CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 THE HAGUE 000798

SIPDIS

STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN)
NSC FOR CHUPA
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR
THE 36TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION OF THE OPCW

REF: STATE 63125

This is CWC-42-04.

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (U) The 36th Executive Council session of the OPCW was a
solid success for the U.S. across the entire range of
substantive and administrative issues. The presence of the
Libyan delegation was sufficient to ensure that EC-36 would
be memorable, and a report on the various discussions
involving Libya will be provided septel. The Council managed
to clear away a substantial number of issues that had
languished for some time. A number of U.S. destruction and
conversion plans and facility agreements were approved. Two
long-standing industry issues were resolved, and progress was
made on other items. Decisions and report language provide
the basis for necessary changes on insurance and home leave
travel payments, as well as improvements in the operations of
the Office of Internal Oversight. While there was discussion
on implementation of results-based budgeting (RBB),it was
notable that the policy decision was not challenged.


2. (U) Perhaps most contentious was the Director-General's
report on the implementation of the tenure policy, which
generated some 30 interventions. The DG told delegations
that work is in progress on measures to ease the transition
of those separated from the OPCW. The discussion ended
without rancor, and we urge Washington to fully support these
transition initiatives. In short, EC-36 cleared away much of
the underbrush on numerous issues in a variety of areas and
laid the foundation for intersessional work that can address
a new set of USG priorities. Results on specific issues are
provided below as noted in the annotated agenda for EC-36.
End Summary.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM THREE: DG STATEMENT
--------------


3. (U) Topics addressed in the DG statement (sent to AC/CB)
were: accolades for Libya on its accession to the OPCW,
military and industrial verification, international
cooperation, Article VII implementation, external relations
and universality, tenure, results based budgeting, the OPCW
insurance policy, and OPCW resources. Of interest, the DG
stated that Libya had submitted its requests for extensions
of the one, 20, and 45 percent intermediate time lines for
destruction of its stockpile and that the current inspection
frequency of "other chemical production facilities" is not
sufficient. The draft 2005 OPCW Program and Budget will be
tabled in May.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM FOUR: GENERAL DEBATE
--------------


4. (U) General debate opened with a statement from the EC
Chairman paying condolences to the Netherlands on the death
of the Queen Mother, to Spain for the bombing in Madrid, and
to Macedonia on the tragic death of their President. Canada
then announced it would be completing its four-year term as a
member of the Executive Council, but proclaimed it intensions
to remain engaged on key issues. Ambassador Javits delivered
the U.S. statement. Most statements welcomed the accession
of Libya to the CWC as a positive outcome of universality and
on the outcome of the workshop on RBB, but noted that more
coordination between the Secretariat and States Parties was
needed.


5. (U) The highly anticipated opening statement by the
Libyans, delivered by Mr. Al-Mabrouk Mohamed Mailad, Head of
the National Security Branch, Tripoli, was well received by
the Council. Libya proclaimed full and total commitment to
the CWC and to various international agreements. It
announced the submission of its initial declaration to the
OPCW as of March 5, and the irreversible destruction of 3,561
unfilled CW munitions. Libya stressed that its accession to
the CWC should not be considered as yielding to international
pressure, but seen as a new vision and prioritization toward
a global policy. The Libyan statement concluded by noting
that Libyan accession should become a benchmark to rid the
world of WMD in other areas of the world, particularly in the
Middle East.


6. (U) Ireland stated, on behalf of the EU, that the EU had
been promoting universality of the CWC by sending 30
demarches to States not yet Party. Turkey, Iran, and South
Africa emphasized that CW possessor States Parties need to do
more to keep their demilitarization programs on schedule.
Canada, Japan, China, Iran, South Africa, and South Korea
emphasized the need for the smooth implementation of the
tenure policy.


7. (U) South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African
Union, stated that a Center on Terrorism would be established
in Algiers to exchange information and alert African States
Parties of terrorism on the continent. India once again
highlighted its ahead-of-schedule CW destruction program, and
received congratulations from the Council Chairman and other
delegations.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM FIVE: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CONVENTION
--------------


8. (U) Universality: The Council agreed to note the report
by the TS on the implementation of the Action Plan for
Universality (EC-36/S/9). Several States Parties voiced
support for universality and encouragement for more States
not yet Party to join the Convention. The UK announced a
voluntary contribution of 18,000 Euros for African States not
yet Party to participate in the workshop in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. The UK and India commented on the issue of
points-of-contact (POC). The UK was concerned that only nine
States Parties had identified POCs and encouraged others to
participate. Conversely, India opined that identifying POCs
was based on an informal and voluntary process and the lack
of participation should not impact the plan of action.


9. (U) The DG stated that a corrigendum to the announcement
of the Malta Workshop on Universality and National
Implementation had been distributed to modify the date when
States Parties must submit nominations for participation in
the workshop to April 16, 2004 (S/408/2004/Corr.1). The
original announcement only gave States Parties two weeks to
nominate participants, which was not a sufficient response
time.


10. (U) Implementation of Confidentiality: The Council
noted the report.


11. (U) Confidentiality: The EC Chair announced U.S. Del
member Betsy Sanders as the new Facilitator for
Confidentiality. The Council, then, agreed to defer

SIPDIS
decisions on Confidentiality until the new Facilitator had
time to consider the issues.


12. (U) Challenge Inspections: The Council agreed to note
the report on Challenge Inspection (EC-36/DG.5.Rev.1, dated
17 February 2004). The Delegation made the points from the
floor of the EC provided by Washington in the guidance cable.
The final report language was also in accordance with that
sought by Washington. In addition, the Delegation and
Washington TDYers spoke with the Technical Secretariat about
the importance of proceeding with preparations to conduct a
CI, and of the need to investigate transportation options to
a CI site. Ambassador Javits also raised with DG Pfirter the
need for the TS to move ahead smartly with work on CIs.


13. (U) The Council considered and approved a decision on
clarification and declarations (EC-34/DEC/CRP.8/Rev.2, dated
24 March 2004).

--------------
AGENDA ITEM SIX: ARTICLE VII ACTION PLAN
--------------


14. (U) The Council received the Note by the DG on the
Progress Report on the implementation of the plan of action
of Article VII obligations (EC-36/DG.16, dated 4 March 2004,
Corr. 1 dated 15 March 2004, and Add.1, dated 25 March 2004).
The Council encouraged the Secretariat to enhance
coordination of its activities with States Parties regarding
offers of or requests for assistance. The U.S. stressed the
importance that all States Parties must make every effort to
implement Article VII by CSP-10.

-------------- --------------
AGENDA ITEM SEVEN: DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
-------------- --------------


15. (U) The Council approved the agreed detailed plan for
destruction of chemical weapons at Pine Bluff Arsenal
Chemical Agent Disposal Facility. The agreed detailed plan
for Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility was once again
blocked by the Russian Federation and the plan for Dugway EDS
was deferred by China to allow time for its further
consideration and review in Beijing. The Council approved
the detailed plan for verification of destruction of Libyan
Category 3 munitions (unfilled bombs) and noted a report on
completion of that destruction. Russia provided an extensive
but largely vacuous and illusory explanation of its plans to
meet its extended deadline for destroying 45% of its declared
stockpile of chemical weapons.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM EIGHT: DESTRUCTION OR CONVERSION
OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
- COMBINED PLANS FOR DESTRUCTION OR CONVERSION
AND VERIFICATION OF CWPF -
--------------


16. (U) The Council considered and approved both the Russian
combined plan for conversion and verification of the chemical
weapons production facility (production of VX-type substance
and filling it into munitions),EC-32/DG.8 dated 19 February
2003),and the draft decision approving this plan
(EC-32/DEC/CRP.8, dated 11 March 2003). U.S. CW experts met
with Russian experts to again present and discuss U.S.
proposed changes to this plan. Unlike the last EC meeting,
Russian experts came prepared to work through any problems.
As a result, the Russian delegation was able to agree to all
the stipulated U.S. changes. The appropriate corrigendum was
drafted and submitted to the TS that captured such changes.


17. (U) The Council considered and approved the Russian
combined plan for Phase 2 of the destruction and verification
of chemical weapons production facility (Lewisite Production)
at Dzerzhinsk (EC-36/DG.11, dated 11 February 2004). U.S. CW
experts held extensive consultations with Russian experts to
capture both U.S. and Russian concerns. Del presented and
discussed the U.S. proposed comments and questions provided
in the guidance relative to the Detailed Destruction and
Verification Plan. Russian experts reviewed and accepted
U.S. changes, as well as updated its work stages as we
requested under the "Schedule of Destruction Measures" in the
detailed plan. The one outstanding issue left to resolve was
the two references to the destruction of the "eastern part of
Block 317" taking place in phase 2 and 3. During expert
consultations, Russian experts made clearer their intention
to include the destruction of the "eastern part of Block 317"
in Phase 2, and destroy the "remaining part of Block 317" in
phase 3. U.S. experts pointed out that there is no such
distinction made in the document, and destruction of the
"eastern part of Block 317" in phase 2 was not captured in
the detailed destruction or verification plan like the other
items listed to be destroyed.


18. (U) Consequently, U.S. experts pointed out that such a
change could not be done unless such activity was fully
captured in the plan for phase 2 just like the other items to
be destroyed. During ongoing discussions with U.S. experts,
Russian experts continually referred to the "eastern part of
block 317" as the "social section." Therefore we noted the
name as such for clarity sake. Both U.S. and Russian experts
met several times to work on a corrigendum that effectively
captures the destruction and verification of what is now
called the "social section of block 317" scheduled for
destruction in phase 2, and the remaining part of block 317
to be destroyed in phase 3. During this process, Russian
experts were very cooperative, accepting both our initial
comments and additional changes to include providing a
diagram showing the social and remaining sections of block

317. After careful review of all the changes, the U.S. and
Russian experts submitted a final agreed corrigendum to the
Technical Secretariat, thereby allowing the U.S. to join
consensus in approving this document.


19. (U) The U.S. combined plans for destruction and
verification of the chemical weapons production facilities
(QL and DC) at Pine Bluff Arsenal (EC-35/DG.3 and
EC-36/DG.10, respectively) were both approved by the Council.

--------------
-- NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES AT FORMER CHEMICAL
WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES --
--------------


20. (U) The Council considered and again decided to defer
the DF production facility Volgograd, Notification of Changes
to Chemical Process Equipment (EC-34/DG.1 dated 4 June 2003)
and the Facility for Filling of Non-chemical parts of
chemical munitions, Volgograd, EC-34/DG.3, dated 10 June
2003) until the next regular session. The Russian delegation
noted their ongoing efforts with the Technical Secretariat to
ensure that the changes in the above notifications are
included in the combined plans for conversion and
verification as required under Part V, paragraphs 79-80 of
the Verification Annex. Moreover, Russian experts expect
that the Combined plans will be completed and ready for
circulation at the next regular session. U.S. experts were
pleased to note that the Russian delegation was including
such changes, and look forward to reviewing the plans. As a
result of ongoing discussions between the Russian delegation
and the Technical Secretariat on these plans, the EC
considered and decided to take this issue up at its next
session.


21. (U) The Council considered and noted with no objection
the Russian notification of changes in the production
activity at the former chemical weapons production facility
(chloroether production),Novocheboksarsk (EC-36/DG.2, dated
19 January 2004). The U.S. delegation had no objection and
joined consensus in approving this document.


22. (U) During the discussions on the DG's report on
progress at Russian CW production facilities where conversion
is still in progress, U.S. delegation made an intervention
from the floor as noted in the guidance cable and outlined
the U.S. concerns.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM NINE: FACILITY AGREEMENTS
--------------


23. (U) The Council considered and approved the draft
decision approving the facility agreement regarding on-site
inspections at the chemical weapons destruction facility
located at Gorny, Saratovskaya oblast (EC-35/DEC/CRP.1, dated
23 September 2003, and Corr.1, dated 1 March 2004). Del met
with Russian experts and the TS to go over this agreement and
the stipulated changes. Russian experts and the TS explained
in detail such inspection activities as sampling, data
authentication measures and monitoring. As a result the
delegation was able to join consensus and approve this
agreement.


24. (U) The Facility Agreement for the Chemical Agent
Disposal Facility at Pine Bluff Arsenal (EC-36/DEC/CRP.5) was
approved by the Council. The Facility Agreement for the
Aberdeen Proving Ground Chemical Agent Disposal Facility
(EC-32/DEC/CRP.6) was once again blocked by the Russian
Federation, and the Facility Agreement for the explosive
destruction system at Dugway Proving Ground
(EC-36/DEC/CRP.10) was deferred by the Chinese to allow time
for its further review and consideration in Beijing. The
Council noted the agreed modifications to two U.S. Schedule 1
Facility Agreements (EC-36/S/1) and noted modifications and
updates to an additional five U.S. Facility Agreements for
CWPFs (EC-36/S/2). The Council also noted the agreed
modifications and updates to five U.S. Facility Agreements
for CWDFs.


25. (U) The Council approved the Belgian Facility Agreement
for a Schedule 1 protective purposes facility
(EC-31/DEC/CRP.1). Based on a recommendation from China from
the floor of the Council, the Council agreed that the
Facility Agreements for Spain and the Slovak Republic's
Schedule 1 facilities for protective purposes
(EC-36/DEC/CRP.1 and EC-36/P/DEC/CRP.2, respectively) would
automatically be considered approved by the Council on April
23, 2004, if no member of the Council expressed opposition
before that date.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM TEN: CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ISSUES
--------------


26. (U) Schedule 2/3 Captive Use: The Council approved the
decision (EC-34/DEC/CRP.5/Rev.3) on the understanding of
"captive use" in connection with declarations of Schedule 2/3
production. This closes one of the long-open agenda items
before the industry cluster. In sidebar discussions between
the U.S. and Indian delegations, it became clear the Indians
were looking for a face-saving way of accepting the document.
This was, presumably, due to the recent history of political
attention (e.g., demarches) given by the U.S., UK, Canada and
other State Parties and international industry organizations.
Del and the Indians worked on a non-substantive addition to
the operative paragraph, which proved acceptable.


27. (U) Schedule 1 Captive Use: The Council agreed to
continue consultations on the issue of Schedule 1 chemicals
in captive use situations. The German delegation circulated
an updated, non-paper on the issue for consideration at the
next industry cluster session.


28. (U) Schedule 2 Facility Agreements: The Council agreed
to continue consultations on the issue of Schedule 2 Facility
Agreements. Despite attempts by the facilitators to find
compromise report language which instructed the TS to be more
flexible in their decisions on whether to conclude a facility
agreement (taking into account plant site complexity,
activities, likelihood of inspection and requests of the
inspected State Party),both the Indian and Iranian
delegations blocked consensus. The Indian and Iranian
delegations view Schedule 2 Facility Agreements as a treaty
requirement and are concerned with any "watering down" of the
obligation to conclude a facility agreement. Specifically,
they oppose efforts they perceive are designed to bring the
Schedule 2 negotiation process in line with that of Schedule
3 and Other Chemical Production Facility agreements which are
only concluded "unless requested" by the inspected State
Party. The proposed text had the support of the vast
majority of States Parties in that it reduces the
administrative burdens on both the TS and States Parties and
clearly met the requirements of the treaty by providing the
TS with the criteria necessary to "agree that it (facility

SIPDIS
agreement) is not needed."


29. (U) Clarification of Discrepancies: On the issue of
clarification requests of transfer discrepancies, the Council
simply acknowledged they received a report of the facilitator
on this issue. The EC was unable to reach a consensus on
draft report language designed to review the discussion on
the topic held during the February 2004 round of
consultations. The draft text encouraged the TS to continue
to seek efficiencies in the clarification request process.
The draft language also reflected that, during the
consultations, some States Parties suggested that the TS
consider the "relevant production thresholds" in determining
what should be considered "significant" and, therefore, in
need of clarification when balancing transfer discrepancies.
The Indians, South Africans and Iranians opposed inclusion of
status report text on an issue still under consultation. An
attempt to circulate the draft status report as an EC
document and then cite the document in the report was also
rejected.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM ELEVEN: CHANGES TO THE LIST
OF APPROVED EQUIPMENT AND TO THE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS FOR APPROVED EQUIPMENT
--------------

30. (U) The Council approved the list of approved equipment
(EC-35/DG.1, dated 10 Oct 03) and recommended that the
Conference at its Ninth Session approved the item for
inclusion in the list of approved equipment. The Council
also approved the revisions to the specifications for the two
items of approved equipment (EC-36/DEC/CRP.3).

-------------- --------------
AGENDA ITEM TWELVE: LIST OF NEW VALIDATED DATA FOR INCLUSION
IN THE OPCW CENTRAL ANALYTICAL DATABASE
-------------- --------------


31. (U) The Council considered the note by the
Director-General on the list of new validated data for
approval by the Council for inclusion in the OPCW Central
Analytical Database (EC-36/DG.6, dated 5 February 2004),and
adopted a decision on said list (EC-36/DEC/CRP.6, dated 5
February 2004) without comments or amendments.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM 13: ABAF Report
--------------


32. (U) The EC noted the report of the Advisory Body on
Administrative and Financial Matters and the Director
General's note on the ABAF Report. With reference to the
implementation of Results-Based Budgeting, South Africa
proposed report language that the "Council requested the TS
to implement only the recommendations by ABAF which have been
adopted by the Executive Council." However, the U.S.
objected to that report language, and South Africa withdrew
the proposal.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM 14: Financial Issues
--------------


33. (U) Income/Expenditure, RBB, and Insurance Reports:
The EC noted Income and Expenditure reports for the months
November, December, and January, and noted that consultations
continued on introducing Results-Based Budgeting. The
Council also noted the TS proposal on Non-Service Incurred
Death and Disability (EC-36/S/10, faxed to AC/CB on March
23),but only after deferral by the U.S. and considerable
debate. Director of Administration Schulz provided a status
report on his consultations with an insurance consultant that
helped assuage persistent questions about how the new
coverage would be introduced. The EC report drew on language
proposed by the facilitator Ian Mundell (Canada) calling for
immediate action to bring practice into conformity with
existing regulations and phase out non-service incurred death
and disability insurance coverage. The report language was
FAXed to AC/CB and was adopted by the EC exactly as had been
approved by Washington.


34. (U) Reorganization of the Travel Management Function:
The EC noted the TS report on the reorganization of the
travel management function. On the margins of the EC,
Director of Administration Schulz informed us that two firms
were under consideration to undertake travel software
development. Schulz did not indicate when the final
selection would be made, emphasizing that working directly
with an outside contractor to obtain tickets would generate
much more savings than automation would, perhaps 50% off
current rates. He commented that the sharpest increase in
travel costs was due to top management at OPCW, whose travel
costs had increased from 30,000 to 140,000 Euros.


35. (U) Home Leave Entitlements Policy (EC-36/S/4): With
inclusion of a non-substantive amendment proposed by India,
the EC adopted U.S. report language as provided by Washington
that mandates cost savings. USDel recalled that the DG had
undertaken to provide specific guidance on home leave travel,
and the report language specified that the home leave policy
ensure that costs were as economical as possible.


36. (U) Article IV/V: On the margins of the EC, Article IV
and V funding facilitator Johan Verboom (Netherlands) hastily
reconvened informal consultations on March 23 to explore
whether it might still be possible to reach consensus on a
draft decision for consideration by EC-36. He and Peter
Beerwerth (Germany) then tabled two new alternative texts for
consideration (both faxed to AC/CB):

-- Verboom's text was a revision of his March 15 draft
decision, modified to address the "inequity" problem that
Beerwerth had identified at the last round of informals on
March 18 (see Weekly Wrap-up cable dated March 19),plus
other minor fixes proposed by delegations.

-- Beerwerth's contribution was threefold: proposed
revisions to Financial Regulations, an alternative draft
decision, and a covering explanatory note. He intended this
to address the Art IV/V cashflow problem and associated
Financial Regs at one swoop, but it also introduced new
elements, including a 60-day deadline for Possessor States to
pay Art IV/V verification invoices.


37. (U) Recognizing that there was little point in delving
immediately into the substance of two texts, Verboom sought
the views of delegations on the possibility of consulting
with capitals overnight and discussing the drafts on March
24, in hopes of reaching consensus on a single text before
the EC wrapped up on March 26. He and Beerwerth explained
the need for quick action by noting that if there were no
agreement at EC-36, the External Auditor would formalize the
budget surplus for 2002, which Financial Regulations then
require to be refunded to States Parties, rather than being
applied to the Working Capital Fund. Nevertheless, many
delegations reported that their capitals would not have time
to study and decide on a compromise text, especially on the
new elements contained in Beerwerth's proposal, in time for
an EC-36 decision.


38. (U) Russia put down a marker that any move to impose a
60-day deadline for repaying invoices for Art IV/V
verification costs would lead to "extensive consultations
with our capital." Italy did not voice objection to
capitalizing the Working Capital Fund at 9 million Euros or
to moving to cap of 2/12 of the regular budget, as it had in
earlier consultations, but neither did it state its agreement
to those changes. Numerous delegations stated that their
capitals would need to examine new language in both texts
addressing the "inequity" issue. This language would require
those SPs which had not fully paid their assessed
contributions to make additional, advance payments to top up
the WCF, while those who had paid up would simply recycle
their refund from previous years' surpluses into the WCF.
Remaining surplus funds would be paid out to SPs in
proportion to their paid, assessed contributions. These
questions will be discussed in the intersessional period.

-------------- --------------
AGENDA ITEM 15: OIO And External Auditor Reports
-------------- --------------


39. (U) The EC considered and noted documents EC-36/DG.7 and
EC-36/S/3. Facilitator Ian Mundell (Canada) effectively made
the U.S. points outlined in the guidance cable and stated the
hope that subsequent reports on the implementation of
recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight and of
the External Auditor would provide a higher level of detail.
Chiho Komuro (Japan) will succeed Mundell as OIO/EA
facilitator, and has already expressed support for the U.S.
push to improve the operations of the OIO and to press for
"value for money" audits by the External Auditor.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM SIXTEEN: Election of EC Chairman
and Vice Chairman
--------------


40. (U) The Council elected Jose Antonio Arrospide Del Busto
(Ambassador of Peru) as Chairman of the Executive Council
beginning with EC-37 (June 2004). Netherlands, Algeria,
Pakistan, Russian Federation were elected as WEOG
Vice-Chairs. The Peruvian Ambassador stated that he would
inform delegations when a decision had been reached on a
suitable date for a special EC in May once the new Bureau is
in place.

--------------
AGENDA ITEM 17: Any Other Business
--------------


41. (U) Tenure Implementation: The substance of the Director
General's report on implementation of the tenure policy was
not discussed by the EC. Rather than "consider" the report,
the Council decided that the report would be "received" by it
and that it would be deferred to a future session. Sudan
(speaking for African Group),along with Italy, Pakistan,
Sri-Lanka, Germany, Japan all made interventions asking for a
deferral.


42. (U) That did not stop a flood of interventions by
delegations who wished to make sure they were on the record
on what was recognized as a clearly pressing issue. There
was criticism of varying degrees of harshness in the
speeches, but the DG largely came away unscathed. There were
many comments about the importance of staff morale. In that
regard, the DG informed the delegations that there were
efforts under way by the TS to provide various types of
transition assistance for staff who were separated under the
tenure policy. As Washington still has questions about the
prospect of converting internationally recruited general
service posts to local status, and opposed the voluntary
non-renewal option, Ambassador Javits emphasized to DG
Pfirter the importance of stating that such initiatives are
still in the category of "work in progress" and will require
consultations with States Parties. The DG subsequently made
that point very clear to the EC.


43. (U) On conversion of internationally recruited GS posts
to local status, Sudan (on behalf of the African Group) made
a strong pitch for geographical representation arguing that
Africa is badly underrepresented in the TS and called for a
"quota system" (no further detail provided). The DG stated
that he was committed to geographical distribution -- to the
extent possible -- and that this concept is just an idea that
could, perhaps, be implemented for a one-year trial. He
argued that he was not trying to cut back the number of
international slots at the TS, but merely trying to take
advantage of the potentially large pool of international
locals in the Netherlands.


44. (U) Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) recommendations to
the First RevCon: As instructed, Del made an intervention to
jumpstart the SAB on studying scientific and technological
developments. India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran all made
interventions stating that the Council could only "receive"
the report rather than "consider" it. Iran stated that
informal consultations may be required on the document.


45. (U) Javits sends.
SOBEL