Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04ROME3670
2004-09-22 16:08:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Rome
Cable title:  

CWC/ITALY'S SCHEDULE 2 FACILITY AGREEMENTS:

Tags:  PARM PREL CW IT CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
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

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