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 09BERLIN1224, CWC BWC CLOSE ALLIES MEETING SEPTEMBER 28-29, 2009
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. #09BERLIN1224.
| Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09BERLIN1224 | 2009-09-30 11:51 | 2011-08-24 01:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Embassy Berlin |
VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHRL #1224/01 2731151
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 301151Z SEP 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5338
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0275
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0798
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 1202
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0425
UNCLAS BERLIN 001224
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
THE HAGUE FOR CWC DEL, GENEVA FOR BWC DEL
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC OPCW CBW GM
SUBJECT: CWC BWC CLOSE ALLIES MEETING SEPTEMBER 28-29, 2009
REF: STATE 100317
¶1. (SBU) Summary: Meetings of Close Allies have always been
valued for providing a useful venue for a frank exchange of
views on, and an opportunity to coordinate approaches to,
biological and chemical weapons-related issues. This meeting
showed the need to re-invigorate the process, from the
perspective of &lighting a fire8 under some of our
counterparts, to employing different approaches to work key
issues, such as the planned in advance &break-out8
sessions on CWC incapacitants, and the scheduled session on
BWC CBMs. Close Allies could also be used to coordinate on
related issues, e.g. BTEX and Global Partnership. Exchanges
on biological weapons demonstrated a shared satisfaction in
the August Meeting of Experts, common objectives for the
December Meeting of States Parties, and common concerns about
the NAM and Iranian Article X proposals (that would mandate
assistance and impact detrimentally on export controls), and
how to handle them. Approaches to BWC CBMs were reviewed and
additional discussions on the margins of the December meeting
were agreed. The UK also advocated initiating Review
Conference planning soon. U.S. recalled BWC policy decisions
to date, made clear opposition to the Iranian and NAM
proposals regarding Article X, and on establishing a
suggested core group for RevCon preparations. On CWC issues,
the critical decision on the future Director-General was
hamstrung by two members having candidates, both of whom
believe they have strong support. Allies shared views on
Iraq, CW destruction, the draft 2010 budget, industry issues,
national implementation, and the future of OPCW with little
new information and few new ideas. Close Allies tentatively
agreed to April 7-8 for the next meeting, to be hosted by the
U.S. in Washington, D.C. End Summary.
BWC Meeting of Experts (August 2009)
¶2. (SBU) Close Allies agreed that the August 24-28 BWC
Experts Group Meeting exceeded expectations; the linkage
between health and security issues had been undisputed. The
presentations from all quarters were insightful, the number
of delegates sent from capitals with disease surveillance
expertise and the vibrant interaction throughout the week
where direct &assistance8 was being worked out more than
offset Iranian and Cuban (NAM) rhetoric about the need for
greater assistance under Art. X and the need for greater
technology transfer. There is a great deal of substance
coming from the meeting that the December Meeting of States
Parties can draw from for its Final Report, which is
traditionally a set of agreed guidelines based on expert
discussions and a compilation of the ideas expressed that the
BWC Implementation Support Unit (ISU) distributed at the end
of the Experts Meeting.
¶3. (SBU) All shared concerns about the NAM and Iranian
proposals regarding Article X (free-flow of S&T transfers)
and export controls, and how to counter them at the December
Meeting (reftel). Dels noted that the Iranians weren,t able
to garner NAM consensus for their paper, which states that
every article of the BWC &bears the same value and
importance.8 U.S. HOD noted the Iranians had attacked
cooperation between States Parties (U.S.) and non-State
Parties (Israel) as a way the non-States Parties &may
strengthen their clandestine biological programs.8 The
Chinese supported the purpose of both papers; there was no
other direct support. German Expert Beck noted the Iranian
complaint about lack of access for researchers and surmised
the &deemed export control8 efforts are having their effect.
¶4. (SBU) Dels agreed there was a general recognition by the
NAM of the need to strengthen national health infrastructure.
Algeria, India, Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan publically
asked for assistance. Unexpectedly, there was little
resistance to the direct linkage to implementation of the
WHO,s International Health Regulations (IHRs). The WHO IHR
Workshop on August 21 and the distributed report was credited
with delivering the necessary background for all BWC dels to
be aware of the intent and timelines for the IHRs. There was
recognition that coordination amongst even the group needs to
be better (e.g., uncoordinated US-Georgia and UK-Georgia
presentations).
BWC Policy Roll-out/Interest in Review Conference Preparations
¶5. (SBU) UK Rep suggested that Close Allies initiate as
early as December a discussion on preparations for the Review
Conference, recognizing that political maneuvering would
start as early as this year,s Meeting of States Parties. He
also noted that that this year,s topic didn,t address BWC
compliance, an issue raised by others in UK bilats on the
margins of the MXP. In addition, some dels opined that
intersessional issues to date will not provide sufficient
substance for 2011.
¶6. (SBU) U.S. Rep recalled U.S. policy decisions to date
(shared with Close Allies on margins of August Expert,s
meeting), including a decision not to return to Protocol
negotiations. Drawing on guidance reftel, he elaborated U.S.
concerns with the NAM and Iranian proposals related to
Article X. In response to UK,s suggestion that Close Allies
begin to focus on preparations for the Review Conference,
U.S. Rep also signaled U.S. interest in working with a &core
group.8 It was agreed that this question, among others,
could be discussed at a German hosted close Allies meeting in
December on the margins of the Meeting of States Parties.
December Meeting of States Parties
¶7. (SBU) Drawing in guidance reftel, U.S. Rep summarized
objectives for the December Meeting. Allies agreed on
desirable outcomes from the meeting, and Germany added
&sustainability8 as a theme. Those States receiving
assistance need to be able to sustain the work initiated.
All also shared concerns about the handling of the NAM
proposals on Article X and Iran,s proposals on Export
Control and Transfer Denials at the December meeting.
Germany recalled that the proposals were outside the 2009
mandate; the agenda item was narrowly circumscribed to
discuss capacity-building in the context of disease
surveillance. Nonetheless, China, the NAM, and Iran all
signaled an interest in export control discussions at the
December meeting. France suggested focusing, as at the
Expert,s Meeting, on concrete proposals and the actual
volume of assistance being offered globally. UK suggested
that the points about export control will require rebuttal at
an appropriate time, and all agreed BWC Chairman Grinius
should be sensitized to problems with the proposals, as
outside the mandated agenda item, and on substantive grounds.
Germany offered to prepare a working paper identifying all
countries with legislation regarding export controls, as a
number of developing nations have now implemented such
legislation. UK also suggested working with developing
nations that are now recipients of assistance, to counter the
more radical proposals.
BWC Confidence-Building Measures
¶8. (U) CBMs. German Expert summarized the Geneva Forum
August workshop on CBMs, and circulated a matrix capturing
the views of Close Allies on several CBM questions he had
posed some months ago, requesting U.S. views. U.S. Deloffs
recalled the U.S. interest in enhancing participation in the
CBM declarations, noting that it was reviewing ideas related
to making the process of such submissions more user friendly.
Explaining that the U.S. was working on how to make its own
submissions electronic, U.S. offered to work with others on
such a project, which was welcomed. The U.S. hoped to be
able to provide more detailed views on CBMs for the matrix in
the near future. However, the U.S. suggested that before
going too far down the road, it would be useful to know what
views of non-Western delegations were on the CBMs. France and
UK elaborated upon their respective papers. Regarding the UK
suggested &new proposals,8 they explained that they were
brainstorming ideas, rather than advocacy proposals, and
acknowledged that new proposals raise questions of political
feasibility. German Expert cautioned against being overly
ambitious, favoring a modest approach focused on making
submissions easier and clarifying existing CBMs.
¶9. (SBU) CBM Next Steps: The four agreed to exchange views
on the margins of the December BWC Meeting of States Parties
in Geneva, prior to the second Geneva Forum hosted workshop
on December 12. The U.S. offered a CBMs &break-out8 session
during the Spring Close Allies meeting it will host; others
agreed. Germany will host a third CBM Workshop in Berlin in
late spring/early summer 2010.
Implementation Support Unit
¶10. (SBU) ISU. France expressed interest in using the ISU to
assist even more with CBMs, perhaps to issue reminders, and
seek clarification regarding CBMs from States Parties. The
UK noted that it had circulated a paper addressing an
expanded ISU role. Germany said that while interested in
addressing the ISU role, it should not be linked with CBMs,
but rather with overall BWC objectives. On the margins,
French Rep asked U.S. Deloff for U.S views on the ISU, and
its possible expansion. U.S. Deloff noted that the U.S. had
yet to address this question, but that the ISU,s roll was,
and should be, directly related to its functions and any
decisions the Parties take at the 2011 Review Conference that
might require the assistance of an expanded ISU. The U.S.
sought a reinvigorated BWC program, which might call for a
small and careful ISU expansion. For now, we were pleased
with the work of the ISU, and with the fact that it works
within its circumscribed mandate.
Universality
¶11. (SBU) Dels exchanged information on where national and
ISU efforts stand. Despite the fact that all non-States
parties deemed to be capable of joining the BWC have been
divided up between the four, responses to demarches have had
little effect. The real movement is coming from the ISU
efforts on the ground, particularly in the South Pacific
where the Cook Islands accession has motivated the Marshall
Islands, Nauru and Niue to push the accession process. U.S.
del relayed the ISU view that the universality push will
likely bring 5-6 new States Parties on board in the next six
months. The U.S. made contacts with the Tanzanian and
Haitian delegates in August and will follow-through with a
demarche to all countries listed here to provide the
necessary political push to help keep their efforts moving
forward.
Bioterrorism Experts Group (BTEX)
¶12. (SBU) Dels agreed on the value of maintaining an active
BTEX process, although Russian push-back and ineffective G-8
Presidencies in the last two years had let the process
stagnate. A policy discussion on the future of BTEX is
necessary; both the U.S. and UK offered to host such a
meeting on the margins of the December BWC meetings. Canada
will become G-8 President in 2010 and may wish to take the
leading role in rejuvenating the process. They are
undertaking a large push for more resources behind the Global
Partnership; this includes on bio. All agreed that expanding
the membership in the group was not helpful, although the
group could certainly do more outreach once the purpose and
goals of this group are more clearly defined. No one
expected bio issues to rise any higher on the agenda of the
Nonproliferation Director,s Group (NPDG) given the plethora
of pressing nuclear issues. (There was no discussion of
moving the group away from the G-8 NPDG process and into
Lyon-Roma, which had been the preferred venue for the Allies
in the past few years.) UK MOD rep (Harrision) pointed to
the overlap between the BWC, BTEX and Global Partnership
where many of the same subjects are being discussed; there
should be an effort to have them work in sync.
¶13. (SBU) Responding to the U.S. suggestion that more needs
to be undertaken in the prevention side. Beck opined that
protecting the food chain, law enforcement and more emphasis
on how intelligence is used to forecast an event would
certainly be considered in support of national security.
Mikulak asked that all consider the prevention aspects in
prep for a December discussion with the wider group.
Synthetic Biology
¶14. (U) U.S. Rep (Mikulak) briefed the group in general terms
on the draft U.S. screening procedures for gene synthesis
orders. He noted the complimentarity of customer screening
and sequence screening, as well as the importance of a
government point of contact for companies to call if they
have identified an order of concern. German expert (Beck)
said that German regulations provided a strong foundation,
but that designating a law enforcement point of contact was
problematic in the German federal system. All expressed
interest in receiving copies of the draft procedures when
they are published in the Federal Register in late 2009.
EU Joint Actions
¶15. (SBU) When queried on details of the BWC and WHO EU Joint
Actions (JA), Beck chuckled and said the BWC JA was a
political and organizational mistake.8 The process of
hiring the two people to implement the BWC JA had consisted
of the European Commission and UN personnel officials going
back-and-forth on who would advertise the positions. The
compromise is that the applications process had been open to
all and EU persons would be chosen. Anyone starting fresh
will need start-up time to learn the intricacies of the CBM
process and national implementation measures before
attempting to promulgate these measures. There will be five
workshops on national implementation and universality in the
remaining months of the JA. U.S. asked which countries had
applied for the eight &scholarships8 having heard from the
Jordanians, Kenyans and Nigerians that they intended to
apply. Dels were awaiting the upcoming &CODUN8 for the
answer from the EC WMD coordinator,s office. U.S.
reiterated its concern over &buying off8 staff to help the
mandated three-person ISU; what is to keep the Iranian,s
from doing the same. The WHO JA will consist of 20 months of
regional workshops on biosafety and biosecurity with
particular focus on South East Asia. Again, specific details
will be forthcoming from the CODUN meeting. EU member states
have been kept out of the loop on EC-WHO and EC-ISU
negotiations.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS
DESTRUCTION
¶16. (SBU) The Quad discussion on CW destruction focused on
how to manage the 2012 deadline and ensure a balanced
approach, the Brazilian proposal for the EC Chairman to have
consultations and report to the February Executive Council
session, and the likelihood of Russia meeting the destruction
deadline.
¶17. (SBU) Managing 2012: Burkhart stated that any special
Conference of States Parties on destruction will require
advanced planning. The UK agreed and added that in late 2010
State Parties will need to address the issue, in some regard,
in order to determine the budget for 2011. Harrison added
that it is time to have a discussion on 2012. To date the EU
position has been to urge possessor states to destroy CW as
quickly as possible, but he assessed that this position will
only last so long. At some point credibility of the
Convention comes into question. It is clear that Russian and
the United States have made great efforts to accelerate, but
at some point a discussion needs to occur on how to address
¶2012.
¶18. (SBU) Brazilian proposal: US HOD noted the recent
Brazilian proposal for the Chairman have consultations on the
feasibility of meeting the destruction deadline. He said the
Brazilian approach seemed a constructive way to hold
discussions; this approach could help prevent a damaging
venting on the issue if discussion was suppressed. He went
on to say that there have been past discussions by some State
Parties to amend the treaty or make a technical change,
neither of which are suitable options. Burkhart agreed that
the Brazilian proposal may be a good mechanism to prompt a
discussion early rather than later. France added that Brazil
probably will raise his proposal at the October EC session
and that there may be discussion of a facilitator.
¶19. (SBU) Russia: Germany expressed doubt on Russia meeting
its 45 percent deadline on time, adding that it may be a
close call. US HOD said that he thinks Russia will make the
45 percent deadline in December 2009, but then the real
question will be when they acknowledge that they will not
meet their 100 percent deadline. The UK stated that Russia
has consistently had a high level of confidence that they
would meet the 45 percent destruction deadline. He added
that in the Destruction Informals, State Parties only hear
the Russian side of the program and its national position.
The UK proposed having Donor countries provide short
presentations during the Destruction Informals before the EC
session to present a balanced view of what assistance Russia
is receiving at its various facilities. Germany agreed, but
cautioned that Russia may use it as a platform to criticize
foreign aid. The United States fully supported the UK
proposal and added that Russia would blame donors with or
without the presentations. The UK suggested that donors
consult in The Hague prior to the Destruction informals.
IRAQ: Bilateral with Germany
¶20. (SBU) Before the Quad meeting started, the US Delegation
met with Dr. Andreas Pfaffernoschke (Germany) to exchange
information on U.S. and German CWC-related assistance to
Iraq. After the July Executive Council, GOI approached
Germany on possible assistance pertaining to the Muthanna
Bunkers, particularly on determining the contents and the
condition of the bunkers. GOI sees the bunkers as a priority
in moving forward. Germany expressed concern about Bunker 13
due to its unknown state of its contents, possible rocket
fuel, and unexploded ordinances. As such, the German
proposal to Iraq will consist of equipment and training for
an air quality sampling and air composition assessment. From
there, Germany believes that a proposal could be put together
for robotics to do an interior survey of the bunkers. The
German Rep indicated a number of issues with any German
assistance and future Iraqi efforts: the need to determine
appropriate security (which should be a precondition of any
work); a determination on whether or not work will be done
E
under the supervision of the OPCW; and additional information
on the bunkers, to include where drilling may be possible to
gain air samples and what known conditions exist inside the
bunkers that could prevent robotics from conducting mapping.
Although Germany is willing to develop a plan for an
intrusive survey and provide training to carry it out,
Germany does not intend to offer assistance to conduct the
actual assessment. Pfaffernoschke will meet Iraqi expert
al-Saraa in Amman on October 6 to discuss these issues.
¶21. (SBU) The United States overviewed the upcoming meetings
in Washington with GOI on 8-9 October to exchange information
on GOI,s CWC implementation and to discuss the Muthanna
Bunkers. Particularly, the U.S. DoD Rep highlighted the
presentations that will take place on the bunkers: the
overview briefing on what we assess to be the current state
of the bunkers and bunker contents and general considerations
that could be applied to any intrusive bunker survey. The
German Rep was keen on receiving any information that the
United States deems applicable to the German offer of
assistance. Both countries agreed to exchange readouts of
their respective meetings with the GOI, possibly on the
margins of the October Executive Council meeting.
Iraq: Quad Discussion
¶22. (SBU) Both Burkhart and Beik commented on GOI,s current
effort in The Hague to solicit support for EC membership
France, followed by other Quad countries agreed that GOI,s
membership is an issue for the Asian Group and not one that
should be left to the Conference of States Parties. France
added that any lobbying they could do would likely be
counterproductive. The UK agreed, adding that the Asian
Group should be ultimately responsible.
¶23. (SBU) The UK highlighted the National Authority training
that they are co-hosting with the United States in Liverpool
for the GOI. Harrison added that it will be focused on
industrial inspections. The US HOD informed the Quad of the
meetings in Washington next week that will have GOI
representatives from across their interagency. He noted the
communication challenges that we have witnessed between
Baghdad and The Hague.
¶24. (SBU) The US responded to Burkart,s question on the
South African proposal for a working group on future cases
similar to the Iraq recovered munitions scenario by stating
that it would proceed cautiously and that the objective of
the working group needs to be made clear. The US further
noted that the South Africans will continued to push this
issue at the OPCW.
¶25. (SBU) In terms of Iraqi assistance, the UK stated they
would be willing to provide training. The US stated they
were asked by the Director General to provide security for
the OPCW delegation,s visit to Iraq but noted they would
only provided security if the request came from Iraq.
¶26. (SBU) Discussions regarding the letter the from DG noting
past transfers to Iraqi were limited with each participant
stating they were still investigating the issue with the
exception of the UK, which did not receive a letter.
¶27. (SBU) The U.S. stated they will be advising the Iraqi
delegation on assistance when they visit the United States.
The US also discussed the needed investigation of the bunkers
of Muthana and that a discussion is needed of what needs to
be done there. A report on the recovered munitions is going
to the Executive Council soon.
IRAN
¶28. (SBU) On Iran, UK Rep Rampling stated that recent events
in Tehran have affected Iranian actions at OPCW. Although
the nuclear and chemical issues should not be mixed, the
broader context of what is happening on the nuclear side will
likely have some impact at OPCW. French Rep Raharinaivo
agreed that we should not mix issues but others may do so.
German OPCW PermRep Burkart noted that there is likely to be
a new Iranian Ambassador in The Hague before the CSP and that
the new Deputy is becoming more active over time.
DG SELECTION
¶29. (SBU) Discussion centered on process over the next few
weeks and whether the EC will be able to make a single choice
as agreed during the July EC. Rampling raised the question
of Ambassador Dani,s role complicating the process. Mikulak
outlined the Chairman,s plans for a straw poll, or possibly
two, before the EC, but raised the question of what happens
should there still be three candidates at the end of the EC
session. Burkart noted the importance of confidence in the
Chairman and his ability to convince candidates to withdraw.
Raharinaivo noted indications that Dani might consider the
Deputy DG position in withdrawing from the DG race; however,
others noted that decision does not lie with the Council but
with the new DG and that Dani is now known for strong
managerial skills. Rampling emphasized the likely necessity
in the new future of governments approaching the Algerian
government to withdraw Dani, but said that countries with
candidates would not be able to make that approach. As all
eyes turned to the French, Raharinaivo stated that the French
delegation was ¬ best placed8 to do so.
¶30. (SBU) UK and German dels exuded confidence in their
respective candidates and in private conversations with U.S.
and French dels dismissed suggestions that they &work out a
deal.8
BUDGET:
¶31. (SBU)Burkart reported that in the first wrap-up meeting
for the budget held the day before, the only apparent
stumbling block remains the number of Other Chemical
Production Facilities (OCPFs). UK Rep Foggo noted the strong
defense that the DG had made for his inspections proposal,
the same proposal he had made for the 2009 budget and so not
one that he considers an increase in inspections, and
therefore not requiring discussion in the industry cluster.
U.S. Delrep Beik said the budget meetings had an air of
&dj vu8 from the previous year, with virtually the same
budget and same contentious items. Mikulak noted that the
Chinese had taken a new tack in his meeting the week before,
stating that destruction would need to be completed before an
increase in industry inspections. Raharinaivo noted that the
increase is only two inspections and thought there was not
much to fight over.
INDUSTRY ISSUES
¶32. (SBU) All Quad participants expressed frustration over
the stalemated negotiations which have been underway for a
decade. Mikulak suggested putting the negotiation on hold
for a couple of years if a resolution could not be reached by
the end of the year (when the facilitator,s term will end).
Foggo (UK) considers that the Canadian proposal injected new
energy into the discussions, that the UK can support the
proposal, and that the UK sought the Quad,s views on it.
Ruthe (DE) and Raharinaivo (FR) consider the Canadian
proposal less than perfect. In particular, Pellay (FR) noted
that French law would probably have to be amended to
implement. (In a side bar conversation, Pellay also
commented that the Canadian proposal was illogical.) Mikulak
said the Canadian effort, and that while the U.S. is taking a
serious look at the Canadian proposal, the U.S. situation is
similar to that of France. Furthermore, the proposal has no
concentration threshold, which will result in each relevant
facility having to track its production levels (unlike all
other declaration regimes) to determine whether to declare.
Therefore, this proposal is not as simple as a straight
concentration threshold. The discussion ended with Foggo
(UK) noting that the Italian facilitator had not scheduled
any further sessions after next week,s industry
consultations and won,t unless a compromise looks possible.
FUTURE OF THE OPCW
¶33. (SBU)At Mikulak,s suggestion the Quad agreed it was a
good idea to individually approach the Director General in
regards to the DG creating and circulating a &legacy paper8
that would detail strategic issues States Parties should
consider for the OPCW,s future. This paper would assist in
initiating discussions among States Parties on the direction
of the OPCW. France noted that the turning point for the
OPCW,s focus to transition from destruction to
nonproliferation is nearing and the Quad needed to manage the
transition. Mikulak stated that this transition will impact
upcoming budgets and there needs to be a mechanism for
discussing strategic directions. The UK listed their focus
for the 2010 CSP which included: Science and technology (as
it relates to the TS), Training and Preparation for
Inspections of Alleged Use, and Experience within the TS.
NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
¶34. (SBU) The U.S. had added this item to the agenda, Mikulak
said, to stress its ongoing importance and encourage the TS
and governments to assist States Parties in their
implementation efforts. Burkart noted that the new
facilitator should be encouraged to draft a decision for the
CSP, as it was the last decision that resulted in the recent
comprehensive report by the TS to the Council on progress
made by countries working on legislation and establishing
procedures. Rampling agreed that the issue needs to be given
the prominence it deserves, and that a decision by the
Conference that makes permanent the requirement for an annual
TS report. Raharinaivo recalled the difficulty in getting a
decision on Article VII at last year,s CSP but agreed that
it is important to work toward that end.
Chemical Incapacitants
¶35. (SBU) As a follow-on to discussions, begun at the
previous meeting, about how best to address chemical
incapacitants within the context of the CWC, the allies
focused their attention on the overall threat of such
chemicals and those countries that may be pursuing research
and development efforts. The United States presented a
briefing entitled &Incapacitant Proliferation and Threat
Overview,8 which provided key points on the growing interest
in fentanyls and a country specific overview. The U.S.
briefing (given by Scott Brittain of DIA) concluded that
chemical incapacitants are currently not a threat to U.S. or
allied forces and are unlikely to be used in traditional
battlefield scenarios. Worldwide interest in fentanyls,
however, as evidenced by research publications will continue
to increase.
¶36. (SBU) German expert Beck, inquired about the increase in
publications on incapacitants (i.e., fentanyls), noting that
such chemicals have been known for decades. The German and
UK dels further noted the legitimate, medical uses for such
chemicals, albeit in smaller quantities. Delegations agreed
that the potential military interest in incapacitants in some
instances remain a serious issue that information should
continue to be monitored.
¶37. (SBU) UK MOD expert Harrison also read a short statement
that mirrored many of the U.S. observations and conclusions.
Although allies agreed that we should stay clear from trying
to define the term incapacitants or attempt to define the
scope of the term &law enforcement8, the UK did provide a
definition for the purposes of their presentation and
highlighted many of the same points in the U.S. presentation
and further noted that such chemicals were currently not a
threat to UK forces as well.
¶38. (SBU) The French delegation also welcomed the U.S.
presentation but admittedly had not looked closely at other
countries, interests. Rahanaivo was reluctant to give too
much significance to open source publications, which are
generally tied to commonly known applications (i.e.,
pharmaceutical). He further noted the need for the group to
continue to coordinate on this issue.
¶39. (SBU) The UK delegation noted inquiries made by their
Parliament on the issue of incapacitants. They also pointed
to studies by UK academics and the British Medical
Association as evidence of interest in the UK.
¶40. (SBU) Allies noted the value of these small group
discussions and agreed to continue to work closely together
to be prepared to manage this issue in the OPCW. UK expert
Harrison offered to prepare a brief paper on potential
options for transparency measures for the next close allies
meeting in Washington in April 2009.
Delegates
¶41. (U) France: Mr. Jacques Raharinaivo, MFA; MFA; Mr.
Frank Tecourt, MFA; Ms. Marie-Gaelle Robles, MFA: Mrs. Raja
Rabia,Deputy Representative, Permanent Representation to the
OPCW; Mr.Augustin Baulig, MOD; Mr. Delapschaidieu,MOD.
¶42. (U) Mr. Chris Rampling, FCO; Mr. Steve Crossman, FCO;
Mr. James Harrison, MOD; Dr. Jim McGilly, MOD; Dr. Lorna
Miller, MOD; Mr. Clive Rowland, MOD; Mr. John Foggo, DECC (NA
for the CWC); Mr. Karl Rodrigues, DECC.
¶43. (U) USA: Dr. Robert Mikulak, DOS; Ms. Jennie Gromoll,
DOS; Mr. Johnathan Beckett, DOS; Mrs. Janet Beik, Permanent
Representation to OPCW; Ms. Katharine Crittenberger, DOS; Mr.
Doug Brown, DOS; Mr. Damon Prather, DOS; Mr. Scott Brittain,
Defense Briefer; Mrs. Sarah Rodjom, DOD; Mr. Hugo Guevara,
U.S. Embassy Berlin.
¶44. (U) Germany: Ambassador Peter Gottwald, FFO; Mr. Roland
Grafe, FFO; Amb Werner Burkart,Permanent Representative to
OPCW; Dr. Holger Ruthe, FFO; Ms. Juliane Thummel, FFO; Dr.
Volker Beck, FFO; LtC Ewald Helmut Nau, MOD; LtC Nicholas
Keen, MOD.
Murphy