CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001530

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN)
NSC FOR DICASAGRANDE
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR
46TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION, JULY 4-7

REF: STATE 109387

This is CWC-61-06.

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


1. (SBU) It has been clear for some time that EC-47 in
November would be a crucial (and difficult) session. The
twin goals for EC-46 were to 1) lay a solid foundation for
EC-47 approval of the U.S. request for an extension of its
100% destruction deadline, and 2) establish an atmosphere and
framework conducive to reaching key decisions at EC-47 on
Article VII obligations. Both goals were achieved. On the
extension request, delegations continued to respond
positively to the transparent U.S. approach. However, Russia
made clear that it has a different approach in handling its
extension request, particularly on the UK proposal for site
visits. As a result, other delegations appear energized to
play some type of role concerning the Russian request, which
may have some (still to be determined) spillover effect on
the U.S. request.


2. (U) On Article VII, the immediate task was achieving
substantive report language, but the overarching goal was to
re-establish a positive negotiating atmosphere. There were
no key milestones for EC-46 from the decision at the 10th
Conference of States Parties. Those are all lined up for
EC-47, and it would have been virtually impossible to reach
agreement in November if EC-46 had crashed and burned on
Article VII. A tortuous negotiating procedure finally
generated solid report language and a constructive
atmosphere. Notably, the Technical Secretariat said it felt
it has a clear Article VII mandate and direction from
delegations.


3. (U) In addition, the EC made some important decisions.
Financial rules were finally approved for the OPCW. The
Libyan extension requests were approved, as well as the
China/Japan extension request on abandoned CW. Moreover, the
Director General put forth his proposed zero nominal growth
budget for 2007. And the first meeting was held for the
working group preparing for the Second Review Conference.
However, the key goal for EC-46, which was achieved, was to
lay the foundation for success at a challenging EC in
November. End Summary.

--------------
U.S. and Russian Destruction Deadlines
--------------


4. (U) The U.S. presented its draft decision to the EC,
highlighting that approval would not affect its obligation to
destroy all CW by April 29, 2012, and the acceptance, in
principle and under appropriate conditions, of site visits.
The U.S. requested support for the decision at EC-47, and the
document was quickly deferred, without comment from any other
delegation. A more detailed report on the state of play
concerning the extension request and recommendations from the
del will be provided septel.


5. (U) In contrast to the U.S., the Russians appeared
determined to draw as much attention as possible to their
deadline extension request. Several delegations (UK, France,
Germany and Mexico) requested deferral of the decision, with
the first three emphasizing the absence of a provision for
site visits. Russia then noted that the UK proposal from
EC-45 had no official status and indicated it was unclear to
which agenda item it even applied. In subsequent bilateral
discussions, the UK noted Russia exhibited little to no
flexibility on incorporating language on site visits in their
decision text.


6. (U) When the EC returned to the issue later in the
session, Russia's unwillingness to concede the need to defer
the decision to EC-47 drew statements from France, Germany,
Ireland, Finland, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Norway,

Sweden, Belgium, Brazil and the UK (which had coordinated the
reaction) pressing for acceptance of site visits. Russia
voiced opposition to this, arguing that it was not a good use
of time, money and effort, and that Russia still intended to
meet the 2012 deadline. Russia also argued there were no
basis in the CWC for such visits, and that this could be
discussed in consultations after approval of the Russian
decision. The Russian delegation also stated that this
should not be an annual exercise, captured in the draft
decision, but instead could be on conducted on a case-by-case
basis, if necessary.


7. (U) Finally, Russia introduced last minute changes to EC
report language to add references to the original Russian
extension request in 2001 and the 2003 CSP decision that
extended the 100 percent deadline in principle. Though
factually correct, this raised concerns among many EU
countries over the implication that, given the "in principle"
extension already granted, Russia was under no real pressure
to negotiate the terms of its current draft decision. The
U.S. del requested that equivalent report language be added,
referring to a virtually identical 2003 CSP decision on U.S.
deadlines. This provoked a response from Iran, who used the
opportunity to highlight the differences between U.S. and
Russian circumstances. The issue was resolved with the
addition of previously approved text affirming that the 2003
CSP decisions did not alter U.S. or Russian obligations under
the treaty.

--------------
Article VII
--------------


8. (U) The EC noted the DG's report, and after extensive
consultations in both informal and small group settings,
delegations finally agreed on Article VII report language.
India, supported by Algeria, Iran, India, Mexico, Pakistan,
and Algeria, presented competing draft report language,
noting progress and exhorting implementing states to continue
their efforts. The U.S., supported by Australia, Belgium,
Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland and the UK, preferred
stronger language, reflecting the work that needs to be
completed by EC-47.


9. (U) The U.S. noted that the necessary elements for
implementing states are establishment of National
Authorities, finalizing drafts of implementing legislation,
submitting plans for enacting legislation, and requesting
assistance. A paragraph should also encourage states willing
and able to do so to assist implementing states. Acceptance
of the latter element was the most difficult. Finally, only
Pakistan was unwilling to accept the assistance paragraph,
noting strict instructions from capital. After yet another
small group session, Pakistan reluctantly accepted revised
language (in nearly incomprehensible English, with many
clauses and sub clauses) regarding the provision of
assistance to implementing states.


10. (U) After the report language was approved, Iran
intervened to protest the protracted Article VII negotiation
process. Although many critical issues were on the EC-46
agenda, Iran and other small delegations were unable to
attend to them because of the endless Article VII sessions.
Iran pleaded for the facilitator to change the way he manages
the effort, in order to allow time to focus on other issues.
(Note: Privately, the Iranian told del rep that the
facilitator was not holding bilateral discussions on his
drafts, which prevented him from presenting delegations with
a near consensus text. In the Iranian's opinion, this
resulted in the on-going difficulties negotiating the draft
language.)

--------------
China/Japan
--------------


11. (U) The EC approved, without discussion, the joint

China/Japan request to extend the deadline for completing
destruction of CW abandoned in China by Japan to April 29,

2012. (Comment: the Japanese del privately confirmed that,
because of sensitivity to Chinese concerns, the abandoned CW
in China, though all pre-1946 and mostly in deteriorated
condition, would not also be considered "old CW." This
explains why the reference to old and abandoned CW in the
original draft decision, which was added by the TS on its
own, was removed at the request of Japan and China. End
comment.)


12. (SBU) U.S./PRC bilateral consultations: On the margins
of the EC, del reps from Washington discussed informally with
MFA representatives from Beijing the Chinese proposal to hold
bilateral discussions on CWC implementation issues in the
fall. The PRC representatives were Chen Kai of the MFA
office responsible for CBW issues (and previously on the
Chinese OPCW delegation),and a Mr. Yu from the Japanese ACW
office. The U.S. confirmed that it planned to respond to the
China's proposal in the near future, and informally suggested
that the meeting be held the week following EC-47, which is
scheduled for November 7-10. Kai indicated China was very
flexible regarding the carrying out of these discussions and
saw this as hopefully the first in a series of meetings.


13. (SBU) The PRC reps indicated that China planned to open
the discussions with detailed presentations about the status
of CWC implementation in the areas of industry and ACW. Kai
also mentioned previous bilateral discussions on CWC
declarations, and expressed a willingness to continue such
talks. Yu, who said that the ACW office was taking the lead
from the CBW office, said that Japan and China are nearing
the end of the initial design phase of the destruction
facility, and would soon start the "analysis period," when
the plan would be evaluated in terms of feasibility, safety
and environmental impact. Yu said that his office was
particularly interested in, inter alia, the U.S. perspective
on these aspects, and ultimately would be interested in
visiting a U.S. CW destruction facility. U.S. reps said that
they would communicate PRC thinking on the bilateral
discussions of the ACW issue to Washington. Both sides
agreed that it would be useful if materials for the
discussions could be exchanged in advance.


14. (SBU) Del rep informed a member of the Japanese
delegation about the current status of the issue of
U.S./China bilateral discussions. Del rep offered
reassurances that the U.S. would continue to keep Japan fully
informed in advance of further actions, including, if
possible, explaining to the Japanese what the U.S. intended
to present on the CW destruction issue. The Japanese rep
expressed appreciation.

-------------- -
Second Review Conference Working Group Meeting
-------------- -


15. (U) Ambassador Parker (UK) chaired the first preparatory
meeting for the Second Review Conference on July 7. Most of
the discussion focused on dates for future meetings and the
structure and themes. Delegates agreed on the following
three dates for meetings: Friday, September 29; Monday,
November 13 (the Monday after EC-47); and Monday, December 4
(the Monday of the CSP that starts on Tuesday). Thereafter,
Ambassador Parker will hold meetings every 4-6 weeks.


16. (U) Parker said that the informal bureau had already met
once and decided that the meetings and the RevCon itself
should be structured in such a way that all delegations will
be able to contribute. To that end, Parker committed to
notify all delegations well in advance of meetings and any
other activities related to the conference. He also said
that informal papers and other documents related to the
conference, including an informal summary of each meeting,
would be posted on the external server. Parker proposed that
the first RevCon report would serve as a starting point for
discussions.


17. (U) The DG said that the TS had begun work on a summary
of TS activities since the last RevCon and he hoped to have
the report ready in time for the next meeting. He also
informed delegates that former senior advisor Ralf Trapp had
been hired on a consultancy basis to serve as an advisor to
the RevCon. The DG told delegates that he has already asked
the Scientific Advisory Board and the International Union of
Applied Chemistry to provide their thoughts on the RevCon.
The DG said that the Congress Center was available from April
7-18, 2008 for the RevCon, and Parker asked that delegates
inform him by the end of September if any had a problem with
those dates.


18. (U) On the subjects to be covered at the conference, the
UK suggested that there should be a focus on issues that
remain outstanding from the first RevCon. The UK also laid
down a marker and said it did not believe that any amendments
of the CWC would need to be considered to deal with new toxic
chemicals. The UK also said it would be premature to discuss
destruction deadlines at the RevCon. They called for solid
input from the SAB and a greater focus on assistance and
protection as well as universality and Article VII at the
conference.


19. (U) Germany and Japan generally supported the UK view,
with Japan adding that the modalities for including NGO and
other non-SP participation would have to be closely examined.
The Japanese also supported using the First RevCon as a
starting point for discussions. India said they were opposed
to an issues-based approach to the conference and would
prefer instead to go article by article through the CWC.
Iran supported the Japanese proposal that non-SP
participation be closely studied.


20. (U) EC-46 results are outlined below, with numbering from
the annotated provisional agenda.

--------------
Item 3 - Statement by the Director General
--------------


21. (U) DG Pfirter gave his customary overview of the
activities of the Technical Secretariat. He noted the
extension requests for destruction of Category 1 chemical
weapons, and also referred to the extension request of China
and Japan concerning abandoned CW. Pfirter said six CW
destruction facilities were operational, and three additional
CWDFs will resume or start operations in July. He also noted
the destruction delay in Albania. He mentioned the
uncertainty in a Schedule 2 inspection in Germany, and that
the TS and Germany are working on the issue. The
Verification Information System has had consistent progress,
but needs cooperation from States Parties; he cited the
necessity to move to electronic submission of declarations.
The TS is preparing to provide assistance to facilitate this
transition, utilizing meetings of National Authorities,
seminars and workshops.


22. (U) On International Cooperation and Assistance, Pfirter
cited TS work to improve national capabilities, assistance
and protection courses and training in advanced live-agents.
He commented on implementation support activities, and noted
progress on Article VII and member states assistance in
Technical Assistance Visits. The DG expressed thanks for
"the remarkable way in which the U.S. has been assisting us."


23. (U) The DG noted the universality workshop in Rome in
October, reporting that he wrote to the Foreign Ministers of
Egypt, Israel, Lebanon and Syria inviting them to send
high-level representatives to the meeting. He also mentioned
the universality workshop in Africa, hosted by Algeria in
November. Pfirter reported on work preparing for the 10th
anniversary of the CWC in 2007. He was also pleased to note
the progress on preparations for the Second Review Conference
in 2008. The DG spoke about his proposed 2007 budget,
reiterating the points he made when he presented it to
delegations on June 28, and he was pleased to note the
appointment of Walter Leon (Belgium) and Hela Lahmar

(Tunisia) as the new budget co-facilitators. The DG also
highlighted the approval of the OPCW's Financial Rules after
a delay of nine years.


24. (U) Pfirter mentioned his note cataloging instruments
signed by the TS with governments of SPs and organs of
equivalent function, and proposed this list be updated in the
annual report of the OPCW. In regard to the tenure policy,
he submitted his annual report on implementation, stressing
that he is still fine-tuning the document he will present to
the EC this autumn about possible modifications on tenure
policy. He regretted the late circulation of documents for
EC-46, in particular the Verification Information Report,
noting the short time frame between EC-45 and EC-46. He has
asked the Deputy DG and Office of Internal Oversight to look
into this matter and report back to him.

--------------
Item 4 - General Debate
--------------


25. (U) There were only 14 speakers, a relatively small
number. With the exception of Sudan, the main topic was
extension requests, and the second was Article VII. (Sudan
reversed the order.) Delegations stressed that destruction
should not go beyond 2012, implying that destruction beyond
that date would damage the CWC. Japan and China made note of
their joint extension request on Japanese ACW in China.
Russia said although progress has been made on destruction,
there is a lot to be done. They noted nearly all possessor
states are having trouble meeting deadlines. (Note: This
was the only topic Russia discussed in its speech.)


26. (U) A few delegations, including Finland for the EU,
Mexico and ROK mentioned the possibility of visits to
capitals and sites to increase transparency on this issue,
with the EU emphasizing the political dimension of holding
discussions in capitals. On Article VII, most delegations
acknowledged progress made to date and NAM delegations
praised the cooperation and assistance approach, encouraging
continued use of this approach. Sudan, on behalf of the
Africa Group, noted their concern on under-representation of
Africans in the TS.


27. (U) (Note: During the writing of the EC-46 report, Sudan
asked for an addition to the General Debate paragraph
reflecting the Africa Group's stated concern on this matter.
The U.S. stressed that a precedent of listing key items
raised by all speakers in the debate would lead to an
unwieldy process. The DG stated that the TS always has
equitable geographical representation in mind while staffing
the TS. He also gave his personal assurances this will
continue to be the case. Sudan accepted these reassurances
from the DG.)


28. (U) Most delegations praised the DG's 2007 zero nominal
growth budget and welcomed the budget co-facilitators. ICA
was an important topic for the NAM, calling for additional
funding. They also noted the need for complete
implementation of Article XI. Nearly half of the delegations
called for completion of a new OCPF site selection
methodology, some of whom noted political elements should not
be included in the methodology. Finally, most delegations
were pleased work has begun on the second RevCon.

-------------- --
Item 5 - Status of Implementation of Convention
-------------- --


29. (U) Item 5.1: The EC agreed to defer until the next
session the verification plan for the CWDF in India.
Although the TS and India continue to discuss the remaining
outstanding issues, the U.S. again stated that it was unable
to join consensus on this plan and the associated facility
agreement until all issues have been resolved. (Comment:
Senior TS reps informed del that India is finalizing its
approval of the most recent draft Facility Agreement proposed
by the TS. As this draft apparently makes direct reference

to a need to address continuing concerns at the facility,
this is surprising, but welcome, progress. End comment.)


30. (U) Item 5.2: The EC approved the Albanian agreed
detailed plan for verification of the destruction of CW for
the Qaf-Molla CWDF.


31. (U) Item 5.3: At the request of the U.S., the combined
plan for the destruction and verification of the Aberdeen
Proving Ground, HD Production, Distillation, and Fill
Facility was deferred until the next EC session due to late
distribution of the document by the TS.


32. (U) Item 5.4 and 5.5: The EC approved the three
corrections to the detailed plan for destruction for the
VX-type substance and filling it into munitions at
Novecheboksarsk.


33. (U) Item 5.6: the EC approved the corrections to the
detailed plan for conversion for the CWPF at Volgograd.


34. (U) Item 5.7: The EC agreed to note the Note by the TS
on the progress in converting CWPFs for purposes not
prohibited under the CWC.


35. (U) Item 5.8: The U.S. and Russia gave a brief account of
their progress to date on Category 1 CW destruction. No
other possessor state spoke under this agenda item.


36. (U) Item 5.9: The EC noted the DG's report on the
progress made by SPs that had received extensions to their
CWC destruction deadlines.


37. (U) Item 5.10: United States Extension Request: Noted
above.


38. (U) Item 5.11: Russian Extension request: Noted above.


39. (U) Item 5.12: Libya: The EC approved, without
discussion, the recommendation to the CSP establishing new
intermediate destruction deadlines, as well as extending the
100 percent deadline.


40. (U) Item 5.13: China/Japan Request on ACW: Noted above.


41. (U) Item 5:14: Albania: The facility agreement for the
CWDF at Qaf-Molla was adopted by the EC.


42. (U) Item 5.15: Schedule 2 facility agreements. The EC
agreed to note the Note by the DG updating on the progress of
Schedule 2 facility agreements. This result was achieved
after lengthy discussions between the TS, Italy, Germany,
Japan, and France, with assistance by the U.S. Italy's
concern was that the Annex to the DG's Note contained the
positions of the SPs (for example, the language for France
says "France does not want to finalize any facility
agreements at present") and that this implied a willingness
by the TS to go against the language of Verification Annex
Part III. (It should be noted that the TS has requested
Italy to finalize nine Schedule 2 facility agreements, to
which Italy agreed. It appears that Italy wants other SPs to
be held to this same standard.) Amended language was agreed
upon, and the TS agreed to a corrigendum to the Annex.


43. (U) Item 5.16: Article VII. Noted above.


44. (U) Item 5.17: Full implementation of Article X. The
previously agreed language was approved.


45. (U) Item 5.18: Report by DG on readiness of the TS to
conduct a challenge inspection. The EC deferred, at U.S.
request, consideration of the document to EC-47 due to late
distribution of the document.


46. (U) Item 5.19: 2005 Verification Implementation Report.
The EC deferred the 2005 VIR until EC-47 due to late
distribution of the document.


47. (U) Item 5.20: Transfers of Schedule 3 chemicals. This
item was added to the agenda at the beginning of the EC
meeting, upon a recommendation by the facilitator (Arya
Sandeep, India) to the EC chair that he expected there to be
consensus reached during the week. This move, in and of
itself, angered some delegations (e.g., the Netherlands).
Del rep made a recommendation in the consultations of last
week on a preambular paragraph that would incorporate a
reference to the CSP-10 decision concerning universality,
with a hope that this would eliminate out-of-context
references to pieces of this decision in the operative
paragraphs. Although this suggestion was well-received and
spurred the spirit of progress, eventually the gap between
Iran and the other interested delegations could not be fully
closed. The item was deferred, at Germany's recommendation
and supported by the U.S. The facilitator is leaving, and
the TS and Industry Cluster vice-chair are already soliciting
ideas on his replacement.

--------------
Item 6 - Draft Report of the OPCW for 2006
--------------


48. (U) The Council considered the draft report of the OPCW
for 2005 (EC-46/CRP.2, dated June 30, 2006). Initially Iran
had asked that the report be deferred, as it could not accept
the language in paragraph 1.31 related to challenge
inspections. Ultimately the U.S., UK and Iran agreed on
compromise language for this paragraph and the report was
considered. The TS will post the report on its website.

--------------
Item 7 - Lists of New Validated Data
--------------


49. (U) Items 7.1 and 7.2: It was announced that the TS Note
assessing the implications of the data contained in the lists
of validated data set out in EC-42/DEC/CRP.5, dated 9
September 2005, was not yet available. As a result,
consideration and approval of these lists of new validated
data were deferred to EC-47.


50. (U) (Note: The Del has seen drafts of this TS Note, as
prepared by the staff of the OPCW Laboratory, in coordination
with the Validation Group. Because the lists of validated
data in question contain unscheduled degradation products and
riot control agents (RCA),there is apparently concern within
some delegations about this data being used during routine
inspections. To this end, this TS Note states in part that
the inclusion of this unscheduled degradation product and RCA
data would have the following implications: (1) data would
not be used in routine inspections under Article VI; (2) data
would not impact any declaration requirements; (3) data for
RCA would only be used in inspections related to alleged use;
(4) data for unscheduled degradation products would only be
used in inspections related to alleged use or in challenge
inspections; and, (5) subject to facility agreements, the
data may be used in chemical weapons destruction site
monitoring. The Del does not anticipate any USG concerns
with this type of Note, but there is a possibility that
delegations like the UK might not want the TS to be
restricted in any way in how they use this data, even though
the Note clearly expresses TS views.)


51. (U) Item 7.3: In accordance with the DG Note (EC-46/DG.1,
dated 7 June 2006),the Council considered and approved the
lists of new validated data found in EC-46/DEC/CRP.1, dated
16 June 2006 without any comment from delegations.

-------------- --------------
Item 8 - Establishment of an OPCW Office in Africa
-------------- --------------


52. (U) Facilitator Andres Rugeles (Colombia) made an oral
report to the EC on the status of this issue. In the
intersessional period he met with the TS to request
information on how other international organizations with
regional offices operate, including how and whether the OPCW

can utilize the UN relationship agreement. He has also met
with African Ambassadors to request their feedback on a
proposed location, technical functions, administration and
interaction with the TS program of work for the Africa
Office. Rugeles indicated he will work with both the TS and
Africa Group to compile the information he has requested. He
plans to hold open-ended consultations taking this
information as a base to work from. The head of the Africa
Group (Sudan),expressed his desire for the consultations to
begin prior to the summer recess. He also encouraged
delegations to continue their support for an OPCW Office in
Africa.

--------------
Item 9 - Administrative and Financial Matters
--------------


53. (U) Item 9.1: Draft Programme and Budget for 2007. The
EC received the Draft Programme and Budget for 2007. The
U.S., Russia, Japan, Sudan and Germany expressed initial
support for the proposed budget. Germany called on all SPs
to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time.


54. (U) Item 9.2: Regularize the payment of dues to the
OPCW. The EC deferred action on this item to allow for
continued consultations.


55. (U) Item 9.3: Audited financial statements for period 31
December 2005. The EC considered the financial statements of
the OPCW for 2005 and the External Auditor's report. The
facilitator Chiho Komuro (Japan) also gave an oral report.


56. (U) Item 9.4: OPCW financial rules. The EC considered
and approved the Draft Financial Rules. Prior to approving
the rules, facilitator Richard Snelsire (U.S.) noted that the
word "the" had been deleted from the agreed text in rule
10.6.04(d) in the last sentence preceding "(inspection
requirements." Del will send a letter this week to the TS
Legal Advisor making clear the USG position that 10.6.04(d)
does not/not in any way require that vendors must certify
that inspection equipment must be available to all SPs to be
eligible for purchase.


57. (U) Item 9.5: Report by DG on implementation of OPCW
policy on tenure. The EC considered and noted the report.
The U.S. noted from the floor that future reports on the
impact of tenure should be more comprehensive in nature.


58. (U) Item 9.6: Transfer Between OPCW Provident Fund and
UN Joint Staff Pension Fund. This item was withdrawn from
the agenda.

--------------
Item 10 - ABAF Report
--------------


59. (U) The EC considered and noted the report and the DG's
note commenting on the ABAF report. The Council also noted
the resignation from ABAF of Michael Szlezak. Del rep
intervened to give points per guidance.

-------------- --------------
Item 11 - Note by DG on Instruments Signed by the Secretariat
-------------- --------------


60. (U) The Council noted the note (EC-45/DG.11, dated May
11, 2006 and Add.1., dated June 26, 2006).

-------------- --------------
Item 12 - Credentials of Representatives to the EC
-------------- --------------


61. (U) This item was approved without discussion.

--------------
Item 13 - Provisional Agenda for CSP-11
--------------


62. (U) The EC, without discussion, "drew up" (i.e.,
approved) the provisional agenda for CSP-11.

-------------- --------------
Item 14 - Dates for Executive Council Sessions in 2007
-------------- --------------


63. (U) The EC approved the proposed dates for regular
sessions of the EC in 2007. Per guidance, the EC approved
report language noting that intersessional activity would
continue through mid-July. The EC, at the UK's request, also
approved report language that requested the TS to provide by
EC-47 a projected plan of work for the EC in 2007 so that the
EC could determine if four full EC sessions would be needed.
The dates are: Forty-Eighth: March 13-16; Forty-Ninth: June
26-29; Fiftieth: September 25-28; Fifty-First: November 27-30.


64. (U) 2008 CSP: Del rep informed Alexander Khodakov, the
director of the Secretariat for the Policy-Making Organs,
that the U.S. wished to have the 2008 CSP in December.
Khodakov said the U.S. request was sufficient for the TS to
arrange a provisional reservation with the Congress Center in
The Hague. The specific dates for December 2008 could then
be put to the EC for consideration at EC-47 with approval at
CSP-11 in December 2006.

--------------
Item 15 - Any Other Business
--------------


65. (U) No topics were discussed under this item.


66. (U) Ito sends.
ARNALL