CWC: GUIDANCE FOR THE 55th SESSION OF THE OPCW

UNCLAS STATE 014143

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS, THE HAGUE FOR CWC DEL

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC OPCW CBW SIPDIS
SUBJECT: CWC: GUIDANCE FOR THE 55th SESSION OF THE OPCW
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (FEBRUARY 17-20, 2009)

REFS:
A) 2008 State 124113 (Guidance Regarding Reported Demil
Delays)
B) 2008 State 066898 (Guidance for the 53rd EC)
C) 2009 State 011851 (Information on Recovered Chemical
Weapons)

--------------
Summary/Overview
--------------


1. (U) This document provides guidance for the U.S.
delegation to the Fifty-fifth Session of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) Executive Council (EC). There are many issues of
routine business before the EC. The agenda items that
could become politically charged include the two 90-day
reports on the U.S. CW destruction program (under agenda
item 5(b)),appointment of the Director-General
(DG)(agenda item 13),and Credentials of Representatives
to the Council (agenda item 14).


2. (U) Iran will probably once again use the U.S.
destruction reports to highlight the U.S. inability to
meet the 2012 deadline and to push for dates when the CW
destruction facilities at Lexington-Bluegrass, KY and
Pueblo, CO can commence destruction operations. The
political dynamic on this and other issues could be
compounded due to Iran getting shut down on the last
evening of CSP-13 when the Chair broke a stalemate with
Iran on the CSP report by stating he would issue a
Chairman's text. Iran since issued a Note Verbale
stating that the decisions of the Conference (including
passing the budget) were not valid because a consensus
report was not reached. The Note Verbale is unlikely to
gain any traction with other Members of the EC, but Iran
could certainly use it as pretext to make a mess of the
Council's work.


3. (U) U.S. Objectives:

--stimulate the EC into beginning discussions on the
selection of the next DG.

--block Iranian attempts to hold hostage the U.S.
destruction reports.

--explore ways forward to improve the ABAF.

-------------- --------------
---
Agenda Item/Issue
Paragraphs
-------------- --------------
---

Status of implementation of the Convention (Item 5):
a. Conversion of CW Production Facilities . . . . .
4-7
b. Progress on Revised Deadlines for CW Destruction
8-13
c. Article X Implementation . . . . . . . . .
14-15
d. Article XI Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . .
.16
e. Facility Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17-18
f. Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.19
g. Supplement to the 2007 VIR . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
h. Timely Submission of Declarations . . . . . . . .
.21
i. Industry Cluster Issues . . . . . . . . . . . .
22-24
j. Inspection Equipment Review. . . . . . . . . . . .
25
k. Handling Confidential Information . . . . . . . .
.26
OPCW's central analytical database (Item 6) . . . . . .
.27
Report on the Implementation in 2008 of the
Recommendations of the External Auditor (Item 7) . . . .
. . . . . . . . 28
Administrative and Financial Matters (Item 8):
a. Current Status of the Implementation of the VIS .
.29
b. Income and expenditure report . . . . . . . . .
30-31
c. Transfer of funds in 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
.32
d. Adjustment to the DG's gross salary . . . . . . .
33
e. Classification of new posts and reclassification
of existing posts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .34
Agreements on the Privileges and immunities of the OPCW
(Item 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
Report of the SAB (Item 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-37
Nomination of Members of the ABAF (Item 11) . . . . .
38-43
Election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairs (Item 12)
44-45
Appointment of the Director-General (Item 13) . . . .
46-50
Any other business (Item 14) . . . . . . . . . . . .
51-54

-------------- --------------
Item 5: Status of implementation of the Convention
-------------- --------------

--5(a): Conversion of Chemical Weapons Production
Facilities--


4. (U) Regarding the nature of continued verification
measures at the converted chemical weapons production
facility located at CRP Portreath (formerly Chemical
Defence Establishment, Nancekuke) Portreath Redruth,
Cornwall, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, ten years after the DG's certification of its
conversion, the EC is requested to approve the draft
decision on this matter (EC-53/DEC/CRP.1, dated 11 March

2008. Del may join consensus to approve the draft
decision.


5. (U) After the conversion request is approved, Del
should take the floor and make the following brief
statement: [Begin statement: The United States joins
consensus on this decision with the understanding that
the nature of the continued verification measures
adopted for this particular facility do not set a
precedent for the review of other converted facilities
in the future. The United States believes that each
former CW production facility approved for conversion
has its own unique set of on-site characteristics and
that each set of proposed continued verification
measures must be reviewed on an independent basis
without regard to previous decisions on other
conversions. End Statement.] Del should also give the
UK and other allies advance notice and recommend that
they make similar statements.



6. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note a Note
by the TS on the update on progress in converting a
former chemical weapons production facility
(Novocheboksarsk) for purposes not prohibited under the
CWC (EC-55/R/S/1, dated 16 January 2009). No
substantive action is required on the Note. In this
case, as in all others where the EC is requested to
consider and note a document, the Del may agree to note
it unless otherwise stated.


7. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note a Note
by the DG on the notification by A State Party on
changes at the chemical weapons production facility
converted for purposes not prohibited under the
Convention (EC-55/DG.1, dated 24 November 2008). No
substantive action is required on the Note.

--5(b): Progress made in Meeting Revised Deadlines for
the Destruction of Chemical Weapons--


8. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note two
national papers by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the
status of its destruction obligations (EC-55/NAT.2,
dated 20 October 2008, and EC-55/NAT.5, dated 19 January
2009). No substantive action is required on the Note.


9. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note two
national papers by India on the status of its
destruction obligations (EC-55/HP/NAT.2, dated 14
October 2008, and EC-55/HP/NAT.4, dated 12 January
2009). No substantive action is required on the Note.


10. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note two
national papers by the United States on the status of
its destruction obligations (EC-55/NAT.3, dated 21
October 2008, and EC-55/NAT.6, dated 16 January 2009).
No substantive action is required on the Note.


11. (U) This agenda item is the likely place for
Iranian mischief to begin with a renewed attack on the
two U.S. 90-day reports due to lack of specific start-up
dates for Blue Grass and Pueblo. Del should push back
on any procedural attempts to differentiate between the
U.S.90-day reports and the other States Parties' 90-day
reports. Existing guidance (in reference A) applies if
the Del is confronted with specific questions about
reported projections for destruction facility start up
or completion of destruction operations after 2012.


12. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note two
national papers by the Russian Federation on the status
of its destruction obligations (EC-55/P/NAT.1, dated 13
October 2008, and EC-55/P/NAT.5, dated 6 January 2009).
No substantive action is required on the Note.


13. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note two
national papers by China on the status of chemical
weapons abandoned by Japan in China and Japan's
destruction obligations (EC-55/NAT.4, dated 20 October
2008, and EC-55/NAT.8, dated 15 January 2009). The EC
is also requested to consider and note two national
papers by Japan on the current status of the abandoned
chemical weapons projects in China (EC-55/NAT.1, dated
20 October 2008, and EC-55/NAT.7, dated 16 January
2009). No substantive action is required on the Note.

--5(c): Status of Implementation of Article X--


14. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note a
report by the Director-General on the status of
implementation of Article X of the Convention as at 31
December 2008 (EC-55/DG.5, dated 26 January 2009). No
substantive action is required on the Note.


15. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note the
Note by the TS on the effectiveness of current programs
undertaken under Article X (EC-55/S/2, dated 28 January
2009). No substantive action is required on the note.

--5(d): Status of Implementation of Article XI--


16. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note a
report by the Director-General on the status of
implementation of Article XI of the Convention as at 31
December 2008 (EC-55/DG.13, dated 5 February 2009)). No
substantive action is required on the report. Since
Article XI does not have a facilitator and there have
not been any consultations since CSP-13, naming of a
facilitator should be a priority during EC-55. Del may
support any reasonable candidate that can achieve
consensus backing.

--5(e): Facility Agreements--


17. (U) The EC is requested to consider and approve a
facility agreement with the United States of America
regarding on-site inspections at a Schedule 1 facility
(EC-54/DEC/CRP.9/Rev.1, dated 8 October 2008). Del
should push for its adoption, but bear in mind that
adoption is likely to be linked politically to adoption
of the Iranian Schedule 1 facility agreements.


18. (U) The EC is requested to consider and approve the
amendments to the facility agreement with the Islamic
Republic of Iran for a Schedule 1 protective purposes
facility (EC-54/DEC/CRP.10/Rev.1, dated 23 January
2009).
Since Iran has modified the proposed amendments to its
approved Schedule 1 protective purposes facility
agreement that were submitted for consideration by EC-
54, Del should inform the Iranian delegation that we
have concerns with the revised document, in addition to
the questions already raised on the original changes
proposed last October. These additional concerns are
with the formulation and applicability of the newly
proposed revision of the sampling and analysis section
for the Iranian facility agreement, which also will have
to be resolved before we can consider approval. Del
should work to de-link the U.S. "research facility"
agreement from the Iranian "protective purposes
facility" agreement by fully explaining the substantive
differences between the two facilities. If Iran will
not accept U.S. changes, Del should ask that the item be
deferred.

--5(f): Optimization of Verification Procedures--


19. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note a Note
by the TS on the optimization and efficiency of
verification activities (EC-54/S/6, dated 6 October
2008). No substantive action is required on the Note.

--5(g): Supplement to the 2007 Verification
Implementation Report--


20. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note the
Supplement to the 2007 Verification Implementation
Report (EC-54/HP/DG.1, dated 29 September 2008). No
substantive action is required on the Note.

--5(h): Timely Submission of Declarations under Article
VI of the Convention-


21. (U) The EC is requested to note the Note by the DG
on the timely submission by State Parties of
declarations under Article VI of the Convention (EC-
55/DG.12, dated 5 February 2009). No substantive action
is required on the Note.

--5(i): Industry Cluster Issues, Including Enhancement
of OCPF Declarations--


22. (U) The EC is requested to consider further a Note
by the TS on enhancing information on the
characteristics of plant sites in OCPF declarations (EC-
53/S/5, dated 17 June 2008),as well as a Note by the DG
concerning information on the enhancement of OCPF
declarations (EC-53/DG.11, dated 17 June 2008).


23. (U) The two Notes were introduced during EC-53 but
did not receive serious consideration until the November
2008 industry consultations under a new facilitator
(Marthinus Van Schalkwyk of South Africa). A second
consultation took place on February 10. These two
documents cover voluntary initiatives (some already
initiated by the TS) and propose additional declaration
requirements to provide more detailed information on key
site characteristics. As appropriate, Del should
express support for the initiative taken through the two
Notes and the renewed effort by participating
delegations to implement changes that can help improve
the OCPF site selection process, noting that while the
U.S. supports the initiative, we are still closely
reviewing the proposals to ascertain their effect and
impact. Del may also suggest that the TS provide
estimates on the benefits from implementing its
proposals. If Iran renews its assertion that some
aspects of the consultations work are beyond its
mandate, Del should intervene to emphasize that the
scope is consistent with the results of the Second
RevCon on this issue in redirecting inspections toward
facilities of greatest relevance regarding the object
and purpose of the Convention (paragraph 9.65 of RC-
2/4).



24. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note the
DG's report on the performance of the modified OCPF
site-selection methodology (EC-55/DG.8, dated 2 February
2009). No substantive action is required on the Note.

--5(j): Review of Operational Requirements and
Technical Specifications of the Inspection Equipment--


25. (U) The EC is requested to note the Note by the TS
on the progress on the review of operational
requirements and technical specifications first approved
by the CSP at its First Session (EC-55/S/5, dated 3
February 2009). No substantive action is required on
the Note.

--5(k): Implementation by the TS in 2008 of the Regime
Governing the Handling of Confidential Information--


26. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note a
report by the DG on the implementation of the regime
governing the handling of confidential information by
the TS in 2008 (EC-55/DG.6, C-14/DG.1, dated 27 January
2009). No substantive action is required on the Note.
Given that a significant number of States Parties have
not/not provided the TS with the requested information
(details on the handling of information provided to them
by the OPCW),the Del may propose that the TS provide
the EC Chairperson with a list of those countries that
have not provided the information so that the
Chairperson could make inquiries as to the status of the
required submission from those States Parties.

--------------
Item 6: OPCW Central Analytical Database
--------------


27. (U) The EC is requested to consider and approve a
Note containing lists of new validated data (EC-55/DG.3,
dated 16 January 2009 and EC-55/DEC/CRP.2, dated 22
January 2009). No substantive action on the Note is
required. A non-paper for the Indians will be sent
Septel.

-------------- --------------
Item 7: Report on the Implementation in 2008 of the
Recommendations of the External Auditor
-------------- --------------


28. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note a TS
Note on the status of implementation of the
recommendations of the External Auditor (EC-55/S/6,
dated 6 February). This document was only recently
received in Washington and will require more time to
review by Washington experts. Del should request this
document be deferred to EC-56.

--------------
Item 8: Administrative and Financial Matters
--------------

--8(a): Current Status of Implementation of the
Verification Information System--


29. (U) The EC is requested to take note of the Note by
the TS on the current status of implementation of the
Verification Information System (EC-55/S/3, dated 30
January 2009). No substantive action is required on the
Note.

--8(b): OPCW income and expenditure for the financial
year to 31 December 2008--


30. (U) The EC is requested to note a report by the DG
on OPCW income and expenditure for the financial year to
30 September 2008 (EC-55/DG.2, dated 9 January 2009).
No substantive action required on the Note.



31. (U) The EC is requested to note a report by the DG
on OPCW income and expenditure for the financial year to
31 December 2008 (EC-55/DG.11, dated 5 February 2009).
No substantive action required on the Note.

--8(c): Transfer of funds in 2008--


32. (U) The EC is requested to note a Note by the DG on
transfers of funds during 2008 (EC-55/DG.7, C-14/DG.2,
dated 2 February 2009). No substantive action required
on the Note.

--8(d): Adjustment to the DG's Gross Salary-


33. (U) The EC is requested to adopt a decision
adjusting the Director-General's gross salary (EC-
55/DEC/CRP.1, dated 21 January 2009). Del may join
consensus to adopt the decision.

--8(e): Classification of New Posts and Reclassification
of Existing Posts-


34. (U) The EC is requested to consider and note a
report on the classification of new posts and
reclassification of existing posts (EC-55/DG.10, dated 5
February 2009). No substantive action required on the
Note.


-------------- --------------
--
Item 9: Agreements on the Privileges and Immunities of
the OPCW
-------------- --------------
--


35. (U) The EC is requested to consider and conclude an
agreement between the OPCW and the United Arab Emirates
on the privileges and immunities of the OPCW (Document
not available yet). If the document becomes available
and is consistent with previous agreements of this type,
Del may join consensus to conclude the agreement but Del
should make a brief intervention prior to adoption of
this agreement cautioning that, from the U.S.
perspective, these agreements, like others previously
adopted, go well beyond what the United States would be
in a position to accept in its own bilateral agreement
with the OPCW. Consequently, adoption of this agreement
should not be considered to establish a precedent for
agreements with any other States Parties.

-------------- --------------
Item 10: Report of the Scientific Advisory Board
-------------- --------------


36. (U) The EC is requested to note the report of the
Twelfth Session of the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB-
12/1, dated 26 November 2008). No substantive action
required on the note but Del may draw on the cable
listed at reference B (paragraphs. 44-47) as necessary.


37. (U) The EC is requested to note the Note by the DG
in response to the report of the Twelfth Session of the
SAB (EC-55/DG.4, dated 22 January 2009). No substantive
action required on the Note.

-------------- --------------
Item 11: Nominations of Members of the Advisory Body on
Administrative and Financial Matters
-------------- --------------


38. (U) The EC is requested to note the Note by the TS
on the additional information regarding nominations of
members of the ABAF, containing the curricula vitae
which were made available to the TS (EC-55/S/5, dated 3
February 2009) and to approve the appointments of Mr.
Milan Kerber, Ms. Su-Jin Cho, Mr. Said Moussi, Ms.
Khadija Yusuf, Mr. El Mostafa Trifaia, Mr. Marthinus van
Schalkwyk, Mr. Rajive Kumar, and Mr. Peter Beerwerth.


39. (U) Washington is, and has been for quite some
time, interested in reforming the ABAF into a more
functional body. The turnover of ABAF members may
provide an opportunity to introduce needed reforms, the
major one being to have less representation from local
OPCW delegations and more real experts from capitals.
Del should work towards an understanding that resumes or
something similar (e.g., a series of paragraphs that
detail experience relevant to that of the ABAF) will be
circulated to the EC far enough in advance for proper
consideration. Del should make clear that a letter of
nomination with no supporting written information on the
candidate is not sufficient.


40. (U) In working toward this, Del may support the
following elements, or something similar during
discussions:

--provisional approval of the above nominees to serve on
the ABAF until not later than 31 December 2009. This
will permit the nominees to serve on the two 2009 ABAF
meetings.

--an understanding that the term of all ABAF members
will end on 31 December 2009, when all candidates will
have to submit resumes/CV's or other supporting
information with their nomination to serve on the ABAF
in 2010 for a length of time to be determined by the EC
(currently three years). Washington is interested in
maintaining a position on the ABAF so Del will need to
advise Washington if this provision is adopted by the EC
and when the application process for the ABAF restarts
in 2010.

--an understanding that all ABAF nominations include
curriculum vitae (CV),or something similar, that
details the qualifications and experience for the
candidates and that the EC have sufficient time to
review the nominations.


41. (U) Del should also initiate a thoughtful process
with other delegations and the T.S. on the issue of
funding ABAF experts, within a zero-nominal growth
budget or by voluntary contributions, to attend from
capital. Washington has no general objection to the
OPCW paying for experts from capital to attend the ABAF
meetings but we need to understand the details before
agreeing to such a change. Any discussion will
inevitably lead to a limit on the number of experts that
the OPCW can pay for. This in turn could lead to a cap
on the number of members on the ABAF. A cap would, in
turn, elicit a demand from the NAM and Africa for equal
representation on the ABAF. This, in the long run,
could potentially lead to the United States not having a
representative on the ABAF. This would not/not be an
acceptable outcome, as it is a key equity that we have a
rep on the ABAF. Del should seek views from other
delegations and the TS concerning payment for ABAF
members and on a possible cap of the number of ABAF
Members. Del should also discuss this within WEOG to
better determine how WEOG may apportion its ABAF seats
should a regional cap be instituted, and make clear that
the U.S. will insist on always being represented on
ABAF. Washington would like a chance to review the
details of any such discussions before any agreement is
reached.


42. (U) Del should work early in the week to dampen
expectations for a decision during the February EC,
other than allowing the new nominees to be provisionally
appointed to ABAF. Del may propose that the issue of
reforming the ABAF be taken under facilitation. Del
should prepare detailed political reporting for
Washington experts on this issue, not only on WEOG views
but also on the views of other key players, especially
from the NAM.



43. (U) Note: In order to avoid isolation in the event
of sufficient support for a decision, Del may agree to
language requesting the ABAF to review its rules of
procedure on nominations and appointments with a view to
proposing recommendations to the EC at EC-56. In so
doing, Del should make clear, as appropriate, that the
United States expects the circulation of CV's to be a
proposed recommendation. End Note.

-------------- --------------
---
Item 12: Election of the Chairperson and Vice-
Chairpersons of the Executive Council
-------------- --------------
---


44. (U) The Council is requested to elect its new
Chairperson for a term of office ending on 11 May 2010
and its new Vice-Chairpersons for the same period. It
is the GRULAC's turn to select the next EC chair and the
likely nominee is Mexican Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco
Tonda. Del may support the Mexican Ambassador or other
acceptable consensus nominee provided he/she is elected
from among the accredited Representatives to the EC
(Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the EC).


45. (U) Vice-Chairs of the EC: The Director-General
notes (in EC-55/DG.9, dated 3 February 2009) that the
following countries do not have a Representative
designated to the EC in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure of the Executive Council: India, Libya,
Pakistan, South Africa, and Iran. Election to a Vice-
Chair from one of these countries technically would be
in contravention of Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Del may not support a nominee that is not an
accredited Representative to the EC. Del should try to
verify that all Vice-Chair nominees are accredited
Representatives (not alternates or advisors). If all
nominees for Vice-Chair are accredited Representatives,
Del may support the nominations. If one or more of the
nominees are not accredited, the Del should request that
the EC suspend the election of Vice-Chairs pending
further consultations with delegations and the OPCW
legal advisor and defer, if necessary, the election of
Vice-Chairs until the next EC.

--------------
Item 13: Appointment of the Director-General
--------------


46. (U) The Fourteenth Session of the CSP being the
last regular session before the expiry of the present
Director-General's term, the EC is requested, pursuant
to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure, to consider this
matter.


47. (U) One of the key goals for the U.S. delegation at
EC-55 will be to ensure that the process for selecting
the next DG officially gets started. Del should ensure
that EC Chair Ambassador Tomova makes known to the EC
that a "call for names" for those interested in becoming
the next DG is underway. Del should also urge that
Ambassador Tomova send a letter to all States Parties
announcing a call for nominations with a practical
deadline set for when name and resumes should be sent to
the EC Chair. If the EC selects a new EC Chair (one
session earlier than is typical),del should encourage
that Ambassador Tomova and the new EC Chair work in a
cohesive manner. If Ambassador Tomova chooses to yield
to the new EC Chair on this issue, Del should ensure
that the new EC Chair fully understands the need to take
immediate action from a process point of view and make
this one of his/her highest priorities.


48. (U) Del should ensure that a practical date is
established by which Member States must make known the
names of candidates and provide resumes. Del should
also ensure that there is sufficient time for all Member
States to adequately review the resumes of candidates.
Del should also ensure that candidates have the
opportunity to address the EC to present their
credentials and lay out their views on the future of the
Organization. This could be done at EC-57 (June 20 -
July 3),or at the latest EC-58 (October 13 - 16).


49. (U) Washington prefers that the next DG be from a
developed country as it reflects a political commitment
made during the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) that
the DG would rotate between developed and developing
countries. Many of the current players in OPCW circles
are not aware of this PrepCom agreement and since we
cannot produce a signed agreement, we must be flexible.
We need to avoid a situation where an over-emphasis on
insisting for a DG from a developed country sparks a
reaction from the other direction: an insistence by some
NAM members that the next DG be from the developing
world. This type of argument from the NAM, especially
if cleverly articulated, could build rapid support for
candidates whom the U.S. would not want to serve as DG.
Del also should work to prevent the emergence of
proposals for a regional rotation in selection of the
DG. This would serve to narrow the talent pool, create
a degree of "regional prerogative" in selection of
candidates, and make the selection process less
flexible.


50. (U) In discussions, Del should work to promote the
candidacies of well-qualified candidates based on such
attributes as leadership, strong English skills,
management skills, experience at senior-levels with
multilateral diplomacy, and the like. Del should do
what it can to urge capitals to put forth names of
potential candidates, provided such candidacies would
not be inimical to the U.S. national interest. In so
doing, if names of candidates emerge that the United
States cannot support or Del knows to be unqualified,
Del should quietly and with the appropriate amount of
diplomatic finesse, work to dampen the candidate's
prospects and prevent that candidate from emerging as a
potential contender. Del should also put an emphasis on
political reporting regarding potential emerging
candidacies and consult Washington as necessary.

--------------
Item 14: Any Other Business
--------------


51. (U) Credentials of representatives of the Council:
The DG report on credentials of representatives to the
EC (EC-55/DG.9, 3 February 2009) states that 36 members
of the Council have their credentials in order. Those
that do not have representatives according to the note
are India, Iran, Libya, Pakistan and South Africa. Del
may approve this report. Del should also encourage the
four delegations, as appropriate, to accredit a
Representative as rapidly as possible. The first
problem is that EC Chairs and Vice-Chairs can only be
elected from the accredited Representatives to the EC.
This would eliminate candidates from India, Iran, Libya,
Pakistan and South Africa. Additionally, the
Representative accredits his/her own delegation. If
there is no Representative, then the legal status of
said delegations can be called into question. This can
be particularly problematic as a matter of procedure,
especially if a vote is called. Del should work to
avoid any vote at this session and work to resolve the
issue by consensus. If Del anticipates a vote, Del
should inform Washington, clearly explain the situation
and offer recommendations.


52. (U) Iraqi accession will be a topic of discussion
on the margins and likely during sessions of EC-55. Del
should express support of the actions taken by Iraq and
our expectation that Iraq will strive to meet all its
obligations as a State Party, but remain non-committal
on the U.S. understanding of the specifics of Iraq's
declaration content and plans for its submission, as
well as Iraqi plans for facilitating inspections or
plans for destruction. Del should schedule working
sessions with the Iraqi and UK delegations as soon as
possible to coordinate our views on Iraqi implementation
plans, including reporting and destruction of recovered
chemicals munitions as well as possible interim plans
for facilitating inspections (see reference C for more
guidance).


53. (U) Del should also take the opportunity to seek
the status of Libyan progress on destruction and
conversion activities and the status of the API tri-
venture that will utilize the proliferation sensitive
equipment currently stored in Tripoli.


54. (U) Del should communicate the outcome of these
communications to Washington and, as appropriate, seek
guidance on the approach to handling specific issues.
CLINTON