Statement to the Forty-Sixth Session of the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW)
Ambassador Eric M. Javits, Head of the U.S. Delegation
The Hague, the Netherlands
July 4, 2006
Madame Chairperson, Mr. Director-General, Distinguished delegates,
As we begin this Executive Council session on a day of particular importance to Americans, I am especially pleased to
greet so many friends and colleagues. Over the past few years, this organization has been uniquely privileged to make
enviable progress due to a spirit of collegiality that has generated consensus. We collectively have all strived to
develop a positive and friendly atmosphere and to make the OPCW an example of effective multilateral cooperation.
Usually we Americans celebrate our Independence Day with fireworks, but there are no fireworks in my speech today.
Amb. Mkhize, as always, I pledge to you my full support and that of my delegation not only for this Council session, but
for your entire tenure as our Council chairperson. Although such pledges are customary, I believe that they deserve
special emphasis today.
The conclusion of the 45th Executive Council was a challenge to the spirit of collegiality I spoke of earlier. In the
weeks since then, my delegation, and I, personally, have worked hard to revive that spirit. And I appreciate the
positive responses that we have received. I believe that collegiality is not synonymous with lowest-common-denominator
solutions: we can be tough on the issues while still being respectful of and cooperative with each other, and our
exchanges of views can yield solid results for all of us.
At the last Executive Council session, my delegation presented the U.S. request for an extension of the deadline for
completing the destruction of our chemical weapons stockpile to April 29, 2012. We recognized that this was a critical
issue for this organization. We sought to provide ample information, and to listen attentively to the comments,
suggestions, and concerns of others. It was for this reason that we did not immediately present a draft decision
document. At that EC, and subsequently, we have heard from many delegations. We have appreciated your thoughtful and
constructive comments, and recognize the concerns that have been raised.
My government has strong views about the importance of the Council's role and responsibilities, but we appreciate as
well the contribution of observer delegations. Your views are an important part of the Council's deliberations.
All of those contributions were taken into consideration in preparing the text of a draft decision document that has now
been submitted, and I think you will find that many of the thoughts and suggestions that have been expressed are
reflected in the text in one form or another. The United States hopes that members of the Council will give thorough
consideration to the text that has been provided, and that this decision document can be endorsed by the Council at its
next session.
Let me emphatically reiterate that the United States is committed to the earliest possible completion of destruction of
its chemical weapons stockpiles. That commitment should be patently manifest from the assurances of my government at
every level and from the enormous amounts it has spent so far, and will continue to spend to complete destruction. We
are making every effort and continuing to seek opportunities to improve our CW destruction with a view to meeting the
2012 deadline or completing destruction as soon after that date as feasible. We are equally committed to full
transparency on the status of our program. We remain ready to meet with any delegation to address any questions or
concerns about the U.S. extension request, and will continue to set a high standard in transparent reporting about our
progress.
Last Wednesday, the Director-General introduced his draft program of work and budget for 2007. My delegation looks
forward to a constructive round of intersessional consultations and a positive recommendation on the budget at our next
session. I would like to commend the Director- General for his budget proposal. That he has presented a zero nominal
growth budget that accommodates the growing obligations of the organization is evidence of the outstanding management
that he has provided.
In particular, we are pleased to see the proposal for more industry inspections, especially those of other chemical
production facilities. This is a clear step in the right direction. My delegation hopes that we can follow up on it with
agreement on an equitable procedure for OCPF site selection.
We have heard the concerns of others about so-called "political" nominations of sites to be inspected. We agree that
purely political considerations have no place in such a process. It is essential, however, that we have a process that
allows States Parties to take into account information that is relevant to inspection site selection, and one that does
not produce illogical results in practice. A procedure that meets these objectives will have a greater deterrent effect
for a given number of inspections. A procedure that does not meet these objectives simply means that we will need to
spend more money and conduct more inspections to achieve a reasonable degree of confidence.
We also welcome the increased attention being paid to inspector training. As the tenure policy begins to take hold, and
the inspector corps has more and more new recruits, the need for an expanded and more in-depth training regime takes on
added importance -- both to ensure that inspections go smoothly, and to ensure that inspections provide the assurance
they are intended to provide.
Fellow delegates, I believe it is important to comment on an issue that was a focal point for our deliberations at the
last EC session. The emphasis and significance the United States has placed on full implementation of Article VII
obligations have been apparent to all. Indeed, that has been quite clear since the First Review Conference. We believe
implementation of Article VII is an essential part of weaving our common safety net to prevent the spread of chemical
weapons. This was always true; but in the twenty-first century, the threat of chemical weapons is not just on the
battlefield. The threat now also comes from terrorists and non-state actors, and they threaten us in our homes and our
cities. Strong national implementation efforts under Article VII are the key to the OPCW's capability to address this
new challenge.
The best proof of the importance the United States attaches to Article VII is not the statements I have made here. It is
the financial support we have provided and the experts the United States has sent on Technical Assistance Visits. At our
last session, many of you spoke about the value of the "positive approach" to Article VII. I want to emphasize that the
United States also strongly believes in the power of a positive approach -- one that is specific, tailored, and
action-oriented. My government's experts and funds have been some of the engines driving this process and helping States
Parties to make progress. You can find the details of our efforts in the national paper tabled by our delegation on 3
July and available at the desk.
We recognize that many on this Council attach great importance to Article VII implementation, and that, quite candidly,
some elements of the U.S. approach to this issue have not always commanded wide support among delegations. However, I
firmly believe that we all share a common belief that full national implementation is of paramount importance to all of
us. I also believe that we can all agree on the importance of reviewing our progress on the various tasks set out by the
10th CSP; on evaluating our progress; and on considering what steps need to be taken to ensure a positive outcome at the
11th Conference. That is the common ground on which we can continue to make needed progress on Article VII.
My delegation believes that a successful outcome is still not assured. That concern, and our desire for a successful
outcome, are what motivate us. A successful outcome would be one where all States Parties that have yet to implement
Article VII fully have informed the OPCW of both the challenges they face and the plans they have developed that would
permit implementation by CSP-11, so that we may monitor progress more realistically. It would be one where every State
Party has designated a National Authority; and it would be one where every State Party that has yet to do so has at
least submitted implementing legislation to its legislature for consideration, or provided clear and specific
explanations as to why this was not possible. We in this room may not always agree on whether the glass is half full or
half empty; we may not always agree on what steps to take; but the key is to address the issue in a positive manner in
pursuit of consensus, and I personally pledge to all delegations that this will be the U.S. approach.
With the 11th Conference of States Parties five months away, it is important that the Technical Secretariat and
individual States Parties increase efforts to assist those member states that still fall short on Article VII. We must
also keep in mind the agreement reached at the 10th CSP last November, which tasked this Council to monitor
implementation of the Conference decision and take appropriate action to ensure full implementation of Article VII. When
deadlines are missed, or member states are not on target to achieve our shared goals, the Council must take meaningful
action. To do otherwise would be to defy our mandate from the Conference and ignore our duties under the Convention. Let
me be clear that "meaningful action" and "consultations" include constructive, substantive Council support; outreach and
encouragement at the political level; and obtaining a clearer picture of a State Party's circumstances and situation. We
must also intensify our efforts in the coming months to find a political consensus on appropriate actions to be taken
with regard to countries that have not fully met Article VII obligations by the time of the November EC and the 11th
CSP.
We believe that under the leadership of our able and congenial facilitator, Ambassador Maarten Lak, and our esteemed
Legal Adviser, Santiago Onate, States Parties have continued to make great progress, particularly on establishment of
National Authorities. However, there is still a significant amount of work that needs to be done, especially with regard
to drafting, submitting, and adopting national legislation and administrative measures.
Madame Chairperson, these are but some of the preeminent matters that are before us this week. There are certainly other
issues that the Council needs to address. For example, we are now at the point where we can finally agree on the
financial rules of this organization. This is a long-awaited achievement that will enhance the administration of the
OPCW. We must also re-focus our attention on pursuit of universality. The Technical Secretariat is preparing for a
conference in Rome in October, and it is critical for States Parties to begin efforts now to encourage the highest
possible level of participation by non-States Parties. Finally, we are about to commence the process of preparations for
the Second Review Conference when the working group holds its first meeting this coming Friday or Monday.
The First Review Conference was a clear success, due to the spirit of cooperation that I mentioned previously. I will
dedicate myself and my delegation to retaining that atmosphere, and to a continued effort to achieve consensus on the
entire range of issues before us. If we persevere in that mode, we will not only achieve great success at this Council
session, but at the December Conference of States Parties, and ultimately, at the Second Review Conference. The United
States remains solidly committed to the Convention and the OPCW, and we will continue to work with all delegations so
that both are models of success that we can proudly offer to the rest of the international community. Thank you.
Released on July 7, 2006
ENDS