|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
CWC: Red Cross Says It Was Muzzled Over Stand on Incapacitating Weapons By David Ruppe This review conference is the first opportunity for parties to formally examine the 1993 treaty’s effectiveness and to consider possible changes (see GSN, April 29). Treaty parties met for the third day today in a two-week general debate session, and states also began meeting yesterday in closed sessions. Adoption of final documents is scheduled for May 9. The ICRC says it was originally told it could address the conference as an international organization, as it has at other formal treaty meetings, but then had that permission rescinded. The ICRC is a unique organization responsible for monitoring international humanitarian law as established by the Geneva Conventions. Differing from traditional nongovernmental organizations, the ICRC generally is accorded “international organization status” akin to the World Health Organization and since 1990 has had “observer status” at the United Nations. Other nongovernmental organizations were also prohibited from presenting directly to the conference, but several, including the ICRC, are scheduled to make presentations tomorrow afternoon at an off-site “open forum” organized by the conference. That forum, however, is scheduled at the same time as a formal treaty meeting, making it more difficult for nongovernmental views to reach conference delegates, some groups said. ICRC Legal Division Adviser Robin Coupland said he did not know which countries had opposed his organization’s participation but was certain the reason was over the chemical incapacitants issue addressed in an organizational statement. “The ICRC knows that the content of our statement was the reason the delivery of it was blocked. We are not aware of the country or countries responsible for the blocking,” he said. “We have international organization status at many other disarmament conferences and we understood that we had the same here,” he said. A U.S. official here told Global Security Newswire the United States and a few other unidentified countries had opposed ICRC participation, but only because of a rules issue. U.S. officials said allowing the ICRC to address the conference would open questions on where to draw the line barring other special organizations such as the World Health Organization. A British delegate said London did not oppose ICRC participation and that the United States was the principal opponent. Ambassador Wilhelm Schmid, Switzerland’s permanent representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons criticized the decision. “I am very surprised as the head of the Swiss delegation that the ICRC is not being allowed to speak,” he said. The ICRC presentation, copies of which were made available outside the conference room, expressed concern about increasing interest in incapacitating chemicals among police and military forces, but did not mention countries by name. It also criticized the conference for insufficient attention to the issue. “We are concerned about the interest being shown in such agents as a means of warfare; we are concerned therefore by lack of attention being given to the implications of the development of such agents for law enforcement,” it said. Some delegates here say they are concerned the treaty, in allowing development of incapacitants for law enforcement purposes, provides a loophole for states to develop them for military use. In an incident last year, Russian security forces used a chemical incapacitant to rescue hostages last year (see GSN, Oct. 30, 2002), and the U.S. Marine Corps has sponsored research into the agents (see GSN, Nov. 4, 2002). For further information, see: Pentagon Executive Summary of CWC
| ||||||||||
Back to top
