Beefing up the Bio Weapons Convention
After a controversial suspension in 2001, work on the Biological
Weapons Convention resumes in Geneva | By Andrew
Scott
Efforts to strengthen implementation of the international treaty banning biological weapons
have restarted after they collapsed in bitter disagreement in 2001.
A meeting of experts in Geneva, running from August
18 to 29, is being hosted by the United Nations to find a new way
forward for the troubled process.
"It's a long, sad story," Richard Lennane, political affairs
officer at the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs in Geneva,
told The Scientist. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
came into force in 1975 and commits the 150 states that are party to
it to prohibit the development, production, and stockpiling of
biological and toxin weapons. But there is no enforcement or verification machinery within the
treaty. A long process of negotiation to add these missing elements
began in the 1990s.
This resulted in a new protocol, to be agreed in time for the
Fifth Review Conference of the convention in November 2001. Early in
2001, however, the new Bush administration in the United States
conducted a complete review of policy on biological weapons and decided that the protocol did not suit US national
interests.
"They could not see that it would be effective in catching the
bad guys and [believed it] would interfere with the legitimate
commercial and biodefense activity of the good guys," said
Lennane.
According to Michael Moodie, president of the Chemical and Biological
Arms Control Institute in Washington, D.C., "The Bush
administration said [the new protocol] wasn't going to do the job it
was intended to do... They felt it would jeopardize confidential
business information and national security information, [and] they
were not getting sufficient return for the risks." Moodie added,
however, that the problems were not solely caused by the United
States, although they generally get the blame for blocking the
protocol.
The proceedings broke up in acrimony, and the process was
suspended in December 2001, leaving many of the major European
states deeply unhappy with the result and with the US stance. But
some parties were quite content. "Various countries had never been
very keen on having a protocol and having their own suspect
activities observed or constrained, so they were pretty much
delighted that the US was standing up taking the flak on this," said
Lennane.
With the idea of international inspections and verification
apparently dead in the water, this week's meeting in Geneva is
intended to begin work on a new way forward. The focus is on
national measures that states can take to enshrine their treaty
obligations within their national laws. But exactly what will emerge is
still uncertain.
Richard Lennane reports a much-improved atmosphere. "People are
exchanging information about helping each other to improve national
implementation," he said, "[although] it has been a bit of a mystery
to everybody as to how exactly it is going to work out and what the
meeting is going to achieve."
Expectations are generally low, with the most likely outcome
being a series of small steps forward until the Sixth Review
Conference in 2006. "I don't have expectations for major
groundbreaking developments," said Michael Moodie. "They have agreed
on a work plan until 2006, and people are going to be comfortable
with that unless something major happens that redefines the issues
and the urgency with which they feel they have to deal with
things."
The immediate next step comes in November of this year, with a
full meeting of all states that are party to the convention. This
will review the results of the current experts' meeting and will
decide where to go next.
Links for this articleConvention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin
Weapons and on their Destruction http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/bwc/index.html "Biological weapons convention members begin new
process," UN press release, August 18, 2003. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/dc2882.doc.htm UN Department for Disarmament Affairs http://disarmament.un.org/dda.htm J.D. Miller, "Treasure trove of toxins," The
Scientist, May 28, 2003. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030528/03/ T. Agres, "Interpol pushes research controls," The
Scientist, July 21, 2003. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030721/03/ "The Biological Weapons Convention," US Department of
State Fact Sheet, May 22, 2002. http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/10401.htm T. Agres, "Bioshield moving forward," The
Scientist, May 16, 2003. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030516/06/ Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute http://www.cbaci.org/ B. Shouse, "Restrictions threaten science," The
Scientist, December 16, 2002. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20021216/08/ | 
