Countries Confront Obstacles
to Strengthened BWC 

By David Grahame
BASIC

After the acrimonious suspension of the Fifth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC RevCon), which left the future of the pact clouded by doubt, States Parties and conference leaders are considering how to proceed before reconvening talks at the end of this year.

At the conference in December 2001, countries met to reassess the operation and implementation of the BWC, as well as discuss the progress of the Ad Hoc Group (AHG) tasked to develop legally-binding mechanisms to enforce compliance.  On the meeting’s last day, only two hours before the scheduled end of negotiations, the United States unilaterally demanded the termination of the AHG’s mandate.  The U.S. bombshell created a rancorous atmosphere, prompting a suspension of the Conference for one year to allow time for ‘cooling off.’

Year’s Work Now Underway
However, negotiators continue to explore ways forward.  Tibor Toth, Chair of the RevCon, told BASIC Reports that bridging the gap between politically-binding measures proposed by Washington, and the legally-binding inspections regime that the AHG had crafted over the past seven years, remained the primary challenge for the coming year. Although the disagreements cast a shadow on the Review Conference, Toth emphasized, “These two approaches are not necessarily irreconcilable, even if they look like it at the moment. The political challenge is now to find common ground.”

Despite these problems, Toth was hope-ful that real progress could be made. Steps for initial progress prior to the Conference’s resumption on Nov. 11, 2002, Toth suggested, include support of less-controversial measures such as improving international disease moni-toring networks, implementation of BWC commitments at the national level, and increasing pathogen security.

Against such a background, bilateral and multilateral discussions to resolve differences could proceed.  Renewed action was necessary, according to Toth, and he emphasized, “We must move forward.  No one will be safer with the control regime lying dormant… what we need now is a modus operandi on how to move forward, to involve an overlapping set of interests.” 

U.S. Statements Still Rankle
However, recent statements by U.S. officials do not seem to have improved the climate for compromise.  John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, followed his critical remarks at the RevCon with another stinging assault on the AHG approach in a Jan. 11 speech at the Monterey Institute.  He noted, “The process that we’ve followed these past seven years of the Ad Hoc Group has led us into a ditch… We’re not going to proceed with the draft protocol.”

Such vehement opposition could undermine support for a more general agreement.  A Western diplomat close to the discussions told BASIC Reports that the AHG process retains strong support among other States Parties, and U.S. unwillingness to integrate elements of it into a protocol to strengthen the BWC would make further negotiations extremely difficult. 

Despite such complexities, countries are reluctant to abandon consensus-building on ways to enforce the BWC.  The Western diplomat noted that while substantial agreement before next November seems extremely unlikely, time and events might conspire to bring about more positive results.  Likewise, Toth indicated that the ‘cooling off’ year gave the States Parties valuable time “to focus on what we have in common rather than what is dividing us.”

A Conference Collapse
The divided approaches toward strengthening the BWC emerged out of the disarray following the RevCon’s unprecedented failure to reach a final agreement. Toth told BASIC Reports, “The U.S. proposal was quantitatively new for delegations… There had been no discussion of elimination of the AHG before the U.S. proposal.”

Several clear fault lines dominated the negotiations among States Parties, with non-compliance a key concern.  After Bolton controversially “named names” in his opening statement of countries with alleged biological weapons programs, Washington pushed for the Final Declaration to highlight the fact that a number of states were not abiding by the Convention.  This proposal aroused fierce opposition from the countries concerned, while others worried that such a declaration could further undermine the credibility of the BWC regime.

Meanwhile, the future implementation of the Convention emerged as the central issue of dispute.  U.S. proposals stressing national legislation and domestic security faced strong opposition from a large number of States Parties still supporting the multilateral inspections regime that had been under negotiation by the AHG. 

Common Ground Found
Despite these fundamental disagreements, the conference witnessed progress in several key areas prior to the suspension.  States Parties generally supported suggestions to increase the regularity of meetings to advance BWC implementation, and perhaps to establish permanent subgroups to investigate various technical elements. 

Likewise, improved international cooperation in monitoring and dealing with biological outbreaks was endorsed overall. The Western diplomat involved in the negotiations noted that the conference atmosphere was clearly affected by the anthrax outbreaks in the United States, which had “broken the taboo on biological weapons use and removed any complacency about the threat by making it far more immediate.”   Reflecting this, 31 separate working papers were offered by States Parties, compared to just eight at the previous Review Conference in 1996. 

Toth remained cautiously optimistic about the prospects for negotiations to develop an enforcement protocol for the BWC.  He noted, “Whether the difficulties that led to the suspension will be diminishing by the time we resume [in Nov. 2002] is the question. We have a year’s time to focus on what is bridging us rather than what is dividing us.” 

Toth Remarks on Industry, Anthrax Attacks

Editor’s Note:  Tibor Toth, Chairman of the Fifth Review Conference of the BWC, spoke with BASIC Reports about other issues surrounding the protocol negotiations:

On the role of the pharmaceutical industry:
The anthrax case raises questions which go to the core of the pharmaceutical industry operations. In the U.S. and Canada, for example, there were questions concerning the intellectual property rights which would potentially cost the pharmaceutical industry billions and billions of dollars, if precedents were created. Thus, the cost to the industry of symptomatic response to this issue needs to be considered by the industry.

These scenarios put in a different light the risks associated with early warning tools, namely the risks to intellectual property that would arise from a system of five visits a year maximum to national sites, as opposed to the effects to the industry of future anthrax attacks. 

On the effects of the anthrax attacks in the United States on the conference:
The anthrax incident provided us with an opportunity to go back to the basics, to look afresh at the challenge. Should we now close down the shop which would provide us with kind of tools we need to address the challenge?   No. We need to continue finding the tools to meet the problem.
.

2002 International Calendar of Events

Back to BASIC Publications home page