US embassy cable - 04ROME3670

UNCLAS ROME 003670 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
THE HAGUE FOR CWC DEL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM, PREL, CW, IT, CWC 
SUBJECT: CWC/ITALY'S SCHEDULE 2 FACILITY AGREEMENTS: 
RESPONSE TO U.S. SUGGESTIONS 
 
REF: SECSTATE 193134 
 
1. (U) Summary.  Most of the USG's suggestions (reftel) for 
improving Italy's facility agreements (FAs) were judged by 
Foreign Ministry technical experts to be either superfluous 
(because already covered by the FAs) or undesirable (because 
they would introduce unwanted flexibility into the conduct of 
Schedule 2 inspections).  Italian officials are working under 
the assumption that the USG is not linking its final approval 
of the FAs to Italy's acceptance of reftel recommendations, 
but would appreciate further assurances on this point prior 
to the next meeting of the OPCW Executive Council.  End 
Summary. 
 
2. (U)  POLMILOFF on September 17 met with MFA Disarmament 
Office technical experts (Generals Tracci and Ferritti) to 
review reftel suggestions, which were conveyed on September 
10.  The experts appreciated USG interest in enhancing the 
value of Italy's Schedule 2 facility agreements (FAs).  In 
responding to the points in reftel non-paper, the experts 
said they were working under the assumption that the USG 
suggestions were not binding on Italy.  According to one of 
the experts, a U.S. official had told Italy's representative 
to the OPCW that Italy's acceptance of the recommendations 
was not a pre-condition for the USG's approval of the 
agreements.  Gen. Tracci said he hoped the U.S. could convey 
its assent to the FAs prior to the October 12-15 meeting of 
the OPCW Executive Council. Italy's official response to 
reftel non-paper is detailed below.  The experts said that 
Italy would communicate to the OPCW Technical Secretariat 
those areas where it is in agreement with reftel suggestions. 
 
 
3. (U) In response to non-paper point A, the experts said 
that because Italy's facility agreements follow the model 
approved by the third session of the Conference of States 
Parties, the basic text of the model should not be modified. 
Moreover, they thought that Section 7.1, Paragraph 3 already 
provides for the team leader to submit an inspection plan. 
Regarding point B, the experts asserted that OPCW guidelines 
do not call for the use of inventory control devices in 
Schedule 2 inspections, which instead are relevant only to 
Schedule 1 inspections.  There was full agreement that point 
C was helpful. 
 
4. (U) In response to point D (1), the experts said they 
agreed that the USG suggestion would help ensure control over 
documentation at the inspected site.  Regarding point D (2), 
the Italians thought that for further clarity the phrase "and 
relating to unresolved compliance concerns" could be added 
after "for future reference" in Attachment 3, Part D.  The 
experts were not in agreement with the USG suggestion in 
non-paper point D (3).  Italy wants the inspection team to 
have the sole prerogative for selecting documents to be 
placed in the joint sealed container, not least because the 
team is in charge of fulfilling the inspection mandate. 
 
5. (U) Regarding USG non-paper point E, the experts said that 
the agreements (specifically, Part E, Points 2 and 3) already 
were clear that only the documents authorized in writing by a 
representative of the Inspected State Party could be taken 
off-site by the inspection team.  In response to non-paper 
point F, Italy believes the on-site tour should be conducted 
every time there is an inspection and does not support 
introducing flexibility into the FAs on this issue. The 
experts saw no inconsistency with this position and the 
provisions in Section 7.1, Paragraph 1 as those provisions 
already make clear that the site tour should be considered 
part of the inspection period. 
 
6. (U) In response to non-paper point G, the experts said 
that Part B of Attachment 9 already ensures that Italy can 
redact or exclude proprietary information and that only 
information, documents, and data relevant to an inspection 
are to be provided to the inspection team.  The experts noted 
that Italy had discussed the issue raised in non-paper point 
H at great length with the OPCW Technical Secretariat. They 
did not think adding USG-suggested language was necessary 
because the FAs already call on the inspection team to 
fulfill its mandate in the least intrusive manner possible. 
According to the experts, it follows that the transfer of 
samples for off-site analysis must be a strictly necessary 
operation to be carried out only as a last resort.  The 
Italians reasoned empirically that because no such sampling 
has occurred to date in any inspection governed by a facility 
agreement, states parties have found adequate alternative 
means to demonstrate their compliance with the CWC. 
 
 
SEMBLER 
 
 
NNNN 
	2004ROME03670 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED