Cable Viewer

Currently released so far... 12530 / 251,287

### Browse latest releases

2010/11 2010/12 2011/01 2011/02 2011/03 2011/04 2011/05
2010/11/28 2010/11/29 2010/11/30
2010/12/01 2010/12/02 2010/12/03 2010/12/04 2010/12/05 2010/12/06 2010/12/07 2010/12/08 2010/12/09 2010/12/10 2010/12/11 2010/12/12 2010/12/13 2010/12/14 2010/12/15 2010/12/16 2010/12/17 2010/12/18 2010/12/19 2010/12/20 2010/12/21 2010/12/22 2010/12/23 2010/12/24 2010/12/25 2010/12/26 2010/12/27 2010/12/28 2010/12/29 2010/12/30
2011/01/01 2011/01/02 2011/01/04 2011/01/05 2011/01/07 2011/01/09 2011/01/10 2011/01/11 2011/01/12 2011/01/13 2011/01/14 2011/01/15 2011/01/16 2011/01/17 2011/01/18 2011/01/19 2011/01/20 2011/01/21 2011/01/22 2011/01/23 2011/01/24 2011/01/25 2011/01/26 2011/01/27 2011/01/28 2011/01/29 2011/01/30 2011/01/31
2011/02/01 2011/02/02 2011/02/03 2011/02/04 2011/02/05 2011/02/06 2011/02/07 2011/02/08 2011/02/09 2011/02/10 2011/02/11 2011/02/12 2011/02/13 2011/02/14 2011/02/15 2011/02/16 2011/02/17 2011/02/18 2011/02/19 2011/02/20 2011/02/21 2011/02/22 2011/02/23 2011/02/24 2011/02/25 2011/02/26 2011/02/27 2011/02/28
2011/03/01 2011/03/02 2011/03/03 2011/03/04 2011/03/05 2011/03/06 2011/03/07 2011/03/08 2011/03/09 2011/03/10 2011/03/11 2011/03/13 2011/03/14 2011/03/15 2011/03/16 2011/03/17 2011/03/18 2011/03/19 2011/03/20 2011/03/21 2011/03/22 2011/03/23 2011/03/24 2011/03/25 2011/03/26 2011/03/27 2011/03/28 2011/03/29 2011/03/30 2011/03/31
2011/04/01 2011/04/02 2011/04/03 2011/04/04 2011/04/05 2011/04/06 2011/04/07 2011/04/08 2011/04/09 2011/04/10 2011/04/11 2011/04/12 2011/04/13 2011/04/14 2011/04/15 2011/04/16 2011/04/17 2011/04/18 2011/04/19 2011/04/20 2011/04/21 2011/04/22 2011/04/23 2011/04/24 2011/04/25 2011/04/26 2011/04/27 2011/04/28 2011/04/29 2011/04/30
2011/05/01 2011/05/02 2011/05/03 2011/05/04 2011/05/05 2011/05/06 2011/05/07 2011/05/08 2011/05/09 2011/05/10 2011/05/11

### Browse by creation date

66 72 73 75 79 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 96 97 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
1966/12
1972/02 1972/08
1973/04
1975/03
1979/08
1985/03 1985/06
1986/05
1987/06
1988/01
1989/12
1990/01 1990/07 1990/08 1990/10
1991/05
1992/01 1992/06 1992/12
1993/10
1996/11
1997/12
2000/05 2000/06 2000/09 2000/11
2001/02 2001/03 2001/06 2001/07 2001/09 2001/10 2001/11
2002/01 2002/02 2002/03 2002/04 2002/07 2002/08 2002/09 2002/11
2003/01 2003/02 2003/03 2003/04 2003/05 2003/06 2003/07 2003/08 2003/09 2003/10 2003/11 2003/12
2004/01 2004/02 2004/03 2004/04 2004/05 2004/06 2004/07 2004/08 2004/09 2004/10 2004/11 2004/12
2005/01 2005/02 2005/03 2005/04 2005/05 2005/06 2005/07 2005/08 2005/09 2005/10 2005/11 2005/12
2006/01 2006/02 2006/03 2006/04 2006/05 2006/06 2006/07 2006/08 2006/09 2006/10 2006/11 2006/12
2007/01 2007/02 2007/03 2007/04 2007/05 2007/06 2007/07 2007/08 2007/09 2007/10 2007/11 2007/12
2008/01 2008/02 2008/03 2008/04 2008/05 2008/06 2008/07 2008/08 2008/09 2008/10 2008/11 2008/12
2009/01 2009/02 2009/03 2009/04 2009/05 2009/06 2009/07 2009/08 2009/09 2009/10 2009/11 2009/12
2010/01 2010/02

### Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z
Embassy Athens Embassy Asuncion Embassy Astana Embassy Asmara Embassy Ashgabat Embassy Apia Embassy Ankara Embassy Amman Embassy Algiers Embassy Addis Ababa Embassy Accra Embassy Abuja Embassy Abu Dhabi Embassy Abidjan Consulate Auckland Consulate Amsterdam Consulate Adana American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura Embassy Buenos Aires Embassy Budapest Embassy Bucharest Embassy Brussels Embassy Bridgetown Embassy Bratislava Embassy Brasilia Embassy Bogota Embassy Bishkek Embassy Bern Embassy Berlin Embassy Belmopan Embassy Belgrade Embassy Beirut Embassy Beijing Embassy Banjul Embassy Bangkok Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan Embassy Bamako Embassy Baku Embassy Baghdad Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen Embassy Conakry Embassy Colombo Embassy Chisinau Embassy Caracas Embassy Canberra Embassy Cairo Consulate Curacao Consulate Ciudad Juarez Consulate Chennai Consulate Casablanca Consulate Cape Town Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe Embassy Dublin Embassy Doha Embassy Djibouti Embassy Dili Embassy Dhaka Embassy Dar Es Salaam Embassy Damascus Embassy Dakar Consulate Dubai
Embassy Freetown Consulate Fukuoka
Embassy Guatemala Embassy Gaborone Consulate Guayaquil Consulate Guadalajara
Embassy Helsinki Embassy Harare Embassy Hanoi Consulate Ho Chi Minh City Consulate Hermosillo Consulate Hamilton Consulate Hamburg Consulate Halifax
Iran RPO Dubai Embassy Islamabad Consulate Istanbul
Embassy Jakarta Consulate Jerusalem Consulate Jeddah
Embassy Kyiv Embassy Kuwait Embassy Kuala Lumpur Embassy Kinshasa Embassy Kingston Embassy Kigali Embassy Khartoum Embassy Kathmandu Embassy Kampala Embassy Kabul Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg Embassy Luanda Embassy London Embassy Ljubljana Embassy Lisbon Embassy Lima Embassy Lilongwe Embassy La Paz Consulate Lahore Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE Mission USNATO Mission UNESCO Embassy Muscat Embassy Moscow Embassy Montevideo Embassy Monrovia Embassy Minsk Embassy Mexico Embassy Mbabane Embassy Maputo Embassy Manila Embassy Manama Embassy Managua Embassy Malabo Embassy Madrid Consulate Munich Consulate Mumbai Consulate Montreal Consulate Monterrey Consulate Milan Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia Embassy Niamey Embassy New Delhi Embassy Ndjamena Embassy Nassau Embassy Nairobi Consulate Naples Consulate Naha
Embassy Ouagadougou Embassy Ottawa Embassy Oslo
Embassy Pristina Embassy Pretoria Embassy Prague Embassy Port Of Spain Embassy Port Louis Embassy Port Au Prince Embassy Phnom Penh Embassy Paris Embassy Paramaribo Embassy Panama Consulate Peshawar
Embassy Quito Consulate Quebec
REO Basrah Embassy Rome Embassy Riyadh Embassy Riga Embassy Reykjavik Embassy Rangoon Embassy Rabat Consulate Rio De Janeiro Consulate Recife
Secretary of State Embassy Suva Embassy Stockholm Embassy Sofia Embassy Skopje Embassy Singapore Embassy Seoul Embassy Sarajevo Embassy Santo Domingo Embassy Santiago Embassy Sanaa Embassy San Salvador Embassy San Jose Consulate Strasbourg Consulate St Petersburg Consulate Shenyang Consulate Shanghai Consulate Sapporo Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis Embassy Tripoli Embassy Tokyo Embassy The Hague Embassy Tel Aviv Embassy Tehran Embassy Tegucigalpa Embassy Tbilisi Embassy Tashkent Embassy Tallinn Consulate Toronto Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York USEU Brussels US Office Almaty US Mission Geneva US Interests Section Havana US Delegation, Secretary UNVIE Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius Embassy Vienna Embassy Vatican Embassy Valletta Consulate Vladivostok Consulate Vancouver
Embassy Windhoek Embassy Wellington Embassy Warsaw
Embassy Yerevan Embassy Yaounde
Embassy Zagreb

### Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
AORC ASEC AF AR AM AS AEMR ASEAN AJ AFFAIRS AFIN AMGT AODE APEC AE ABLD ACBAQ APECO AFSI AFSN AY AO AU ABUD ADPM AG ACOA ANET AINF AC APER AMED ATRN ADCO ARF AL ASIG ASCH AID ASUP AADP AMCHAMS AGAO AIT AMBASSADOR AUC AA ASEX AER AVERY AGRICULTURE AMG AFU AN ALOW ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG ACS APCS ADANA AECL ACAO AORG AGR AROC ACABQ AGMT AORL AX AMEX ADM AFGHANISTAN AZ AND ARM AQ ATFN
BR BK BL BA BO BRUSSELS BM BEXP BU BD BG BP BB BF BTIO BBSR BY BH BIDEN BX BE BTIU BT BWC BMGT BC BN BILAT
CA CVIS CO CS CJAN CU CARICOM CI CB CASC CE CH CN CONDOLEEZZA CMGT CW CODEL CWC CT CBW CPAS CFED CG CACS CY CAN CSW CIDA CIC CITT CONS CM CD CLINTON CDG COM CDC CROS CLMT CAPC COPUOS CTR CF CJUS CL CR CARSON CHR CACM CDB COE CV CBC COUNTERTERRORISM CIA CNARC COUNTER CICTE COUNTRY CBSA CEUDA CAC CBE CTM CIS CKGR CVR CITEL CLEARANCE
DR DISENGAGEMENT DE DJ DA DOMESTIC DEA DOD DTRA DOE DS DEFENSE DO DHS DAO DCM DEAX DK DPRK DEPT
ETTC ECON EWWT EC EMIN ETRD EINV EAID EG EFIN EAGR ENRG EIND EPET EUN ECPS ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS ENIV ENGR ECIN ELTN EAIR EI EFIS ECUN EU ELAB EN EFTA ENGY ECONOMICS ET ES ETRDEINVTINTCS EFINECONCS ELECTIONS EIAR EZ EINDETRD EINT EUR EREL EUC ER ESENV ELN ECONEFIN EK EPA EURN EAIG ECONCS EEPET ESA ENNP EDU EUREM ENVR ECA ENVI EXIM ECIP ENERG EFIM EAIDS ETRDECONWTOCS EUNCH EINVETC ECONOMIC EINVECONSENVCSJA EUMEM ETRA EXTERNAL ERNG ETRC ETRO ETRN EINVEFIN ECINECONCS ERD ETC EAP ECONOMY EINN EXBS
FI FR FTAA FAC FOI FJ FM FREEDOM FMLN FAO FTA FDA FARC FBI FO FISO FOR FOREIGN FAS FINR FINANCE
GG GM GZ GAZA GH GR GOI GANGS GV GCC GY GT GAERC GERARD GA GE GOV GTIP GLOBAL GTMO GL GF
HK HR HA HURI HO HUMAN HU HSTC HILLARY HYMPSK HUMOR HEBRON HI
IN IAEA IR IS IT IMF IBRD IZ IC IWC ISRAELI INTERPOL ICAO IO ITRA ILO ISLAMISTS ITALY ITALIAN IRAQI IPR IQ IV IRS IAHRC IACI ID INRB ICTY IL ICRC IMO ICJ ITU ILC IIP IRC IDP IDA IZPREL IRAJ IA ITF IF INMARSAT ISRAEL ICTR IGAD INRA INRO IEFIN INTELSAT INTERNAL INDO ITPHUM ITPGOV IBET INR IEA
JA JP JM JO JAMES JOSEPH JOHN JOHNNIE JUS
KPAO KMDR KISL KNNP KRVC KDEM KCRM KPAL KTIA KV KCOR KJUS KOMC KTFN KWBG KTIP KSCA KMPI KSUM KIRF KIRC KE KZ KIPR KWMN KFRD KSEP KN KAWC KOLY KCFE KPKO KIDE KMRS KFLU KSAF KS KGIC KRAD KU KHLS KCIP KOCI KSTH KG KGHG KUNR KR KVPR KBTR KRIM KREC KTDB KDRG KSPR KICC KAWK KMCA KPLS KCOM KAID KGCC KPRP KSTC KNSD KBIO KGIT KSEO KFLO KPAONZ KFSC KOM KRGY KPOA KACT KHIV KTEX KLIG KBCT KWMM KPAI KICA KNAR KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KHDP KHUM KBTS KCRS KHSA KO KVIR KX KVRP KMOC KNUC KSEC KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KCMR KPWR KPIN KESS KDEV KCGC KWWMN KPRV KPAK KWNM KWMNCS KRFD KSCI KDDG KIFR KMFO KFIN KNEI KTER KWAC KOMS KCRCM KNUP KMIG KNNPMNUC KNPP KERG KTLA KCSY KTRD KID KSAC KJUST KRCM KTBT KCFC KCHG KREL KFTFN KDEMAF
LY LTTE LE LH LU LO LI LG LA LT LABOR LAB LOG
MARR MOPS MG MASS MW MIL MX MNUC MTCRE MCAP MAS MO MTCR MU MRCRE MY MD MK MP MAPP MR MT MCC MZ MIK MTRE ML MDC MAR MA MQADHAFI MASC MV MAPS MARAD MEETINGS MEDIA MEPP MPOS MILITARY MASSMNUC MEPN MI MC MUCN MERCOSUR MOPPS MTS MLS MILI MEPI
NZ NL NI NU NATO NO NPT NE NRR NA NR NATIONAL NIPP NDP NPA NG NAFTA NT NS NK NGO NP NASA NAR NSF NV NORAD NSSP NH NATOPREL NSG NW NPG NSFO NEW NZUS NSC NC
OTRA OPRC OIIP OAS OPDC OVIP OEXC OPIC OECD OSCE OPCW OREP OFFICIALS ODIP OES OSCI OHUM OMIG OFDP OVP OCII OPAD OIC OIE OCS OBSP OTR OSAC ON OFDA
PHUM PREL PINR PARM PGOV PM PTER PREF PA PHSA PK POL PINS PBTS PL PE PFOR PALESTINIAN PUNE PDOV PGOVLO PAO POLITICS PO PHUMBA PSEPC PAK PTBS PCUL PLN PROP PRL PBIO PGOC PNAT PREO PAHO PINL POGOV PU PF PY POV PNR PGOVE PG PROG PCI PREFA PP PMIL POLINT PGGV PHALANAGE PARTY PHUS PDEM PECON PROV PSOE PAS PHUMPREL PMAR PGIV PRAM PHUH PSA PHUMPGOV PEL PSI PAIGH POLITICAL PARTIES POSTS PARMS POLICY PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PBT PTERE PRGOV PORG PS PGOF PKFK PEPR PPA PINT PRELP PINF PNG
QA
RS RU RICE RW RM RCMP RO RIGHTS RUPREL RFE RF ROOD RP REACTION RIGHTSPOLMIL ROBERT RELATIONS RSO REPORT REGION RSP
SCUL SOCI SNAR SENV SY SR SU SO SP SA SZ SF SMIG SPCE SW SIPDIS SYR SHI STEINBERG SN SL SNARIZ SG SNARN SEVN SARS SSA SC SIPRS SYRIA SNARCS SAARC SHUM SK SI SPCVIS SOFA SANC SEN SH SCRS SENVKGHG SWE SAN ST
TPHY TW TU TBIO TRGY TSPA TX TN TSPL TL TV TC TZ TS TF TNGD TI TIP TH TINT TT TFIN TD TP TAGS TK TR TERRORISM THPY TO TRSY TURKEY TBID
UK UP US UNSC UNHCR USEU UNGA UG UNESCO UY UN UNMIK USTR USOAS UNHRC UZ USUN UV UNEP UNODC UNCHS UNDP UNCHR UNFICYP UNAUS UNO UNPUOS UNC UNIDROIT UNDESCO UNCHC UNCND UNICEF UNCSD UNDC USNC USPS USAID UE UNVIE UAE
VT VM VE VZ VN VTPREL VTIZ VAT VC VTEG VI
WI WMD WHO WTRO WIPO WHA WTO WFP WS WTRQ WWARD WBG WITH WMO WEU WZ WHTI WA WB
XM XR XZ XF XA XB XV XL XG XC XTAG XK XY XH XT XE XU XX XD XW XI XQ XS
YM YI YE YMCS
ZB ZI ZA ZK ZF ZU ZR ZP ZANU ZO ZOELLICK ZL ZJ ZEALAND ZN

### Browse by classification

CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN SECRET SECRET//NOFORN UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

### Community resources

Follow us on Twitter Check our Reddit Twitter this Digg this page Contact us on IRC

courage is contagious

### Viewing cable 09THEHAGUE632, CWC: WRAP-UP FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION,

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:

- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.

To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09THEHAGUE632.

Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
09THEHAGUE632 | 2009-10-22 18:01 | 2011-04-24 00:00 | CONFIDENTIAL | Embassy The Hague

`

    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

`