BWC Review Conference Hailed as Success

By Jon Fox
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — Still living with the memory of the diplomatic meltdown in 2001, delegates praised the outcome Friday of the sixth review conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (see GSN, Dec. 6).

Delegates approved a final statement on the treaty, which includes an extension of annual intersessional meetings on treaty topics and the expansion of an administrative unit’s duties to support implementation of treaty requirements.

“At times over the past three weeks, the shadow of the past has stalked us, but we have been nimble-footed, and we have moved quickly into the bright lights of the future,” Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan, president of the conference, said during his closing remarks.

The United States led efforts at the 2001 conference that successfully scuttled creation of an inspections protocol to ensure compliance with the treaty.  The conference was thrown into disarray by the last-minute move, and delegates left without completing a final declaration.

Representatives from 103 states parties — more than two-thirds of the treaty’s membership — this year were able to approve a final document after days of closed-door negotiations on contentious items.

“We have succeeded.  I think we can say, without any exaggeration, that this is a historic moment, both for the Biological Weapons Convention and for multilateral security and disarmament,” Khan said.  “The documents that we have produced are not an empty cosmetic consensus.  They are a win-win result for all.”

Difficulties in the final two days of the session seemed linked to preparing language in the final statement on Article 10 of the treaty, which calls for nations to exchange equipment, material and expertise in order to promote peaceful applications of biological science.

U.S. and Iranian delegates worked into the early morning hours Friday to resolve differences.  Iran, at times backed by other Nonaligned Movement nations, was pushing for action under Article 10 to facilitate and widen the scope of scientific exchanges, and the United States was resisting, delegates said.

The conference rejected inclusion in the final declaration of a plan for action on a number of treaty elements, including strengthening scientific cooperation and technology transfers.  They also dropped a national implementation action plan for the treaty, something the United States had supported.

“We saw a tit-for-tat concession this morning,” one delegate said Friday.  Not authorized to speak to the press, the delegate spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

Despite a late Iranian objection to the new administrative body — a last-minute tactic to “annoy” the United States — “I think the two sides showed significant conciliatory gestures,” she said.

Oliver Meier, international representative for the Arms Control Association, said the U.S. concessions were limited.  “National implementation will figure prominently in the intercessional program, so I don’t think the U.S. gave up that much,” he said.

During the U.S. delegation’s brief concluding remarks, U.S. Ambassador Christina Rocca called the final document an “important accomplishment.”  She declined to comment on the negotiations.

Khan thanked the U.S. representatives for their “flexibility and constructive engagement.”  A number of delegates echoed Khan’s statement, describing the United States as being willing to bargain.  Overall, delegates described a positive atmosphere at the review conference.

That seems a significant change from five years ago when the strong U.S. position dismantled the review conference, but the lightning rod issue of verification has been largely laid to rest.  States raised the issue of verification early during the three-week review but were aware it was not going to succeed, one delegate said.  It remained on the margins and was not the central issue it was in 2001.

Unlike the treaties limiting nuclear weapons and banning chemical weapons, the Biological Weapons Convention does not have a permanent organization to oversee the treaty and monitor compliance.  Delegates agreed, however, to give more duties to what is now a temporary secretariat that provides administrative support for meetings.

The three-person Implementation Support Unit (ISU) will work to facilitate communication among states parties, and also between states, the scientific and academic communities and nongovernmental organizations.  The 3-year-old unit will also help state parties implement the decisions and recommendations of the review conference.

In addition, it will serve as a clearing house for confidence-building measures — information submitted by states regarding actions taken to implement the treaty.  The unit, which has a five-year mandate for its new responsibilities, will compile and distribute data on treaty confidence-building measures and create an online database accessible only to states parties.

Some called this a small step toward something more permanent, the kernel of a dedicated support organization.  Khan singled out the support unit as one of the most significant achievements of the conference.  “For many years, the states parties have debated the need for institutional support,” he said.  “Now we have it.”

Indian Ambassador Jayant Prasad said the temporary secretariat has been “marginally strengthened.”

“I don’t think the ISU is even the thin edge of the wedge to something permanent,” said Jean Pascal Zanders of the Bioweapons Prevention Project, noting the limited mandate of the unit.  States parties will review the work of the body at the next full review in 2011.  “They’re going to have to prove their value in a number of areas,” he said.

Meier said administrative support for the confidence-building measures might help a less-than-successful aspect of the convention that was designed to increase transparency by exchanging information about laboratories and measures taken to implement the treaty requirements

The measures “haven’t worked very well both in terms of the number of returns and the quality of returns,” Meier said.

That is a reality recognized by the delegates and made explicit in the final review.  The final document recognizes that “only a limited number of states parties make an annual … submission” and describes an “urgent need” to increase the number of states participating.

Despite role the new unit will play as a clearing house for information from the confidence-building measures, Meier suggested more could have been done to address the issue.  Simply posting the electronically formatted information on a Web site is unlikely to solve the problems.  “I don’t think that’s good enough,” he said.

The intersessional meetings agreed upon in 2002 were recognized by the states parties as valuable, and delegates solidified a list of topics to be discussed leading up to 2011.  Between 2003 and 2005 national delegations met to discuss measure to enhance national implementation of the treaty; security and oversight of dangerous pathogens and toxins; investigating disease outbreaks, including disease surveillance; and codes of conduct for scientists. 

The meetings were initially “set up with a degree of skepticism” but they came to be seen as a way to strengthen confidence in the treaty, Prasad said.  “That exercise was a success enough for us to adopt quite a forward-looking intersessional program,” he said.

At the four upcoming intercessional meetings before 2011, states will discuss enhancing national implementation; measures to improve biosecurity, including security of laboratories; scientific codes of conduct; peaceful scientific cooperation, including disease surveillance; and assistance to any country that does fall victim to biological weapons.

Prasad said discussion of peaceful scientific cooperation and assistance — to take place in 2009 and 2010 — could help highlight ways countries acceding to the treaty could benefit and induce more parties to become part of the convention.  “It will be seen as a plus,” he said.

“The adoption of a new intersessional work program … is a significant achievement,” said Finnish Ambassador Kari Kahiluoto, speaking on behalf of the European Union.   “Its true value, however, can only be assessed as it unfolds over the years.”

The delegates also agreed to actively promote the treaty among states that have yet to join.  Member countries are asked to hold regional and multilateral events to promote the convention.

Just completing a complete review was heralded as a success, but observers outside the delegations were generally more reserved than the state representatives.

“The outcome is generally good,” Zanders said.  “To meet the basic standard was to have a full review of the convention, and this has happened.”  If the process had failed again, “we would have seen the beginning of the end” of the treaty, he said.

Meier called the conference a “modest success,”  He called for states to push the treaty into the future, taking into account the changing scientific and technical landscape, such as new nonlethal agents and methods of delivery of biological agents that harness nanotechnology.

“They’re not talking about how you take this treaty forward,” he said.  “That’s what’s lacking.”

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.