Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287
Articles
Brazil
Sri Lanka
United Kingdom
Sweden
00. Editorial
United States
Latin America
Egypt
Jordan
Yemen
Thailand
Browse latest releases
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
2010/12/25
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
2011/01/11
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
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
2011/05/20
2011/05/21
2011/05/22
2011/05/23
2011/05/24
2011/05/25
2011/05/26
2011/05/27
2011/05/28
2011/05/29
2011/05/30
2011/05/31
2011/06/01
2011/06/02
2011/06/03
2011/06/04
2011/06/05
2011/06/06
2011/06/07
2011/06/08
2011/06/09
2011/06/10
2011/06/11
2011/06/12
2011/06/13
2011/06/14
2011/06/15
2011/06/16
2011/06/17
2011/06/18
2011/06/19
2011/06/20
2011/06/21
2011/06/22
2011/06/23
2011/06/24
2011/06/25
2011/06/26
2011/06/27
2011/06/28
2011/06/29
2011/06/30
2011/07/01
2011/07/02
2011/07/04
2011/07/05
2011/07/06
2011/07/07
2011/07/08
2011/07/10
2011/07/11
2011/07/12
2011/07/13
2011/07/14
2011/07/15
2011/07/16
2011/07/17
2011/07/18
2011/07/19
2011/07/20
2011/07/21
2011/07/22
2011/07/23
2011/07/25
2011/07/27
2011/07/28
2011/07/29
2011/07/31
2011/08/01
2011/08/02
2011/08/03
2011/08/05
2011/08/06
2011/08/07
2011/08/08
2011/08/10
2011/08/11
2011/08/12
2011/08/13
2011/08/15
2011/08/16
2011/08/17
2011/08/19
2011/08/21
2011/08/22
2011/08/23
2011/08/24
2011/08/25
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Antananarivo
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Alexandria
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embasy Bonn
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Brazzaville
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangui
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Belfast
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Cotonou
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chiang Mai
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Chengdu
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
DIR FSINFATC
Consulate Dusseldorf
Consulate Durban
Consulate Dubai
Consulate Dhahran
Embassy Guatemala
Embassy Grenada
Embassy Georgetown
Embassy Gaborone
Consulate Guayaquil
Consulate Guangzhou
Consulate Guadalajara
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Hong Kong
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kolonia
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Krakow
Consulate Kolkata
Consulate Karachi
Consulate Kaduna
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Lusaka
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Lome
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy Libreville
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Leipzig
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Mission Geneva
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Mogadishu
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maseru
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Merida
Consulate Melbourne
Consulate Matamoros
Consulate Marseille
Embassy Nouakchott
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Nuevo Laredo
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Consulate Nagoya
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Praia
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Moresby
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Podgorica
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Ponta Delgada
Consulate Peshawar
REO Mosul
REO Kirkuk
REO Hillah
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 Surabaya
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy Tirana
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
Consulate Thessaloniki
USUN New York
USMISSION USTR GENEVA
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Mission CD Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
US Delegation FEST TWO
UNVIE
UN Rome
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vientiane
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AF
ADANA
ASEC
AFIN
AMGT
AE
AORC
AID
AR
AO
AU
ASEAN
AGOA
AFGHANISTAN
AFFAIRS
AMED
APER
ASECARP
APEC
AEMR
AS
AA
ANET
AFLU
ABLD
AL
ASUP
AJ
APECO
AMER
ABUD
AODE
AM
AFSN
AESC
AND
AG
ALOW
AROC
AVIANFLU
ATRN
ACOA
AEGR
AMGMT
AADP
AFSI
ACABQ
APRM
AZ
AIDS
ASE
AGAO
ADCO
ABDALLAH
ARF
AIDAC
ACOTA
ASCH
AC
ASEG
AGR
ACS
AMCHAMS
AN
AMIA
ASIG
ADPM
ADB
ANARCHISTS
ALOWAR
ARM
AUC
AINF
AINT
AORG
AY
AVIAN
AMEDCASCKFLO
AK
ARSO
ARABBL
ASO
ANTITERRORISM
ARABL
AOWC
AGRICULTURE
ALJAZEERA
AMTC
AFINM
AOCR
ABER
ARR
AFPK
ASSEMBLY
ASSK
AZE
AORCYM
AINR
AGMT
AEC
ACKM
APRC
AIN
ASCC
AFPREL
ASED
APERTH
ASFC
ASECTH
AFSA
AOMS
AORCO
ANTXON
ARC
AFAF
ADIP
AIAG
AFARI
AEMED
AORL
AX
ASECAF
AOPC
ASECAFIN
AFZAL
APCS
AMB
AGUIRRE
AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL
AIT
ARCH
AMEX
ALI
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AORCD
AVIATION
ARAS
AINFCY
ACBAQ
AOPR
AREP
ALEXANDER
ATRD
AEIR
AOIC
ABLDG
ASEX
AFR
ASCE
ATRA
ASEK
AER
ALOUNI
AMCT
AVERY
APR
AMAT
AEMRS
ASPA
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ALL
AECL
ACAO
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORD
AFL
AME
ADM
ASECPHUM
AGIT
ABT
ASECVE
AGUILAR
AT
ABMC
ALZUGUREN
ANGEL
ASR
ANTONIO
BMGT
BEXP
BM
BG
BL
BA
BR
BTA
BO
BY
BBSR
BLUE
BK
BF
BTIO
BELLVIEW
BE
BU
BN
BH
BD
BC
BTC
BILAT
BT
BX
BRUSSELS
BP
BB
BRPA
BUSH
BURMA
BMENA
BESP
BIT
BBG
BGD
BMEAID
BAGHDAD
BEN
BIO
BMOT
BWC
BLUNT
BURNS
BUT
BGMT
BAIO
BCW
BOEHNER
BFIF
BOL
BASHAR
BIMSTEC
BOU
BIDEN
BZ
BFIN
BTRA
BI
BHUM
BOIKO
BERARDUCCI
BOUCHAIB
BORDER
BEXPC
BTIU
BTT
BIOS
BEXB
BGPGOV
BOND
BLR
CE
CG
CH
CVR
CASC
CU
CI
CD
CO
CDG
CB
CJAN
CPAS
COM
CVIS
CMGT
CT
CENTCOM
CNARC
CTERR
COUNTER
CHIEF
CDC
CTR
CBW
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CY
CA
CM
CS
CWC
CN
CITES
CF
CWG
CIVS
CFIS
CASCC
CROATIA
CONS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CASA
COE
CJ
CHR
CODEL
CR
CBC
CACS
CHERTOFF
CAS
CONTROL
CONDITIONS
CONDOLEEZZA
CITEL
CV
CLINTON
CHG
CZ
CON
CTBT
CEN
CRIMES
COMMERCE
CLOK
CRISTINA
CFED
CARC
CND
CTM
CARICOM
COUNTRYCLEARANCE
CBTH
CHINA
CSW
CICTE
CJUS
CYPRUS
CW
CAMBODIA
CENSUS
CIDA
CRIME
CBG
CBE
CMGMT
CAIO
CEC
CARSON
CPCTC
CEDAW
COMESA
CVIA
CWCM
CEA
COSI
CAPC
CGEN
COPUOS
CGOPRC
COETRD
CKGR
CFE
CQ
CITT
CIC
CARIB
CVIC
CLO
CAFTA
CVISU
CHRISTOPHER
CACM
CIAT
CDB
CIS
CUL
CHAO
CNC
CL
CSEP
COMMAND
CENTER
COL
CAN
CAJC
CUIS
CONSULAR
CLMT
CIA
CBSA
CEUDA
CAC
CROS
CIO
CPUOS
CKOR
CVPR
CONG
CONTROLS
CEPTER
CVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGKIRF
CDCE
DPOL
DEMARCHE
DHS
DR
DA
DISENGAGEMENT
DEMOCRATIC
DEFENSE
DJ
DY
DARFUR
DHRF
DEA
DTRO
DPRK
DO
DARFR
DOC
DRL
DK
DOJ
DTRA
DOMESTIC
DAC
DOD
DEAX
DIEZ
DEOC
DELTAVIOLENCE
DCOM
DMINE
DRC
DCG
DPKO
DOMESTICPOLITICS
DE
DB
DOT
DEPT
DOE
DHLAKAMA
DHSX
DS
DKEM
DAO
DCM
DANIEL
DEM
DAVID
DCRM
ETRD
EAGR
ETTC
EAID
ECON
EFIN
ECIN
EINV
ELAB
EAIR
ENRG
EPET
EWWT
ECPS
EIND
EMIN
ELTN
EC
ETMIN
EUC
EZ
ET
ELECTIONS
ENVR
EU
EUN
EG
EINT
ER
ECONOMICS
ES
EMS
ENIV
EEB
EN
ECE
ECOSOC
EK
ENVIRONMENT
EFIS
EI
EWT
ENGRD
ECPSN
EXIM
EIAD
ERIN
ECPC
EDEV
ENGY
ECTRD
EPA
ESTH
ECCT
EINVECON
ENGR
ERTD
EUR
EAP
EWWC
ELTD
EL
EXIMOPIC
EXTERNAL
ETRDEC
ESCAP
ECO
EGAD
ELNT
ECONOMIC
ENV
ETRN
EIAR
EUMEM
ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID
EREL
ECOM
ECONETRDEAGRJA
ETCC
ETRG
ECONOMY
EMED
ETR
ENERG
EITC
EFINOECD
EURM
EENG
ERA
EXPORT
ENRD
ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC
EGEN
EBRD
EVIN
ETRAD
ECOWAS
EFTA
ECONETRDBESPAR
EGOVSY
EPIN
EID
ECONENRG
EDRC
ESENV
ETT
EB
ENER
ELTNSNAR
ECHEVARRIA
ETRC
EPIT
EDUC
ESA
EFI
ENRGY
ESCI
EE
EAIDXMXAXBXFFR
EETC
ECIP
EIAID
EIVN
EBEXP
ESTN
EING
EGOV
ETRA
EPETEIND
ELAN
ETRDGK
EAIDRW
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
EPEC
ENVI
ELN
EAG
EPCS
EPRT
EPTED
ETRB
EUM
EAIDS
EFIC
EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM
EAIDAR
ESF
EIDN
ELAM
EDU
EV
EAIDAF
ECN
EDA
EXBS
EINTECPS
ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ
EPREL
EAC
EINVEFIN
ETA
EAGER
EINDIR
ECA
ECLAC
ELAP
EITI
EUCOM
ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID
EARG
ELDIN
EINVKSCA
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EFINTS
ECCP
ETC
EAIRASECCASCID
EINN
ETRP
EAIDNI
EFQ
ECOQKPKO
EGPHUM
EBUD
ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ
ENERGY
ELB
EINDETRD
EMI
ECONEFIN
EIB
EURN
ETRDEINVTINTCS
EIN
EFIM
ETIO
ELAINE
EMN
EATO
EWTR
EIPR
EINVETC
ETTD
ETDR
EIQ
ECONCS
EPPD
ENRGIZ
EISL
ESPINOSA
ELEC
EAIG
ESLCO
EUREM
ENTG
ERD
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ECINECONCS
ETRO
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECUN
EFND
EPECO
EAIRECONRP
ERGR
ETRDPGOV
ECPN
ENRGMO
EPWR
EET
EAIS
EAGRE
EDUARDO
EAGRRP
EAIDPHUMPRELUG
EICN
ECONQH
EVN
EGHG
ELBR
EINF
EAIDHO
EENV
ETEX
ERNG
ED
FR
FREEDOM
FINREF
FJ
FI
FRELIMO
FOREIGN
FAA
FETHI
FAS
FTAA
FRB
FAO
FCS
FINANCE
FWS
FTA
FEMA
FDA
FLU
FRANCISCO
FBI
FORCE
FO
FARC
FK
FT
FCSC
FAC
FM
FMGT
FINV
FCSCEG
FARM
FERNANDO
FINR
FIN
FINE
FIR
FDIC
FOR
FOI
FCUL
FKLU
FMLN
FISO
FIXED
GM
GMUS
GG
GR
GE
GAZA
GT
GH
GZ
GJ
GLOBAL
GV
GABY
GOI
GA
GCC
GB
GY
GATT
GC
GUAM
GEORGE
GTIP
GOV
GOMEZ
GUTIERREZ
GL
GKGIC
GF
GU
GWI
GARCIA
GTMO
GN
GANGS
GIPNC
GAERC
GREGG
GUILLERMO
GASPAR
GERARD
GI
HK
HR
HUMANR
HUMAN
HO
HA
HUMANRIGHTS
HU
HHS
HIV
HUM
HRKAWC
HILLEN
HILLARY
HDP
HUMRIT
HSTC
HUMANITARIAN
HCOPIL
HADLEY
HURI
HL
HRETRD
HOURANI
HG
HARRIET
HESHAM
HI
HNCHR
HARRY
HRECON
HRC
HOSTAGES
HEBRON
HUMOR
HSWG
HYMPSK
HECTOR
HN
HYDE
HUD
HRPGOV
HIGHLIGHTS
ID
ILC
IS
IZ
ICAO
IMO
ITU
IR
IAEA
ICRC
IPROP
IT
IBRD
ISRAELI
IRAQI
ISSUES
ITRA
IV
IO
IGAD
IRAQ
IN
IMF
ICTR
ISCON
IADB
IDB
IEA
INR
IWC
ICCAT
ILO
INMARSAT
IOM
ICJ
IQ
ISPA
ITRD
IPR
INTELSAT
ISN
IAHRC
INTERNAL
IFAD
IICA
IHO
IRAN
IL
IRCE
IC
INTELLECTUAL
IRM
IE
ICTY
IDLI
IFO
ISCA
INF
INL
ISRAEL
INV
IBB
INFLUENZA
ISPL
ITER
ITIA
INRA
ISAF
IACHR
INTERPOL
IFR
IRS
INRB
IEF
ISAAC
ICC
INDO
IIP
IATTC
INAUGURATION
IND
INS
IZPREL
IACI
IEFIN
INNP
ILAB
IA
IMTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
IFIN
IRAJ
IX
ICG
IF
ITPHUM
ITA
IP
IACW
IK
IUCN
IZEAID
IRPE
IDA
ISLAMISTS
ITF
INRO
IBET
IDP
IRC
ISO
ICES
IRMO
ITPGOV
IQNV
IMSO
IRDB
IMET
INCB
IFRC
JA
JO
JP
JM
JCIC
JOHN
JE
JEFFERY
JS
JUS
JN
JOHNNIE
JAMES
JKUS
JOSEPH
JML
JAWAD
JSRP
JIMENEZ
JOSE
JKJUS
JK
JAPAN
KMDR
KPAO
KPKO
KJUS
KCRM
KGHG
KFRD
KWMN
KDEM
KTFN
KHIV
KGIC
KIDE
KSCA
KNNP
KHUM
KIPR
KSUM
KISL
KIRF
KCOR
KRCM
KPAL
KWBG
KN
KS
KOMC
KSEP
KFLU
KPWR
KTIA
KSEO
KMPI
KHLS
KICC
KSTH
KMCA
KVPR
KPRM
KE
KU
KZ
KFLO
KSAF
KTIP
KTEX
KBCT
KOCI
KOLY
KOR
KAWC
KACT
KUNR
KTDB
KSTC
KLIG
KSKN
KNN
KCFE
KCIP
KGHA
KHDP
KPOW
KUNC
KDRL
KV
KPREL
KCRS
KPOL
KRVC
KRIM
KGIT
KWIR
KT
KIRC
KOMO
KRFD
KUWAIT
KG
KFIN
KSCI
KTFIN
KFTN
KGOV
KPRV
KSAC
KGIV
KCRIM
KPIR
KSOC
KBIO
KW
KGLB
KMWN
KPO
KFSC
KSEAO
KSTCPL
KSI
KPRP
KREC
KFPC
KUNH
KCSA
KMRS
KNDP
KR
KICCPUR
KPPAO
KCSY
KTBT
KCIS
KNEP
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KNNB
KGCC
KINR
KPOP
KMFO
KENV
KNAR
KVIR
KDRG
KDMR
KFCE
KNAO
KDEN
KGCN
KICA
KIMMITT
KMCC
KLFU
KMSG
KSEC
KUM
KCUL
KMNP
KSMT
KCOM
KOMCSG
KSPR
KPMI
KRAD
KIND
KCRP
KAUST
KWAWC
KTER
KCHG
KRDP
KPAS
KITA
KTSC
KPAOPREL
KWGB
KIRP
KJUST
KMIG
KLAB
KTFR
KSEI
KSTT
KAPO
KSTS
KLSO
KWNN
KPOA
KHSA
KNPP
KPAONZ
KBTS
KWWW
KY
KJRE
KPAOKMDRKE
KCRCM
KSCS
KWMNCI
KESO
KWUN
KPLS
KIIP
KEDEM
KPAOY
KRIF
KGICKS
KREF
KTRD
KFRDSOCIRO
KTAO
KJU
KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW
KEN
KO
KNEI
KEMR
KKIV
KEAI
KWAC
KRCIM
KWCI
KFIU
KWIC
KCORR
KOMS
KNNO
KPAI
KBWG
KTTB
KTBD
KTIALG
KILS
KFEM
KTDM
KESS
KNUC
KPA
KOMCCO
KCEM
KRCS
KWBGSY
KNPPIS
KNNPMNUC
KWN
KERG
KLTN
KALM
KCCP
KSUMPHUM
KREL
KGH
KLIP
KTLA
KAWK
KWMM
KVRP
KVRC
KAID
KSLG
KDEMK
KX
KIF
KNPR
KCFC
KFTFN
KTFM
KPDD
KCERS
KMOC
KDEMAF
KMEPI
KEMS
KDRM
KEPREL
KBTR
KEDU
KNP
KIRL
KNNR
KMPT
KISLPINR
KTPN
KA
KJUSTH
KPIN
KDEV
KTDD
KAKA
KFRP
KWNM
KTSD
KINL
KJUSKUNR
KWWMN
KECF
KWBC
KPRO
KVBL
KOM
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KEDM
KFLD
KLPM
KRGY
KNNF
KICR
KIFR
KM
KWMNCS
KAWS
KLAP
KPAK
KDDG
KCGC
KID
KNSD
KMPF
KPFO
KDP
KCMR
KRMS
KNPT
KNNNP
KTIAPARM
KDTB
KNUP
KPGOV
KNAP
KNNC
KUK
KSRE
KREISLER
KIVP
KQ
KTIAEUN
KPALAOIS
KRM
KISLAO
KWM
KFLOA
LE
LU
LH
LA
LG
LO
LY
LANTERN
LI
LABOR
LORAN
LTTE
LT
LAS
LAB
LAW
LVPR
LARREA
LEBIK
LAURA
LS
LOTT
LOVE
LR
LEON
LAVIN
LGAT
LV
LAOS
LOG
LN
LB
MOPS
MO
MARR
ML
MASS
MZ
MR
MNUC
MX
MV
MCC
MY
MEDIA
MTCRE
MG
MCAP
MOPPS
MP
MI
MK
MC
MD
MA
MU
MASC
MW
MT
MEPP
MN
MTCR
MH
MEPI
MIL
MNUCPTEREZ
MMAR
MICHAEL
MUNC
MDC
MPOS
MONUC
MAR
MGMT
MAS
MEPN
MENDIETA
MARIA
MONTENEGRO
MOOPS
MSG
MARITIME
MURRAY
MUKASEY
MOTO
MCA
MFO
MEX
MRSEC
MMED
MACP
MAAR
MINUSTAH
MCCONNELL
MAPP
MGT
MARQUEZ
MANUEL
MNUR
MCCAIN
MF
MOHAMMAD
MOHAMED
MNU
MFA
MILITANTS
MINORITIES
MTS
MLS
MILI
MIAH
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MED
MARAD
MNVC
MINURSO
MNUCUN
MIK
MARK
MBM
MPP
MILITARY
MAPS
MNUK
MILA
MTRRE
MACEDONIA
MICHEL
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
MPS
MARRGH
MRCRE
MTRE
MORALES
MAP
MCTRE
MHUC
MOPSGRPARM
MOROCCO
MCAPS
NL
NU
NS
NI
NPT
NATO
NO
NG
NATEU
NSF
NZ
NAS
NP
NDP
NLD
NGO
NEPAD
NAFTA
NASA
NEA
NGUYEN
NIH
NK
NIPP
NONE
NR
NANCY
NEGROPONTE
NRR
NERG
NSSP
NSG
NSFO
NE
NATSIOS
NFSO
NATIONAL
NTDB
NT
NCD
NTSB
NRC
NELSON
NAM
NH
NPG
NEC
NSC
NFATC
NMFS
NATOIRAQ
NAR
NZUS
NARC
NCCC
NA
NC
NEW
NRG
NUIN
NOVO
NATOPREL
NEY
NV
NICHOLAS
NPA
NW
NARCOTICS
NORAD
NOAA
NON
NTTC
NKNNP
NMNUC
NUMBERING
ODIP
OIIP
OPRC
OSCE
OREP
OTRA
OPET
OSCI
OVIP
OECD
OCII
OUALI
OPDC
OEXC
OFPD
OPIC
OFDP
OPCW
OECV
OAS
OM
OMIG
ODAG
OPREP
ORA
OIC
OEXCSCULKPAO
OIG
OASS
OFFICIALS
ORTA
OSAC
OIL
OIE
OEXP
OPEC
OPDAT
OMS
OES
OHI
OMAR
OCRA
OFSO
OCBD
OSTA
OAO
ONA
OTP
ORC
OAU
OXEC
OA
ODPC
OPDP
OVIPPRELUNGANU
OASC
OSHA
OPCD
OTR
OPPI
OPCR
OF
OFDPQIS
OSIC
OHUM
OSTRA
OASCC
OBSP
OFDA
OPICEAGR
OIM
OGAC
OTA
OTRAORP
OPPC
OESC
OCEA
OVP
ON
OPAD
OTAR
OCS
ODC
OTRD
OCED
OSD
ORUE
OREG
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PGOV
PREL
PREF
PL
PM
PHSA
PE
PARM
PINS
PK
PUNE
PO
PALESTINIAN
PU
PBTS
PROP
PTBS
POL
POLI
PA
PGOVZI
POLMIL
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLM
PD
POLITICS
POLICY
PAS
PMIL
PINT
PNAT
PV
PKO
PPOL
PERSONS
PING
PBIO
PH
PETR
PARMS
PRES
PCON
PETERS
PRELBR
PT
PLAB
PP
PAK
PDEM
PKPA
PSOCI
PF
PLO
PTERM
PJUS
PSOE
PELOSI
PROPERTY
PGOVPREL
PARP
PRL
PNIR
PHUMKPAL
PG
PREZ
PGIC
PBOV
PAO
PKK
PROV
PHSAK
PHUMPREL
PROTECTION
PGOVBL
PSI
PRELPK
PGOVENRG
PUM
PRELKPKO
PATTY
PSOC
PRIVATIZATION
PRELSP
PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ
PMIG
PREC
PAIGH
PROG
PSHA
PARK
PETER
POG
PHUS
PPREL
PS
PTERPREL
PRELPGOV
POV
PKPO
PGOVECON
POUS
PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN
PWBG
PMAR
PREM
PAR
PNR
PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO
PARMIR
PGOVGM
PHUH
PARTM
PN
PRE
PTE
PY
POLUN
PPEL
PDOV
PGOVSOCI
PIRF
PGOVPM
PBST
PRELEVU
PGOR
PBTSRU
PRM
PRELKPAOIZ
PGVO
PERL
PGOC
PAGR
PMIN
PHUMR
PVIP
PPD
PGV
PRAM
PINL
PKPAL
PTERE
PGOF
PINO
PHAS
PODC
PRHUM
PHUMA
PREO
PPA
PEPFAR
PGO
PRGOV
PAC
PRESL
PORG
PKFK
PEPR
PRELP
PREFA
PNG
PGOVPHUMKPAO
PRELECON
PINOCHET
PFOR
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PRELC
PREK
PHUME
PHJM
POLINT
PGOVPZ
PGOVKCRM
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PECON
PEACE
PROCESS
PLN
PRELSW
PAHO
PEDRO
PRELA
PASS
PPAO
PGPV
PNUM
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGIV
PRFE
POGOV
PEL
PBT
PAMQ
PINF
PSEPC
POSTS
PHUMPGOV
PVOV
PHSAPREL
PROLIFERATION
PENA
PRELTBIOBA
PIN
PRELL
PGOVPTER
PHAM
PHYTRP
PTEL
PTERPGOV
PHARM
PROTESTS
PRELAF
PKBL
PRELKPAO
PKNP
PARMP
PHUML
PFOV
PERM
PUOS
PRELGOV
PHUMPTER
PARAGRAPH
PERURENA
PBTSEWWT
PCI
PETROL
PINSO
PINSCE
PQL
PEREZ
PBS
RS
REFUGEES
RW
RP
RELFREE
RO
REGIONAL
RIGHTS
REACTION
REPORT
RU
RENAMO
RIGHTSPOLMIL
REFORM
RM
REFUGEE
REL
RELATIONS
ROW
RREL
REGION
RATIFICATION
RBI
RICE
ROOD
RODENAS
RUIZ
RODHAM
ROBERT
RGY
ROY
REUBEN
RELIGIOUS
RUEHZO
RODRIGUEZ
RUEUN
RELAM
RSP
RF
RSO
RCMP
REO
ROSS
RPTS
RENE
REID
RUPREL
RMA
RI
REMON
RPEL
RFE
RFIN
RA
RAFAEL
RAY
RUS
RPREL
ROBERTG
RECIN
RAMONTEIJELO
SNAR
SP
SN
SMIG
SL
SOCI
SU
SG
SF
SENV
SZ
SOE
SCUL
SY
SO
SR
SYR
SE
SA
SW
SIPDIS
SCIENCE
SADC
SI
SCI
SOCIETY
SC
SAARC
STR
SECRETARY
SANC
SSH
ST
SNA
SGWI
SEP
SOCIS
SETTLEMENTS
SPECIALIST
SK
SHUM
START
STET
SCVL
SREF
SCHUL
SCUIL
SYRIA
SECURITY
SPCE
SYAI
SMIL
SOWGC
STEPHEN
SNRV
SKCA
SENSITIVE
SECI
SNAP
SPP
SCUD
SOM
SPECI
SMIGBG
SENC
SCRM
SGNV
SECTOR
SENVEAGREAIDTBIOECONSOCIXR
SENVSXE
SASIAIN
SACU
SENVSPL
SWMN
STEINBERG
SOPN
SOCR
SCOI
SCRS
SILVASANDE
SWE
SARS
SNARIZ
SUDAN
SENVQGR
SM
SNARKTFN
SAAD
SD
SAN
SIPRNET
STATE
SENS
SUBJECT
SFNV
SECSTATE
SSA
SPCVIS
SOI
SOFA
SCULKPAOECONTU
SPTER
SKSAF
SENVKGHG
SHI
SEVN
SANR
SPSTATE
SMITH
SCOM
SH
SNARCS
SNARN
SIPRS
SNARM
SIPDI
SCPR
SNIG
SELAB
SULLIVAN
SENVENV
SECDEF
SOLIC
SOIC
SPAS
SASC
SOSI
SEC
SEN
SENVCASCEAIDID
TU
TH
TW
TSPA
TRGY
TPHY
TBIO
TIFA
TS
TZ
TX
TSPL
TT
TK
TC
TINT
TERFIN
TERRORISM
TIP
TURKEY
TI
TECHNOLOGY
TNGD
TRSY
TRAFFICKING
TOPEC
TPSL
TP
TD
TR
TA
TIO
TREATY
TO
THPY
TECH
TRADE
TPSA
TG
TAGS
TF
TRAD
THKSJA
TVBIO
TNDG
TN
TBIOZK
TWI
TV
TWL
TRT
TWRO
TSRY
TTPGOV
TAUSCHER
TRBY
TRBIO
TL
TPKO
TIA
TGRY
TSPAM
TREL
TNAR
TBI
TFIN
TPHYPA
TWCH
THOMMA
THOMAS
TERROR
TRY
TBID
TPP
TE
THANH
TJ
TBKIO
UNGA
USUN
UN
UG
UNSC
UK
UP
US
UNCTAD
UNVIE
UNHRC
USTR
UNAMA
UNCRIME
UNESCO
UV
UNDP
UNHCR
UNCSD
UNCHR
UZ
USAID
UNEP
UNO
UNPUOS
UY
UNDC
UNCITRAL
UNAUS
UNCND
UA
UNMIK
USTDA
USEU
USDA
UNICEF
UR
UNFICYP
USNC
USTRRP
UNODC
UNRWA
UNOMIG
USTRPS
USAU
USCC
UNEF
UNGAPL
UNFPA
UNSCE
USSC
UGA
UEU
UNMIC
UNTAC
UNION
UNCLASSIFIED
USPS
UNA
UMIK
USOAS
UNMOVIC
UNFA
UNAIDS
UNCHC
USGS
UNSE
UNRCR
UNTERR
USG
UE
UAE
UNWRA
UNCSW
UNSCR
UNCHS
UNDESCO
UNPAR
UNC
UB
UNSCS
UKXG
UNGACG
UNREST
UNHR
USPTO
UNFCYP
USCG
UNIDROIT
UNSCD
UPU
UNBRO
UNECE
USTRUWR
UNCC
UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
VM
VE
VT
VETTING
VN
VZ
VIS
VC
VTPREL
VIP
VTEAID
VTEG
VOA
VA
VTIZ
VANG
VISIT
VO
VENZ
VAT
VI
VEPREL
VEN
WFP
WTO
WHO
WTRO
WBG
WMO
WIPO
WA
WI
WSIS
WHA
WCL
WE
WMN
WEBZ
WS
WAR
WZ
WMD
WW
WILLIAM
WEET
WAEMU
WM
WWBG
WWT
WWARD
WITH
WMDT
WTRQ
WCO
WEU
WALTER
WRTO
WB
WHTI
WBEG
WCI
WEF
WAKI
WHOA
WGC
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 04THEHAGUE2698, CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP OF THE
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.
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. #04THEHAGUE2698.
| Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04THEHAGUE2698 | 2004-10-19 12:31 | 2011-08-23 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy The Hague |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 11 THE HAGUE 002698
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 JOECK
WINPAC FOR WALTER
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL LY AL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP OF THE
38TH SESSION OF THE OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
REF: SECSTATE 218506
This is CWC-124-04.
-------
SUMMARY
-------
¶1. (U) The U.S. achieved its one essential goal at the
October 12-15 Executive Council session -- unanimous approval
of the proposed technical change to allow for Libyan
conversion of the Rabta facility. The issue dominated EC-38,
with a record 26 delegations asking to make opening
statements and all noting the technical change. The concerns
of India and Pakistan were addressed through extensive
consultations with the U.S., UK, Italian, Libyan and Tunisian
delegations. The coordinated effort, led by the U.S.,
ultimately convinced Russia, the remaining hold-out, to
finally sign on (see paras 17-23). The actual conversion
request regarding Rabta and the combined plans for
destruction and verification of the Rabta factories and
Libyan mobile units were deferred to an upcoming special EC
session, currently set for November 24.
¶2. (U) The technical change thoroughly dominated the EC-38
discussions to the exclusion of progress on other issues.
There was no agreement on the 2005 budget, which will be
raised at the special EC session with a view to setting the
stage for agreement on the margins of the November Conference
of States Parties (CSP). Work will continue on a draft
document for annual submissions on national programs related
to protective purposes with the intention of reaching
agreement at the CSP. Unexpectedly, there was heated
discussion on a call by many delegations for the
establishment of a committee to address numerous complaints
about status and privileges matters under discussion with the
Dutch government. End Summary.
-----------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 3 - Statement by the DG
-----------------------------------
¶3. (U) DG Pfirter began his statement by noting that the
Rabta conversion request and the associated technical change
were the most important issues facing EC-38. Passage of the
technical change, stressed the DG, would be a great service
to the future of universal adherence to the CW Convention.
And as the Rabta facility would produce low-cost
pharmaceuticals of particular importance to Africa and
developing nations, the conversion would also serve as a
humanitarian gesture.
¶4. (U) The DG noted the "lean" programme and budget for 2005
that he had forwarded for consideration. He promised to
provide further information required by States Parties
involved in budget negotiations and suggested that he would
be willing to make some adjustments to his budget proposals
in due course. In a later intervention, he urged SPs to
factor in the additional costs to the Technical Secretariat
(TS) necessitated by the implementation of the tenure policy.
The DG stated that the TS might be required to use the
Working Capital Fund before the end of the year if the
organization does not receive assessed contributions (read:
U.S.) or reimbursements for Article IV and V inspections.
The DG also highlighted developments in verification
activities, industry inspections, and universality efforts.
------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 4 - General Debate
------------------------------
¶5. (U) Twenty-six speakers took part in the general debate.
Most focused on several recurring themes: the Rabta
conversion request and associated technical change; support
for Results Based Budgeting (RBB) but with varying positions
on the budget itself; support for work on universality of the
CWC; strong support (amongst NAM countries) for an increase
in funding of international cooperative assistance (ICA);
increased destruction activities and meeting destruction
deadlines; and a proposed increase in inspections of other
chemical production facilities (WEOG countries supporting and
the NAM opposing). The Netherlands (speaking for the EU),
Sudan (speaking for the African Union), Japan, Iran, and
South Africa all made reference to the problem of late
payments by "certain" member states. All delegations, with
the exception of Russia and initially Pakistan, spoke in
favor of the Rabta technical change.
----------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 5 - Status of Implementation
of the Convention
----------------------------------------
¶6. (U) The EC noted the supplement to the 2003 Verification
Implementation Report (VIR). The U.S. took the floor to
thank the TS for improving the VIR reporting process and
stated that the U.S. would provide additional comments on the
supplement. The EC also expressed its concern that only a
small number of SPs had submitted annual declaration on past
activities for 2003 on time, and urged all SPs to meet their
obligations regarding annual declarations in a timely manner.
The EC also noted the document on the status of requests for
clarification of declaration-related information for 2003.
The U.S. obtained the clarifications requested in reftel and
will provide information separately to Washington.
--------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 6 - Report of the EC
--------------------------------
¶7. (U) The EC approved the report on the performance of its
activities from 28 June 2003 to 2 July 2004.
---------------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 7 - Progress report on
Implementation of the Article VII Action Plan
---------------------------------------------
¶8. (U) The EC noted the second progress report regarding
activities under the Action Plan for Article VII. The
facilitator, Mark Matthews (UK) reviewed the status of
consultations, bilateral efforts of SPs, and TS workshops and
seminars focusing on national implementing legislation.
Matthews requested, and the EC approved, authorization to
review Article VII status directly to the CSP in November.
The U.S. pressed to have the recommendations of the report
incorporated into a separate recommendation to the CSP.
Several other SPs spoke in support of efforts to improve the
status of implementation of Article VII, including Russia,
Japan, and Iran. India, in particular, noted support for
Article VII efforts, but voiced disappointment over progress
achieved thus far and questioned what plans exist to
determine how to review the status of implementation at the
tenth CSP.
--------------------------------------------- -
AGENDA ITEM 8 - Progress report on
Implementation of the universality action plan
--------------------------------------------- -
¶9. (U) The EC noted the progress report on the
implementation of the action plan for universality.
Facilitator Hela Lahmar (Tunisia) summarized the informal
consultations held in July and October 2004. Lahmar noted
that 15 countries have nominated Points of Contact (POC), and
that she expected the EU to nominate a POC shortly. She also
stated that the External Relations Division was developing a
calendar of activities in 2005. The U.S. noted the generally
poor communications between the TS and SPs to date and
expressed concern that the TS has not interacted with POCs.
The U.S. recommended that the TS work on a strategic approach
to target specific subregions, which should be shared with
POCs and others interested. Japan recommended that the TS
focus its efforts on smaller sub-regional events in the key
African and Middle Eastern areas. Japan also recommended
that the TS invite States not Party to attend CSP-9 as
observers.
--------------------------------------------- -
AGENDA ITEM 9 - Effectiveness of
verification activities and their optimization
--------------------------------------------- -
¶10. (U) The EC noted the status report on optimization of
verification. The U.S. stated that it is pleased with the
report, but added that due to its late publication, the U.S.
reserves the right to return to it at a future date.
-----------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 10 - Report on progress
in meeting revised deadlines for
destruction of chemical weapons
-----------------------------------
¶11. (U) Possessor states made brief reports during the EC
discussion, drawing on the points made at the October 11
destruction informals. As at the informal donors meeting on
October 11, some delegations requested that Russia provide a
more complete and written report of the changes taking place
with its destruction program. Russia declined, saying it was
already providing an abundance of information and not see the
need to be subject to further reporting requirements. In
reality, and as usual, the briefings offered by Russia on
various occasions during the week were long on pictures and
short on useful information.
---------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 11 - Detailed plans
for the destruction of chemical weapons
---------------------------------------
¶12. (U) The agreed detailed plan for the verification of
destruction of CW at Aberdeen was deferred to the next EC
session.
----------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM TWELVE - Combined plans for
the destruction or conversion and
verification of CW production facilities
----------------------------------------
¶13. (U) The Council approved the two Russian combined plans
for verification of conversion of the DF production facility
and the facility for preparation for filling of non-chemical
parts, both at Volgograd. Regarding the DF facility, the
Russian experts from Moscow confirmed that the four pieces of
specialized equipment in question (tanks 115 1-4) had been
destroyed between September 2001 and March 2002. (Note: The
TS also confirmed that all demilitarization activities at the
SIPDIS
DF facility had been completed.) The TS affirmed that the
Russian description of the disposition of commercial
equipment at the former DF facility (now used for storage) is
correct. Jerry Mazur of the Verification Branch indicated
that roughly two years ago, Russia originally intended to
mothball the cypermethrin line with little modification, but
that the TS insisted that Russia make significant changes in
how the commercial equipment is "stored," including
wholescale rearranging of items, in addition to those
measures previously described by Russia and the TS.
(Comment: These two documents complete EC consideration and
approval of Russian combined plans for conversion, and, in
the case of these two facilities, should lead to the TS
certifying conversion in the near future. End Comment.)
¶14. (U) The EC adopted the U.S. combined plan for destruction
and verification of the DF production and fill facility at
Pine Bluff Arsenal.
¶15. (U) At the request of Russia, the Council deferred, until
a special EC scheduled for 24 November 2004, the three Libyan
combined plans for destruction and verification of the CWPF
Rabta Pharmaceutical Factory 1 (phase 1); Rabta
Pharmaceutical Factory 2 (phase 1); and Tripoli STO-001
mobile filling units, citing the short time frame for review.
The delay was also attributed to ongoing discussions with
experts on the margins of the EC. Earlier in the week, the
TS prepared three corrigenda based on FRG comments to the
SIPDIS
three plans. U.S. experts met several times with Libyan CW
experts and the TS to address and resolve its questions and
comments to the plans, which resulted in a second draft
corrigenda for each of the documents. The second corrigenda,
which also include Russian comments, will be published
shortly.
¶16. (U) The EC noted the DG's report on the conduct of annual
inspection activities by the TS detailing the progress made
at CWPFs that are still under conversion.
------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 13 - Conversion of CWPFs
for purposes not prohibited under
the Convention
------------------------------------
¶17. (U) On the most closely watched issue of the session, the
Council succeeded in reaching a consensus decision to
recommend to all SPs adoption of Libya's proposal to make a
change to Part V of the Verification Annex in order to permit
Libya and other SPs that join the CWC after 29 April 2003 to
request conversion of former CWPFs. Close and effective
cooperation between, inter alia, the U.S., UK, Libyan,
Italian, and Tunisian delegations succeeded in bringing into
the fold the remaining holdouts, most notably Russia, and
orchestrating widespread voices of support throughout the
session.
¶18. (SBU) During the general debate on October 12, nearly all
of the 26 delegations that made statements, covering all
geographic regions, offered strong support for the Libyan
proposal, with only Russia objecting. In order to fully
isolate Russia, the U.S., UK, Libyan and Tunisian dels held
negotiations with India and Pakistan on October 12 to resolve
lingering concerns about the format and content of what
ultimately evolved into a stand-alone EC draft decision
document, officially presented to the EC by Tunisia.
(Comment: The Pakistani representative proved to be the most
obnoxious interlocutor, continuing to insist privately that
he believed this was not truly a technical change but was
willing to go along for political reasons. Until the end, he
worked to water down EC decision text affirming the
correctness of using the technical change process. End
comment.)
¶19. (SBU) By the time the proposal was formally taken up by
the EC on October 13, only Russia continued to object to
pursuing a technical change, arguing that the CSP should
instead take a stand-alone decision to permit Libya to
convert. Again, roughly 20 delegations, covering all
regions, spoke up in support of the proposal. Prompted by
the Libyan, Tunisian, and UK delegations, Sudan, regional
coordinator of the Africa Group, raised the prospect of a
possible vote on the issue if consensus could not be reached
by the end of the week, in order to further increase the
pressure on the Russian del to seek new instructions from
Moscow. Prompted by the U.S. and UK, the TS Legal Advisor,
Amb. Onate, expressed his view to the EC that the deadline on
conversion in paragraph 72 of Part V could not be bypassed by
a separate CSP decision, as proposed by the Russians.
¶20. (SBU) On October 14, Russia informed the U.S. del that
it could join consensus on the proposal with the addition of
treaty text to the decision document that affirmed the basic
obligation to destroy CWPFs and that conversions may be
requested only in exceptional cases of compelling need
(ironic given Russia's past requests to convert 16 of 24
facilities). Once Russia was on board and revised text was
circulated to EC members, the proposal was quickly adopted on
the afternoon of October 14, much to the relief of many
delegations who feared the possibility of a vote. It is
worth noting that at no time during the EC was it suggested
that the actual text of the proposed technical change be
modified.
¶21. (SBU) (Comment: The basis for Russia's objections to the
proposal remains unclear. At no point did the Russian del
seek a "deal," by asking for concessions on other issues,
such as the handling of Russian conversions. During frequent
contact with the U.S. del, both in the run-up to and during
the EC session, the Russian del offered numerous, and
oftentimes contradictory, arguments to support its position,
clearly giving the impression that the problem was in Moscow.
It appears probable that Russia's position resulted from a
combination of a lack of higher level political oversight,
stubbornly held views among CWC implementers in capital about
how the treaty should function, resentment at U.S. support
for Libyan conversion in contrast to perceived U.S.
obstruction of Russian conversion, and concerns about making
it too easy for future SPs to gain approval to convert. In
the end, the combination of entrenched support among a wide
geographic range, Russia's early isolation during the
session, the absence of any direct Russian equity in the
issue, the evisceration of the legal basis for Russia's
alternative approach, and the threat of a vote appears to
have "motivated" officials in Moscow to get out of the way of
what had become a moving train before it ran over them. End
Comment.)
¶22. (SBU) Regarding next steps, the EC Chairman, supported by
the TS, is responsible for notifying all States Parties of
the EC's recommendation, thereby starting the 90-day silence
procedure for final adoption of the proposal. The UK and
U.S. dels suggested to TS officials that additional copies of
the original Libyan proposal and DG evaluation should be
sent, together with the EC recommendation, to facilitate
consideration by States Parties. The U.S., UK, Italian and
Tunisian dels agreed that a low-key approach should be taken
in regards to the silence procedure, based on the view that
aggressively promoting the proposal could draw unwanted
attention to the issue. Delegations agreed to recommend to
capitals that all posts should be notified of the EC's
recommendation and be furnished with contingency points in
case host governments raise any questions. Dels in The Hague
would keep in contact with regional coordinators to watch out
for possible troublemakers. Libya indicated it would be a
little more proactive about seeking support among SPs, but
would avoid making the "hard sell."
¶23. (SBU) The one exception is Germany, which, despite the
objections of the U.S. and EU members, made an unhelpful
statement following EC approval of the proposal indicating
that it may have to object during the 90-day period if the
Bundestag was unable to sign off on the change before it
recesses in December. Dels agreed to recommend that capitals
demarche Berlin to make every effort to secure Parliamentary
approval, and therefore avoid having to raise an objection,
with the Libyans indicating that they will seek to raise this
issue with Chancellor Schroeder during an upcoming visit to
Tripoli.
¶24. (U) The EC, at the request of Russia, deferred the
Libyan conversion request for the Rabta Pharmaceutical
Factories 1 and 2 CWPFs until the special EC scheduled for 24
November. Russia cited the size of the document and lack of
time provided to the EC to review the document, and further
stated that the complex document was only available in
English. Earlier in the week, U.S. experts met with Libyan
CW experts to review the USG questions and comments and to
revise first draft corrigendum. The changes were reflected
in a second corrigendum. Discussion with both the UK and FRG
delegation indicated they were satisfied with the conversion
request and the two corrigenda.
------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 14 - Facility Agreements
------------------------------------
¶25. (U) At Russia's request, the Council again deferred the
facility agreement for Aberdeen. Late in the week, the U.S.
del was hopeful a solution had been found that would satisfy
Russian concerns with regard to the declaration of the TSDF
as part of the declared destruction facility. On review in
Washington, the text was determined to be untenable and was
abandoned. Delegation now believes it would be advantageous
to revert to the simpler mechanism entertained earlier of a
blanket "no precedent" declaration in the decision documents.
Del will explore this option with Washington during the
coming weeks.
¶26. (U) Following consultations with the U.S., the Italians
issued six corrigenda to their six schedule 2 facility
agreements before the EC, incorporating U.S. comments. In
introducing their documents, the Italians noted that the
documents for approval are "arrangements" rather than
"agreements" due to internal Italian requirements for their
legislature to review "agreements". The Council approved the
six Italian Schedule 2 facility arrangements (and noted the
attached TS report regarding differences between the text of
the model facility agreement and the arrangements before the
Council).
-----------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 15 - Chemical industry issues
-----------------------------------------
¶27. (U) The EC approved report language regarding the
marking of scheduled chemicals in the Handbook on Chemicals
to assist SPs in making declarations. Specifically, the
language requests that the TS, in its next version of the
Handbook, mark chemicals which have been declared with an
asterisk in order to distinguish chemicals actually used and
traded from those included in the chemical list as research,
development or test chemicals not normally associated with
industrial activities or trade.
-----------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 16 - Lists of new
validated data for inclusion in the
OPCW Central Analytical Database
-----------------------------------
¶28. (U) The Council approved the DG's note on the lists of
new validated data.
------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 17 - Fostering of
international cooperation for
peaceful purposes in the field
of chemical activities
------------------------------
¶29. (U) The EC Chairman noted that there had been no
informal consultations on this topic due to lack of a
facilitator and urged that volunteers come forward urgently.
India supported this request, noting the importance of
negotiating an action plan for Article XI, and asked
delegations to show flexibility. Iran, supported by
Pakistan, noted the importance of fully and effectively
implementing Article XI. Article XI activities should not be
limited to workshops and seminars. SPs need to strengthen
their compliance and enhance their transparency with this
Article. The Council adopted report language submitted by
Brazil and Mexico.
---------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 18 - Assistance
and protection against chemical weapons
---------------------------------------
¶30. (U) Facilitator Gabrielle Kruger (UK) updated the EC on
her efforts to reach agreement on a standard format and
procedures for SPs to make annual submissions of information
on national programs for protective purposes. She indicated
that, with the latest version recently circulated, they were
close to having an agreed document ready for approval at the
upcoming CSP. In discussions on the margins of the EC, the
U.S. and UK dels discussed the current status of negotiations
and agreed to remain in close contact as this issue moves
toward a conclusion. The UK agreed to provide the U.S. an
updated version of the format, taking into consideration
concerns raised about the previous version, as well as draft
procedures related to the making of annual submissions.
-------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 19 - Reports of the
External Auditor
-------------------------------
¶31. (U) The EC agreed to note the report, and the U.S.
arranged for acceptable report language, fending off calls
for payment schedules. The U.S. made a comment from the
floor welcoming the External Auditor's report, expressing
appreciation that the report is more in-depth than in recent
years, and urging an increased emphasis on "value-for-money"
audits in future years.
-------------------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 20 - Implementation of
the recommendations of the External Auditor
and of the Office of Internal Oversight
-------------------------------------------
¶32. (U) The Council agreed to note the reports. The
facilitator, Chiho Komuro (Japan), provided an oral report,
noting that greater detailed information should be provided
in future status reports and also suggested the inclusion for
a specific timeline for completion of the recommendations.
The U.S. expressed regret that these reports provide only
cursory information on implementation of the External Auditor
and OIO recommendations and should be improved upon in the
future. Del also noted with disappointment that the TS made
no improvements to the type of information provided in these
status reports.
-----------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 21 - Draft OPCW
Programme and Budget for 2005
-----------------------------
¶33. (U) There remain clear disagreements among member states
regarding the proposed budget for 2005. The issue will be
raised at the upcoming special EC on November 24, but chances
for agreement there are slim. Instead, the special EC will
be the starting point for final budget negotiations, which
will likely take place on the margins of the upcoming CSP.
From sidebar conversations and information in opening
statements, all delegations, except the U.S., appear to want
a reduction in the proposed overall budget increase of 4.8%.
Other discussions on the proposed budget will be reported
septel. The Council decided to further consider the Draft
Medium-Term Plan for 2005-2007 at a meeting prior to CSP-9.
-------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 22 - Administrative
and financial issues
-------------------------------
¶34. (U) The Council noted the DG's income and expenditure
reports for the OPCW. The EC also agreed to forward to the
CSP the DG's report on transfer from and replenishment to the
Working Capital Fund. It also noted the DG's information on
the implementation of recommendations made by the 16th ABAF.
The Council noted the report of the 17th ABAF, as well as the
information from the DG on the implementation of the
recommendations made by the 17th ABAF. Finally, the EC noted
the resignations of certain ABAF members and approved the
appointments of successors.
¶35. (U) (Note: the original agenda item twenty-three in the
notional schedule -- agreements on the privileges and
immunities of the OPCW -- was dropped from the draft report
as there was no action on the item. End Note.)
-------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 23 - Implementation
of the Headquarters Agreement
-------------------------------
¶36. (U) After a heated debate from the floor, with the
African Group and the Latin American Group indicating support
for the establishment of a committee on this agenda item and
most Western countries requesting information from the DG and
opposing the establishment of a committee, the Council
reached consensus on report language. The EC noted the
report by the DG on implementation of the Headquarters
Agreement and requested that the DG provide supplementary
information.
-----------------------------------
AGENDA ITEM 24 - Any other business
-----------------------------------
¶37. (U) The Council set the dates for the forty-third
session of the EC as 5-9 December 2005. The EC also approved
the DG's proposal to increase the number of members of the
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to 25 members. Several
delegations, including France, Germany and the UK, spoke in
support of increasing the number of representatives on the
SAB due to increased workload and the need to adequately
reflect the geographic diversity of SPs relative to the
increase in SP membership.
¶38. (U) There was much discussion (none of which made its
way into the report) regarding the EU's joint action plan on
challenge inspections. As a result of the July 2004 seminar
held in Austria regarding challenge inspections, the EU
generated a general agreement calling for consultations on
administrative and logistical issues associated with
challenge inspections. This proposal was resoundingly
rejected by most of the NAM, with India, Brazil, and Iran
leading the charge. There appeared to be a general suspicion
among opposing SPs that the EU proposal was designed to
increase the likelihood or direct a challenge inspection.
The EU proposal was confusing, given that it called for
consultations already provided for in the EC's plan of
activities. Due to this fact, the EU needs only to offer or
identify a facilitator to begin discussions. In the end,
after much positioning, the EU agreed to withdraw the text.
-------
ALBANIA
-------
¶39. (U) While not discussed as a formal agenda item during
the Council session, the question of destruction of Albania's
stockpile of chemical weapons was discussed on two occasions.
During the informal destruction meeting on October 11, both
the Albanian and the U.S. delegation made brief interventions
to the effect that the two parties were working closely
together under the auspices of the U.S. CTR program. The
U.S. further indicated that at this stage of the process, we
are awaiting Presidential signature on the certification that
will permit CTR funding to begin flowing.
¶40. (U) On October 12, the Swiss delegation hosted a luncheon
to discuss the issue of destruction of Albania's stockpile.
The meeting was attended by the UK, U.S., Albania, Italy,
France, Netherlands and Germany. The U.S. introduced the
subject of cooperation with Albania by briefly describing how
CTR came to be involved in the Albania destruction program.
The Delegation also expressed, as it had during the October
11 destruction meeting, that the hesitation previously
expressed by the U.S., through the Albanians, to receive
"outside" funding, had passed. Now that the U.S. has a
better idea of its own involvement and the scope of the
project, we believed it was possible to begin a dialogue
about possible assistance from, for example, the EU.
¶41. (U) In its capacity as EU President, the Netherlands
intervened that the EU had recently concluded, based on the
response received from Tirana on this issue, that Albania did
not need any funding other than what the U.S. was providing.
As part of its recent decision, the EU had essentially "red
lined" Albania from consideration for receiving funding
during FY 05, an action that would have to be reversed if
Albania was to receive such consideration. (Note: The EU has
allotted approximately 1.8 million Euros to be expended under
the general heading of "chemical weapons destruction".
Lacking any other object for the expenditure of these funds,
the EU had decided to give all 1.8 million to OPCW. End
Note.) The Dutch representative stated that if Albania in
fact wanted to be considered for receipt of FY 05 funds, the
EU should receive a letter immediately from Albania stating
this. The Albanian Ambassador said he would provide such a
letter the next day. After the meeting, the Albanian
requested U.S. support in drafting the letter, which the
delegation provided. The letter was delivered to the EU
Presidency on October 13 and, delegation was informed, was
sent to the appropriate working group in Brussels for
consideration and discussion.
¶42. (U) Based on information from Washington, delegation
also cited three general areas in which such assistance might
be usefully applied: support for destruction activities;
offset of inspection costs; and conduct of analyses.
Delegation highlighted the concern expressed by Albania over
the daunting prospect of having to pay the 250,000-500,000
USD that we estimated it would cost for the TS to perform
inspections over the life cycle of the Albanian destruction
program. Switzerland made reference to the 60,000 euros it
had already pledged for inspection costs, which Albania
acknowledged, but also reckoned would not fully cover
anticipated costs.
¶43. (U) Delegation also cited selected items from the list of
specific areas in which assistance might be needed to support
the actual destruction effort, including road improvement and
purchase of fuel for generators and the incinerator. All
present, particularly the Swiss, took copious notes. The
request from most delegations after the meeting was for more
specific information about areas where assistance might be
offered. Delegation had stated during the meeting that we
would have more specific ideas about where help could be
offered, costs, timelines, and the modalities for turning
offers of assistance into concrete actions, once the
Presidential certification had taken place and "spade work"
could begin in earnest. All present took the point, but
reiterated that something in writing from the U.S. that they
as the EU or as individuals could use for the own
decision-making process would be highly prized. Delegation
concluded its substantive remarks by stating that it was
optimistic that a more fulsome dialogue could be undertaken
soon, including information along the lines they were
requesting.
¶44. (U) Based on an informal request from Washington,
delegation availed itself of the opportunity to talk to the
director of the Spiez laboratory in Switzerland, Dr. Marc
Cadisch, about the analysis Spiez performed on some samples
of Albania's CW. In particular, the delegation asked whether
Spiez had tested for the presence of heavy metals in the
agent, and was informed it had not. In answer to a follow-up
question, Cadisch indicated he would be happy to conduct
further analysis of the agent samples if we would provide
very specific parameters for the testing. Delegation
informed him we would respond.
¶45. (U) Also on the margins of the meeting, Swiss delegate
and employee of Spiez, Dominique Werner, spoke to the
delegation at length about Switzerland's experiences and
"lessons learned" while working in Albania. Werner offered
and recommended that initial assessment or technical teams
going into Albania in preparation for establishing a CW
destruction operation should stop over in Switzerland. The
Swiss have a large body of practical experience that would be
useful to convey.
--------------
DONORS MEETING
--------------
¶46. (U) This session of the informal donors meeting produced
little of substance, though politically two things seem
noteworthy. First, to universal annoyance, Russia provided
virtually no enlightenment with regard to the changes in its
destruction program and the bureaucracy charged with
overseeing it. In response, Italy made an impassioned appeal
to Russia for such information and, in particular, a reliable
point of contact to sign contracts and discuss substance.
During the meeting and in a subsequent bilateral meeting with
DATSD (CD&TR) Mr. Patrick Wakefield, the Italian delegation
expressed extreme frustration that it had contracts that,
once signed, would permit funds to begin flowing to Russia's
destruction program, but they could not find a Russian to
sign them. The offices they had dealt with in the past were
apparently defunct and no one even answered the telephone.
Magnifying Italy's frustration was the fact that the current
contracts are small compared to the roughly 330 million euros
Italy has committed to give Russia for CW destruction. If
the situation did not improve with regard to the small
contracts, the much larger sum might be jeopardized.
¶47. (U) The second issue, related to the first, was the
discernable lack of collegiality toward Russia that has
characterized these meetings in the past. In its own full
frontal assault, the Canadian delegation, drawing on points
apparently provided by Ottawa, also stated that difficulties
with identifying contractors had become an obstacle to the
provision of assistance by Canada. He also took the Russians
to task over public assertions by Russian officials that by
complaining about problems with Russia's bureaucracy, Canada
was creating "pretexts" for Canada not delivering the
assistance it had pledged. Delegation also intervened to
cite U.S. contribution figures to date and anticipated in FY
05, and to also complain about difficulties created by Russia
with respect to contractors and the issuance of visas to U.S.
contractors.
¶48. (U) Ito sends.
SOBEL