-General (ref A) was the result of 
careful planning and endless hours of consultation 
by EC Chairman Ambassador Lomonaco (Mexico). 
Council members took very seriously the 
presentations by all seven candidates at the July 
EC, and many recommended the candidates that most 
impressed them to their capitals.  While politics 
and national considerations also played their usual 
role in establishing preferences, many delegations 
could support more than one candidate, as was the 
position of the U.S.  Lomonaco consulted all 
delegations in August and early September and, Del 
believes, knew the probable result even then. 
Without naming candidates, he expressed privately 
and publicly that there was broad support among all 
the regional groups for the same three candidates. 
His early messages to the candidates and their 
representatives, however, did not result in any 
withdrawals. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Lomonaco began conducting straw polls 
October 5 after briefing Council members and other 
interested delegations on the process he had in 
mind-- preferences listed with a weighted point 
system.  From the first poll, Uzumcu took a clear 
lead, with Freeman (UK) and Gottwald (Germany) in 
close proximity to each other in second and third 
place.  Dani (Algeria) took a firm place in the 
middle of the range, with Thalmann (Switzerland), 
middle of the range, with Thalmann (Switzerland), 
Polho (Finland) and Sudjadnan (Indonesia) 
clustering toward the bottom.  As the straw polls 
proceeded on October 9 and 12, there was slight 
movement among the bottom group and between Freeman 
and Gottwald, but no one challenged Uzumcu's lead. 
Lomonaco slowly and deliberately changed the 
parameters of the straw polls, reducing the number 
of preferences indicated from seven to four, and 
then releasing all of the statistics (numbers of 
first, second and other preferences) when there 
were still no candidates withdrawing.  He kept the 
process open to suggestions from Council members, 
but everyone followed his proposals, agreeing to 
the step-by-step approach he first outlined in his 
Roadmap at the July EC. 
 
¶8. (C) As the Council officially opened October 13, 
the UK sent a junior minister, Ivan Lewis, to make 
a pitch for John Freeman in the General Debate; 
his blunt political pitch to the Council and at a 
later  luncheon was a rather jarring change from 
previous UK decorum (and John Freeman's personal 
style).  Gottwald and Uzumcu traveled to The Hague 
for EC-58, meeting with delegations, as did 
resident Ambassador Dani.  Few, if any, positions 
among delegations changed. 
 
¶9. (SBU) By the afternoon session of October 13, 
the Finnish and Swiss governments had agreed to 
withdraw their candidates together, a model for the 
withdrawals to follow.  Lomonaco graciously 
acknowledged the difficulty of their decision in 
putting the Organization above national and 
personal aspirations.  Indonesia followed the next 
day in withdrawing Sudjadnan's candidacy, paving 
the way for the final round of straw polls. 
 
¶10. (C) The fourth straw poll took place October 14 
among the four remaining candidates, with EC 
members indicating three preferences.  Although the 
ranked order of candidates did not change, the 
striking piece of new information was the "no 
preference" column, where Uzumcu scored zero 
negative votes. All delegations had listed him as 
first, second or third preference.  Dani's "no 
preference" number ranked very high (17), while 
both Gottwald and Freeman tied at 12, close to a 
third of the Council (13) and nearly enough to 
block a potential two-thirds ballot. 
Delegations began openly discussing the "European 
problem" and whether Dani should be pressured to 
withdraw.  All reports from conversations with Dani 
were that he still considered himself in second 
place due to his number of first choice votes (11). 
 
¶11. (C) Gottwald himself told Delreps on October 15 
that the UK had approached him to withdraw together 
with Freeman, a suggestion he said he refused.  The 
straw poll scheduled for the afternoon of October 
15 saw a delayed start, with delegations answering 
cell phones and moving in and out of the meeting 
cell phones and moving in and out of the meeting 
room.  When the session finally began, the British 
Ambassador announced the withdrawal of Freeman. 
Lomonaco again thanked Freeman and the UK 
government for their courage and action taken on 
behalf of the Organization. 
 
¶12. (C) In the subsequent straw poll among the 
three candidates remaining, Dani and Gottwald had 
identical numbers of first choice votes to the 
previous day, with Freeman's six clearly going to 
Uzumcu.  Del believes the frenzy of activity before 
his withdrawal included requests that Freeman's 
support be directed to Uzumcu.  With the consensus 
outcome clearly in sight, the Chairman and 
Ambassadors convened in multiple private 
conversations Thursday evening about next steps, 
including requests by Representatives and by 
governments that Dani and Gottwald withdraw. 
 
¶13. (C) By Friday morning, rumors abounded that 
Dani would be withdrawn.  The Turkish Ambassador 
confirmed to WEOG that the Turkish Ambassador in 
Algiers had been informed by the Algerian 
government that they were withdrawing Dani's 
candidacy.  The European Union met in emergency 
session before the morning EC session.  When the 
Council convened, both Dani and Gottwald personally 
announced their withdrawals, paving the way for the 
Council to recommend Uzumcu by acclamation. 
Spokespersons for the Regional Groups and many 
individual Representatives congratulated Uzumcu, 
praised the quality and professionalism of all the 
candidates as well as the Council's tradition of 
consensus decisions.  Many also credited the 
consensus and the smooth selection process to the 
efforts of Chairman Lomonaco.  Lomonaco thanked 
everyone for their participation and cooperation 
and noted the importance of consensus decision- 
making as a successful model for other multilateral 
organizations in their leadership elections.  It 
was a high moment of unity before the session 
descended into hammering out the report language 
for EC-58. 
 
--------------------- 
THE BUDGET -- DEJA VU 
--------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) Starting in early September, Budget co- 
facilitators Ambassador Francisco Aguilar (Costa 
Rica) and Martin Strub (Switzerland) held seven 
scheduled rounds of consultations, three "informal 
informal" meetings of interested delegations to 
thrash out a compromise over contentious points, 
countless discussions on the margins and two final 
consultations to try to reach consensus.  After all 
of these consultations and negotiations, last- 
minute disagreements between several EU countries 
(Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands) and India, 
Pakistan and Iran on the text of the budget draft 
decision threatened to postpone adoption of the 
2010 budget beyond EC-58.  However, a final 
compromise was agreed, and the Council forwarded a 
budget very similar to the 2009 budget to the CSP 
for approval.  The number of industry (Article VI) 
for approval.  The number of industry (Article VI) 
inspections had been the main point of contention 
throughout budget negotiations, and the agreed 
budget reverted to the numbers for 2009 (208 total 
inspections).  India, Iran, Pakistan and China had 
insisted that Article VI inspection numbers should 
not change from those agreed last year due to the 
lack of any substantive policy discussion on the 
 
industry verification regime.  Addressing the 
number of industry inspections "as a matter of 
policy" -- rather than relegating it to the annual 
budget negotiations -- had been a key component of 
the agreement brokered last year for the approval 
of the 2009 budget. 
 
¶15. (SBU) DEL COMMENT:  While this marks only the 
third time in the OPCW's history that the EC has 
reached agreement on the annual budget on time, 
this was only due to the U.S. and other WEOG 
delegations agreeing not to drag out negotiations 
over a few additional Article VI inspections 
proposed by the DG.  During negotiations it became 
apparent that India, China and other developing 
countries will continue to fight very hard against 
any increase in Article VI inspections in future 
budgets.  Last year's hard-fought compromise has 
been interpreted by these countries to mean that 
outstanding issues related to the industry 
verification regime (e.g., the balance between 
destruction and non-proliferation, the "hierarchy 
of risk", the relevance of OCPFs and "wasted" 
inspections due to poor declarations) must be 
discussed substantively and resolved before 
additional Article VI inspections will be 
considered.  These discussions will need to start 
quickly within the industry cluster or other 
relevant consultations if there is any hope of 
increasing non-proliferation activities in future 
years.  END COMMENT. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
LOW CONCENTRATIONS -- AGREEMENT AT LAST 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶16. (SBU) After more than ten years of off-and-on 
negotiations, most recently restarted in August 
2008, the EC finally agreed on low concentration 
limits for Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals (ref B).  The 
compromise agreement was reached in the final hours 
of EC-58 after intensive informal negotiations led 
by Facilitator Giuseppe Cornacchia (Italy). 
Cornacchia presented the consensus draft decision 
to the EC plenary, but before it could be adopted, 
several delegations took the floor.  China started 
by registering concerns with the text -- 
specifically the finally-agreed threshold limits -- 
but agreed to go along with consensus on the matter 
and not object to the draft decision.  Germany, 
Japan and the U.S. also noted difficulties with the 
final compromise, but all agreed to join consensus. 
Chairman Lomonaco, noting how difficult it 
obviously had been to reach consensus, 
congratulated the Council on finally resolving the 
long-outstanding issue.  Lomonaco thanked 
long-outstanding issue.  Lomonaco thanked 
Cornacchia for his facilitation and also paid 
tribute to everyone who had worked on the issue for 
the previous ten years. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
PROCEDURAL CORRECTIONS-- DEBATING AND NOTING 
-------------------------------------------- 
¶17. (SBU) From the onset of this EC session, the 
Iranian delegation once again challenged the 
meaning of the term "to note" and foreshadowed 
hours of needless discussion on standard English 
vocabulary. Despite the Technical Secretariat and 
States Parties intervening to clarify this term, 
the Iranian delegation held firmly to the position 
that each delegation can interpret the meaning as 
they see fit. Towards the end of the EC session, 
the South African delegation intervened to 
introduce report language defining "took note" and 
"noted" under the agenda item Any Other Business. 
The text basically states that "to note" a document 
does not constitute approval of or agreement to the 
substance of the document.  The Iranian delegation 
intervened to acknowledge this and then stated that 
if they disagreed with the document proposed for 
noting they would look to voice their position in 
report language and/or the actual text of the 
document in question.  (DEL NOTE: We deduced that 
the Iranian instructions included resisting 
"noting" any document put forth by the United 
States that included dates beyond the revised 
destruction deadlines. The discussion immediately 
below illustrates the challenges of this position, 
whereby the visit report was noted as written with 
comments that appeased the entire Council, and the 
90-day report was noted with the removal of the 
dates extending beyond 2012.) 
 
------------------------------------- 
DESTRUCTION ISSUES -- PAST AND FUTURE 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶18. (SBU) Despite multiple consultations in advance 
and on the margins of the formal sessions in an 
effort to reach agreement on substance and report 
language, the final hours of EC-58 on October 16 
were monopolized by destruction issues to include 
the noting of U.S. documents (i.e., U.S. visit 
report and 90-day report) and new initiatives. 
 
¶19. (SBU) The report on the visit by the Chairman 
and representatives of the Executive Council to the 
Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant, 
Colorado, and to the Umatilla Chemical Agent 
Disposal Facility, Oregon (EC-57/12, dated 10 July 
2009) was the subject of continued debate prior to 
and throughout EC-58.  This report was considered 
during EC-57 in July and deferred to this session 
due to the Iranian delegation's resistance to the 
procedural issue of noting the document.  In the 
week prior to EC-58, a consultation was held with 
visit participants and interested delegations in an 
visit participants and interested delegations in an 
effort to resolve any outstanding substantive 
concerns about the document and the information 
received during the visit (ref E).  The Iranian 
delegation made a strong statement articulating 
their views on the U.S. projections of destruction 
at two sites beyond 2012 (ref F).  (DEL COMMENT: 
This statement outlines the concerns of Iranian 
delegation, which are likely to resurface as the 
U.S. destruction program continues to project dates 
extending beyond the treaty deadline.  This 
 
document was sent electronically to ISN-CB.  The 
Del recommends thorough review and preparation of 
talking points to address the questions raised in 
the document.  END COMMENT.) 
 
¶20. (SBU) While Iran argued for the text of the 
report to be adjusted to include a statement 
pertaining to the Council's view on this "premature 
noncompliance" by the U.S., visit participants 
remained firm in insisting that the report was a 
factual report on their visit and would not be open 
to changes by Council members.  The attention then 
turned to the EC report language.  The South 
African delegation had proposed draft report 
language in July and re-circulated it for review in 
advance of this EC session. 
 
¶21. (C) Throughout the week of the EC, Ambassador 
Lohman (Netherlands) convened a group of interested 
delegations -- the U.S., Russia, Iran and South 
Africa -- in an effort to reach agreement on report 
language and avoid protracted debate on the floor. 
Despite several lengthy meetings, no agreement was 
reached.  The Iranian delegation was persistent in 
vying for strong report language blasting the U.S. 
for its projections, while simultaneously being 
resistant to noting the report itself. The Iranians 
blamed their inflexibility on the lack of 
participation of delegates from capital due to a 
visa-related issue.  While the Iranian delegates 
waffled on noting the report, the Russian 
delegation stated that if the reports are not 
noted, then future visits would be discontinued. 
On Friday, with no agreement on text, the debate 
hit the floor of the Council during the report- 
approval process.  Despite efforts at compromise 
language from several delegations (Netherlands, 
Ireland and India), the Iranian delegation 
demonstrated an unfortunate lack of command of the 
English language and offered text which simply 
called for the U.S. to accelerate destruction 
efforts by April 28, 2009.  Likely because the 
delegation had irritated the entire Council with 
their antics throughout the session, no State Party 
intervened to correct Iran's mistake and the 
Council accepted the language and closed the issue. 
 
¶22. (SBU) On the agenda item regarding progress 
made in meeting revised deadlines for the 
destruction of chemical weapons, the Council 
considered a report by the DG as well as all of the 
90-day reports (Libya, U.S., Russia, China and 
Japan).  The Iranian delegation again intervened to 
object to the Council noting the TS report as well 
as the U.S. report, although the delegation was 
as the U.S. report, although the delegation was 
willing to note all the rest.  The U.S. intervened 
with the position that these documents should be 
grouped and handled in the same manner, whether 
noted or under some other formulation.  The TS 
offered language that the documents were 
"circulated" to the Council.  However, Russia and 
some of the other possessor states voiced 
opposition to this concept, indicating that it is 
offensive to those delegations responsible for 
drafting these reports, but said, for the sake of 
consensus, they would not object.  Russia referred 
to the Iranian objection and the U.S. grouping of 
all the reports as "vicious" tactics. 
 
¶23. (SBU) To add further confusion to the matter, 
the TS had inserted previous chapeau language into 
the draft text of the decision before Iran 
requested it as they had in the past.  The Iranian 
delegation took the position that they could accept 
the "circulation" of the reports and would give up 
the previously hard-fought chapeau language urging 
early commencement of new destruction facilities, 
much to the surprise of other Council members. 
Multiple delegations voiced concern with removal of 
the statement reaffirming the obligation of 
possessor States Parties to destroy their chemical 
weapons within the extended deadlines.  Finally, 
the South African delegation intervened to state 
that this was not an acceptable solution. 
 
¶24. (SBU) In order to resolve this impasse, the 
U.S. delegation considered the earlier option 
proposed by the TS upon the introduction of the DG 
note in the agenda review.  When the Iranian 
delegation had first intervened on the DG note, 
with specific reference to paragraph 30 which 
included the U.S. destruction dates extending 
beyond 2012, Alexander Khodakov, Secretary to the 
Policy-Making Organs, offered that the document 
might be amended and reissued with those dates 
removed since the note is intended to report on 
past activities, progress achieved, rather than 
future-oriented projections.  This same line of 
logic was applied to the U.S. 90-day report, and 
the South African delegation intervened to offer 
that the language in the U.S. 90-day report and the 
DG note should be amended and reissued with the 
term "to be determined" inserted where the 
troublesome dates were used.  The U.S. 
Representative clarified the alternative language 
that would be issued and verified with the Iranian 
delegation specifically that this was agreeable. 
With no objections from the Council, this allowed 
the chapeau language to be retained, and the DG 
note and the entirety of the collection of 90-day 
reports to be noted. 
 
¶25. (SBU) Prior to the EC session, the Brazilian 
delegation proposed report language calling for the 
Council to instruct the EC Chairman to engage in 
informal consultations with interested delegations 
on how, and when, to initiate formal deliberations 
by the Council about the feasibility of the revised 
deadlines of 2012 being met by possessor States 
deadlines of 2012 being met by possessor States 
Parties.  Several small groups meetings were held 
on the margins of the EC to revise the language to 
ensure that the proposal was positively received 
and approved by the Council.  Brazilian Ambassador 
Jose Medeiros chaired the meetings in which 
interested delegations included South Africa, 
India, China, Japan, Russia, Sweden, the U.S. and 
Peru.  The Russian delegation took the position 
that the proposal itself was not appropriate for 
consideration at this time.  Several delegations 
(Iran, India, South Africa and Sweden) called for 
the term "compliance" to be included in the text. 
However, to reach agreement among the group and 
later within the Council, the proposal emphasized 
the consultations to be a procedural step to start 
the process for further discussions.  Benign text 
drafted by Delrep was distributed as the Russian 
compromise position and was accepted by both the 
smaller group of interested parties and the larger 
Council.  (DEL NOTE: The Brazilian delegation 
privately described the motivation for this 
proposal as an effort to take this very political 
and complicated discussion off the table of the EC, 
clearing the path for the Chairman to address the 
required agenda items and effectively lead this and 
future meetings. Additionally, the EC Chairman told 
Delrep that he felt that the substance of this 
proposal was largely the role of his successor. 
END NOTE.) 
 
¶26. (C) The South African delegation also proposed 
a new initiative under the agenda Subitem 5(b), 
which was amended to add the term "and other 
destruction related issues" to accommodate their 
proposal.  Prior to the EC, the South African 
delegation engaged the U.S. and UK delegations on 
their initiative to establish an open-ended working 
group aimed at developing guidelines pertaining to 
security and destruction of chemical weapons in 
situations not foreseen by the Chemical Weapons 
Convention.  Despite both the U.S. and the UK 
delegations expressing opposition to the proposed 
open-ended working group, the South African 
delegation circulated draft report language in 
advance of the EC and firmly indicated that they 
would be pursuing this initiative, going as far to 
threaten that, should the U.S. not agree to this 
approach, a discussion on noncompliance related to 
U.S. and UK activity related to RCW in Iraq would 
be the alternative. 
 
¶27. (SBU) In trilateral discussions between the 
U.S., the UK and South Africa, the issue of who 
might serve as the facilitator for this proposed 
working group.  The South African delegation said 
that they were prepared to serve in this role 
themselves, specifically Delegate Marthinus van 
Schalkwyk.  Both the U.S. and the UK delegations 
objected.  As a result of considerable discussion, 
a compromise position was reached, whereby the 
format of these discussions would be deemed 
consultations rather than an open-ended working 
group, and the facilitator would be Irish Delegate 
group, and the facilitator would be Irish Delegate 
Michael Hurley.  To further restrict the scope of 
this initiative, the UK provided draft guidelines 
to the U.S. and South Africa for review and 
indicated that these should be introduced by the 
facilitator.  (DEL NOTE:  An electronic copy of the 
draft guidelines/decision text was sent to ISN-CB 
for further review and comment.  END NOTE.) 
 
¶28. (SBU) While the Council approved the South 
African proposal, and Irish Delegate Michael Hurley 
agreed to serve as facilitator, several delegations 
queried the goal of these consultations.  During a 
final intervention at the EC, the Russian Delegate 
read a prepared statement that these consultations 
should in no way seek to change the legal text of 
the treaty, nor to amend the convention, and ought 
to be limited in scope to conflict situations 
rather than extending to include situations related 
interdictions at sea. The EC Chairman requested 
that Russia circulate a national paper on their 
position. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S STATEMENT AND GENERAL DEBATE 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶29. (U) The 58th session of the Executive Council 
opened on October 13 with an update from the four 
Vice-Chairmen on activities that took place during 
the intersessional period.  On chemical weapons 
issues, Ambassador Lohman (Netherlands) informed 
the Council that he had chaired a consultation on 
the report on the EC visit to two U.S. destruction 
facilities.  One round of consultations on Article 
X assistance and protection had also been held 
since the last EC.  Regarding chemical industry 
issues, Ambassador Idris (Sudan) noted progress 
during consultations on low concentrations for 
Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals and enhancement of 
OCPF declarations.  The Vice-Chairman for 
administrative and financial issues, Delegate 
Vejdani (Iran) reported on eight rounds of budget 
consultations, and stated that the Report of the 
Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial 
Matters (ABAF) and the Report on Implementation of 
the External Auditor's Recommendations were both 
ready for Council consideration.  On legal and 
organizational issues, Ambassador Gevorgian 
(Russia) noted consultations and progress on 
universality, Article XI international cooperation 
and Article VII national implementation.  Chairman 
Lomonaco (Mexico) reported on his consultations and 
straw polls for the DG selection, the Host Country 
Committee and the informal meeting on destruction 
the day before. 
 
¶30. (U) Director-General Pfirter opened his 
statement, long even by his standards, with pointed 
congratulations for President Barak Obama on 
winning the Noble Peace Prize, noting that Obama 
gave a new impetus to multilateralism and 
contributed to improving the diplomatic atmosphere 
in the fields of disarmament and nonproliferation. 
Pfirter then turned to destruction issues, 
highlighting that the milestone of 50% destruction 
highlighting that the milestone of 50% destruction 
of all declared chemical weapons (CW) had been 
passed.  On Libya, he cited the extension request 
and the need for prompt action to destroy Libya's 
CW stockpile within the deadline. 
 
¶31. (U) On Iraq, notwithstanding Iraq's commitment 
to the Convention, he stated that the security 
situation had forced the postponement of the 
initial visit by the Technical Secretariat (TS) to 
 
verify Iraq's declarations and that the visit had 
not yet been rescheduled.  The DG noted the visit 
by the TS teams, at the invitation of the United 
States and the United Kingdom, to review records on 
the disposal of chemical weapons recovered in Iraq 
between 2003 and 2008.  In the TS view, the 
documents appeared consistent with information 
provided by the U.S. and the United Kingdom, and 
full transparency was provided in support of the 
review. 
 
¶32. (U) The DG turned to Russia's enhanced efforts 
on destruction, highlighting construction and 
commencement of chemical weapons destruction 
operations at new units in their operating 
facilities.  He described the U.S. destruction 
effort as proceeding steadily and noted completion 
of operations at Dugway Proving Ground. 
 
¶33. (U) The DG stated that this year's Article VI 
inspections were on track. However, he emphasized 
the importance of focusing on appropriate 
inspections for the large numbers of Other Chemical 
Production Facilities (OCPF) worldwide, and the 
ease and speed with which a number of such 
facilities could be reconfigured for production of 
chemicals other than those they are meant for.  He 
announced a workshop planned in November before the 
National Authorities meeting to discuss OCPF 
issues. 
 
¶34. (U) Pfirter summarized TS assistance 
activities, highlighting ASSISTEX III to be held in 
Tunis in October 2010, as well as noting various 
training courses related to Article X held in the 
intersessional period.  As for cooperation 
sponsored by the States Parties, he summarized 
recent developments in the 2009 Associate Program, 
and contributions from several governments. 
 
¶35. (U) The DG noted continued progress of States 
Parties designating National Authorities, which 
have reached 97% of Convention membership.  He also 
highlighted UN Security Council Resolution 1887 
which links progress in disarmament and non- 
proliferation as an element of international 
security. He also addressed TS participation in a 
meeting established under UNSCR 1540.  On the 
budget, he noted positive feedback received during 
facilitations on progress made towards a "results- 
based" approach. In turning to the Scientific 
Advisory Board (SAB), he welcomed the six new 
members, including Bill Kane (U.S.) who will join 
the Board in January.  He indicated that the SAB 
will address applications of nanotechnology to 
improve protective measures against chemical 
weapons. 
 
¶36. (U) The General Debate that followed featured 
¶36. (U) The General Debate that followed featured 
several recurring and predictable themes.  Many 
statements expressed optimism for a successful 
outcome for the Executive Council's efforts to 
nominate a consensus Director-General candidate to 
the Conference.  Regarding destruction matters, the 
 
African Group, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and 
China, Pakistan and Brazil included varying 
expressions of concern that a major possessor state 
does not expect to meet the 2012 deadline.  Iran 
stated that CW destruction is the most important 
issue on the agenda, that the final extended 
deadline of 2012 must be met, and that the 
integrity of the CWC will be tested if one state 
Party cannot meet that deadline.  China 
additionally urged all possessor States to show a 
sense of urgency and overcome difficulties to 
ensure the timely completion of destruction. 
 
¶37. (U) Brazil proposed that the Council appoint 
the Chairman to conduct informal consultations with 
Council members on how and when to initiate formal 
deliberations on the feasibility of the 2012 
deadline.  Both the NAM and African Group 
statements supported South Africa's proposal 
regarding the security and destruction of chemical 
weapons in situations not foreseen by the 
Convention. 
 
¶38. (U) The statement by Russia highlighted its own 
destruction accomplishments but expressed concern 
regarding the lack of progress in verifying Iraq's 
initial declaration.  The European Union (EU) and 
Russia called on Iraq to prepare a detailed plan 
for destruction and submit it to the Executive 
Council.  The EU also requested more information 
about Libya's plans and projections regarding its 
request for an extension to its deadline for 
destruction of Category 1 weapons.  Libya 
emphasized that it was committed to elimination of 
all WMD, and provided an update on its efforts to 
construct a CW destruction facility at Rabta. 
Predictably, China dedicated a portion of its 
statement to the issue of Japanese abandoned 
chemical weapons, noting grave concern that 
destruction has not yet begun. Japan stated that 
they were working to use ultrasound technology to 
gain a better understanding of old and abandoned CW 
in China.  Iraq thanked the U.S., the UK and 
Germany for their assistance in helping Iraq to 
implement the CWC. 
 
¶39. (U) Regarding the Article VII action plan and 
related national implementation efforts, Russia 
placed great importance on successful 
implementation, linking this issue to export 
controls.  The statement called for a search for 
new incentives to promote real progress in meeting 
Article VII.  The EU noted with concern the slow 
progress in recent years and encouraged the TS to 
consider alternative approaches, such as targeted 
training for relevant government officials at the 
training for relevant government officials at the 
OPCW. 
 
¶40. (U) The NAM, the African Group and Saudi Arabia 
invoked Article XI and called for resumption of 
consultations on full implementation of Article XI. 
The African Group noted the implementation of the 
Program for Africa and thanked States Parties 
supporting the program through voluntary 
 
contributions.  The European Union touted its own 
financial contribution to the Program under the 
EU's Strategy against Proliferation of WMD. 
 
¶41. (U) Russia, the NAM, the African Group and 
Saudi Arabia supported the Secretariat's work in 
Article X activities, with some specifically citing 
the ASSISTEX 3 exercise to be held in October 2010. 
The NAM and African Group statements highlighted 
Article X in the context of the CWC's contribution 
to global antiterrorism efforts, and, along with 
the EU, supported the efforts of the Open-Ended 
Working Group on Terrorism.  Nigeria stated that 
the role of the OPCW in preventing terrorism cannot 
be over-estimated. 
 
¶42. (U) Several statements included similar themes 
regarding the allocation of Article VI inspection 
resources.  The NAM stated that the proposed 
increase and distribution of industry inspections 
are unconvincing and have no reasonable basis, 
while China repeated the theme of "hierarchy of 
risk" pertaining to the four types of facilities 
under Article VI. 
 
¶43. (U) Russia and the EU supported the principle 
of zero-nominal growth budgets and maintaining the 
present level of annual State Party contributions 
to the OPCW. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
UNIVERSALITY AND ARTICLES VII, X AND XI 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶44. (U) The facilitators for Universality and 
Articles VII, X and XI all briefed the Council on 
the progress of their respective consultations. 
The four issues attracted little substantive debate 
with facilitators working on the margins to 
negotiate draft text for the session's final 
report.  Delreps worked with WEOG delegations to 
insure balance between report language on Articles 
VII and XI.  The Council extended the mandates of 
all four facilitators to allow them to continue 
consultations through to the CSP and authorize them 
to submit draft decisions or other products for the 
CSP's consideration. 
 
¶45. (SBU) During the adoption of report language, 
Iran insisted from the floor that the TS include 
more information in future Article VII annual 
implementation reports on legislation related to 
free trade (Article XI Paragraph 2(e)).  The UK and 
other delegations objected in principle as Iran 
previously had not raised the issue formally in the 
Council.  Legal Advisor Onate also staunchly 
defended his office's annual report, stating that 
it already includes complete information on Article 
XI Paragraph 2(e).  Despite Iranian protestations, 
XI Paragraph 2(e).  Despite Iranian protestations, 
Chairman Lomonaco ruled that Iran's text could not 
be inserted due to the lack of support, and the 
fact that it would not be factually correct to 
include it in the session's report. 
 
¶46. (C) DEL COMMENT:  As the Council completed all 
of its mandatory work needing to be forwarded to 
the CSP for action, these four issues likely are to 
be the primary focus of work in the run up to the 
CSP and will dominate the substantive agenda of the 
CSP.  Given Iran's inability to insert report 
language under Article VII on its pet issue of free 
trade in chemicals (Article XI), the Iranian 
delegation likely will press hard to include 
similar references in any Article VII draft 
decision at the CSP.  END COMMENT. 
 
---------------------- 
ITEMS APPROVED/ADOPTED 
---------------------- 
 
¶47. (U) The following agenda items were approved or 
adopted: 
 
EC-58/S/2 - Corrections to the general and detailed 
plans for conversion of the Libyan CWPFs "Rabta 1" 
and "Rabta 2" 
 
EC-58/NAT.5 and EC-58/DEC/CRP.2 - Libyan request 
for extension of the intermediate and final 
destruction deadlines for its Category 1 chemical 
weapons 
 
EC-57/CRP.2 and EC-58/DEC/CRP.5 - 2010 Budget 
 
EC-58/DEC/CRP.6 - Guidelines regarding low- 
concentration limits for declarations of Schedule 
2A and 2A* chemicals 
 
EC-58/DEC/CRP.3/Rev.1 - Adoption of IPSAS as the 
OPCW's accounting standard 
 
EC-58/S/3 - appointments of Sakiko Hayakawa (Japan) 
and Yungjoon Jo (South Korea) to the Advisory Body 
on Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF) 
 
EC-58/CRP.1 - EC report on its activities from 28 
June 2008 to 17 July 2009 
 
-------------- 
ITEMS DEFERRED 
-------------- 
 
¶48. (U) The following documents were deferred: 
 
EC-56/S/3*, EC-57/DEC/CRP.1 - Proposed guidelines 
on the nature of continued verification measures at 
converted production facilities ten years after 
their certification of conversion 
 
EC-53/S/5 - Secretariat note on enhancing 
information on the characteristics of plant sites 
in other chemical production facility declarations 
 
EC-53/DG.11 - DG note concerning information on the 
enhancement of OCPF declarations 
 
EC-57/DG.5 - DG note entitled "Technical 
Arrangement between the Technical Secretariat and 
 
Designated Laboratories concerning the Procedures 
for Off-site Analysis of Samples and for Adherence 
to the Requirements of the OPCW Confidentiality 
Regime" 
 
EC-57/S/1 - Secretariat note on continued inclusion 
in the OPCW Central Analytical Database (OCAD) of 
analytical data for derivatives of scheduled 
chemicals 
 
EC-58/DG.4, EC-58/DEC.CRP.1 - DG note on the lists 
of validated data for Council approval for 
inclusion in the OCAD and the draft decision 
 
EC-57/DG.4 - DG report on the implementation of the 
tenure policy in 2008 
 
----------- 
ITEMS NOTED 
----------- 
 
¶49. (U) The Council noted the following documents: 
 
EC-58/DG.13 - DG's opening statement 
 
EC-58/R/S/1 - Secretariat note on the update on 
process in converting a former CWPF 
 
EC-58/NAT.6 - notification of changes to the 
general and detailed plans for the conversion of 
former CWPFs "Rabta 1" and "Rabta 2" 
 
EC-58/DG11* - DG note on the progress of States 
Parties granted extensions of destruction deadlines 
 
EC-58/NAT.4 - Libyan national paper on the status 
of destruction activities 
 
EC-58/NAT.3* - U.S. national paper on the status of 
destruction activities 
 
EC-57/12 - report of the EC visit by the 
Chairperson and representatives to Pueblo and 
Umatilla 
 
EC-58/P/NAT.1 - Russian national paper on the 
status of destruction activities 
 
EC-58/NAT.1 - Chinese national paper on the status 
of Japanese abandoned CW (ACW) in China 
 
EC-58/NAT.2 - Japanese national paper on the status 
of its ACW projects in China 
 
EC-58/HP/DG.1 - supplement to the 2008 Verification 
Implementation Report (VIR) 
 
EC-57/HP/DG.2/Add.1 - comments and views received 
on the 2008 VIR 
 
EC-57/HP/DG.1/Corr.2 - corrigendum to the 2008 VIR 
 
EC-58/DG.5 - DG note on the status of Article VII 
implementation 
 
 
EC-57/S/3 - Secretariat note on the content and use 
of the Article X assistance-and-protection databank 
 
EC-58/DG.9 C-14/DG.8 - DG note and annual report on 
the implementation of the action plan for the 
universality of the CWC 
 
EC-55/DG.8 - DG report on the performance of the 
modified methodology for the selection of OCPFs for 
inspection 
 
S/773/2009 - Secretariat note on electronic 
submission of annual declarations on past 
activities as at 31 May 2009 
 
EC-58/DG.8 - DG note on the Secretariat's readiness 
to conduct a challenge inspection 
 
EC-58/DG.12 - DG note on OPCW income and 
expenditure for the financial year to 30 September 
2009 
 
EC-58/DG.3 - DG note on the adoption of IPSAS 
(International Public Sector Accounting Standards) 
 
EC-58/S/1 - Secretariat note on the status of 
implementation of the recommendations of the 
External Auditor 
 
ABAF-27/1, Corr.1, - report of the Twenty-Seventh 
ABAF session 
 
EC-58/DG.10 - DG note containing comments on the 
ABAF report.  The Council noted the resignation of 
Su-Jin Cho (South Korea) and Takayuki Kitagawa 
(Japan) from the ABAF. 
 
EC-58/HCC/1, C-14/HCC/1 - report by the Committee 
on Relations with the Host Country on the 
performance of its activities December 2008 - 
September 2009 
 
EC-58/3 - withdrawal of Finland's and Switzerland's 
DG candidates 
 
EC-58/4 - withdrawal of Indonesia's DG candidate 
 
EC-58/5 - withdrawal of the United Kingdom's DG 
candidate 
 
EC-58/6 - withdrawal of Algeria's DG candidate 
 
EC-58/7 - withdrawal of Germany's DG candidate 
 
¶50. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
 
LEVIN