THE FUTURE OF BIOLOGICAL DISARMAMENT

Abstract

The Sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) gave the future of biological disarmament new hope. It brought the BWC back closer to the core of multilateral efforts to combat the weaponization of disease, agreed to an intersessional work program for 2007–2010, created an implementation support unit, and revived the interrupted process of BWC evolution through extended understandings agreed at review conferences. However, its aims were deliberately modest. Having set their sights realistically low, delegations did not have to lower them much further. What was most important was to prevent U.S.-Iranian acrimony from paralyzing the conference. With deadlock once again narrowly averted, the conference had to clear away the debris left from past dissensions in order to open the way to constructive evolution for the treaty. In particular the conference avoided contentious subjects such as permanent organization and verification measures for the BWC; its institutional deficit and compliance problems remain. Successes and limitations of the conference are analyzed, as is its equivocal outcome on confidence-building measures. Developing on the endogenous principle, the BWC will continue to need constant attention. At the center of a complex edifice, the BWC must be kept sound, strong, and solid.

Keywords:

• Biological Weapons Convention
• Review conference
• Biological disarmament

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Richard Guthrie, Filippa Lentzos, Graham S. Pearson, and members of delegations to the BWC Sixth Review Conference who by convention must remain unnamed, for help in forming a fuller picture of proceedings at Geneva; Jonathan B. Tucker for originally suggesting this article and encouraging its progress; Barbara King for word processing and administrative assistance; and the anonymous reviewers for comments on drafts.

Notes

1. On the “web of prevention”: International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Statement to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Sixth Review Conference, November 21, 2006. The phrase had been in ICRC use since 2002. On the role of other instruments: Jez Littlewood, The Biological Weapons Convention: A Failed Revolution (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2005), pp. 232–241.

2. Amb. Masood Khan of Pakistan, “President's Closing Remarks,” BWC Sixth Review Conference, December 8, 2006,<www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/D9B3F812B9202A22C1257241002D6382/$file/President_closing_remarks_8_Dec.pdf>.

3. The longer form “Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)” is favored by the European Union (EU) and its member states and by the governments of some non-EU states. BWC remains the standard UN usage. Practice varies as between governments and among academic and scientific commentators on the convention.

4. Amb. Masood Khan, “Opening Statement by the President of the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention,” November 20, 2006.

5. The Chemical Weapons Convention was negotiated 1972–1992, opened for signature in 1993, and entered into force in 1997. As of 2007, it has 181 states parties.

6. For fuller accounts and analyses of this history up to 1985, see Nicholas A. Sims, The Diplomacy of Biological Disarmament: Vicissitudes of a Treaty in Force, 1975–85 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988); up to 1998, see Nicholas A. Sims, The Evolution of Biological Disarmament, SIPRI Chemical & Biological Warfare Studies 19 (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2001); up to 2002, see Jez Littlewood, The Biological Weapons Convention: A Failed Revolution (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2005); for the more recent period up to 2006, see Richard Lennane, “Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat: The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention since 2001,” UN Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva, Disarmament Forum 2006/3 (September 2006), pp. 5–15.

7. On the consensus: see Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 8, 2006, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 4. On the background: Nicholas A. Sims, “Towards the BWC Review Conference: Diplomacy Still in the Doldrums,” Disarmament Diplomacy 82 (Spring 2006), pp. 8–16.

8. Statement by Amb. Jayant Prasad of India to the BWC Sixth Review Conference, November 20, 2006.

9. Nicholas A. Sims, “Biological Disarmament Diplomacy in the Doldrums: Reflections after the BWC Fifth Review Conference,” Disarmament Diplomacy 70 (April/May 2003), p. 13.

10. For a detailed account of the successive draft lists of topics proposed as the negotiation intensified, see Graham S. Pearson, “The Biological Weapons Convention Sixth Review Conference,” CBW Conventions Bulletin 74 (December 2006), pp. 29–31, <www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/CBWCB74.pdf>.

11. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 8, 2006, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 7.

12. Final Document of the BWC Fifth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.V/17, November 15, 2002, Paragraphs 18–20.

13. New Zealand, “BWC Working Paper on the Intersessional Process,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.18, November 2006, Paragraph 5.

14. United Kingdom and France, “EU Paper on the Intersessional Program of Work: Its Utility and Contribution to Fulfilling the Object and Purpose of the BTWC between 2003–2005 and a Case for Further Intersessional Work after 2006,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.8, September 19, 2006, Paragraph 20.

15. Richard Guthrie, “[Wednesday, December 6] The Thirteenth Day: A Bumpy Ride after a Smooth Start,” BioWeapons Prevention Project, RevCon Report 14, December 7, 2006; “[Thursday, December 7] Final Issues of Concern: The End-Game is Played out,” BioWeapons Prevention Project, RevCon Report 15, December 8, 2006. By December 6, the list of recurrent topics had reportedly been reduced to five: universality, national implementation, scientific and technological developments, confidence-building measures, and coordination with other international bodies. The RevCon Reports, produced in Geneva and distributed outside the conference room on the morning following the day reported on, may be accessed at <www.bwpp.org/6RevCon/6thRevConResources.html>.

16. Australia, “Paper on an Action Plan for Realizing the Universalization of the BTWC,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.15, September 2006; Italy, “EU Paper on Increasing Universal Adherence to the BTW Convention,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.6, September 2006; Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, “Paper on Universalization,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.9, September 2006; Republic of Korea, “Paper on the Universality of the BWC,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.19, November 2006.

17. Daniel Feakes and Graham S. Pearson, “Achieving the Outcomes of the Sixth Review Conference,” UN Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva, Disarmament Forum 2006/3 (September 2006), pp. 37–39.

18. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 8, 2006, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 10.

19. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 8, 2006, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 11.

20. Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Chairman Hans Blix, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Arms (Stockholm: Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 2006), Recommendation 34, p. 119.

21. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 8, 2006, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 5.

22. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 8, 2006, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 5.

23. Final Document of the BWC [First] Review Conference, BWC/CONF.I/10, March 21, 1980, Final Declaration; Final Document of the BWC Second Review Conference, BWC/CONF.II/13/II, September 26, 1986, Final Declaration; Final Document of the BWC Third Review Conference, BWC/CONF.III/23, September 27, 1991, Final Declaration; Final Document of the BWC Fourth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.IV/9, December 6, 1996, Final Declaration.

24. Final Document of the BWC Second Review Conference, Final Declaration.

25. Final Document of the BWC Fourth Review Conference, Final Declaration.

26. Malcolm R. Dando and Simon M. Whitby, “Article I—Scope,” in Graham S. Pearson, Nicholas A. Sims, and Malcolm R. Dando (eds.), Key Points for the Sixth Review Conference (Bradford, United Kingdom: University of Bradford, Department of Peace Studies, 2006) pp. 66–68.

27. India, proposal on Article I, “Proposed Language Submitted to the Committee of the Whole,” BWC/CONF.VI/CRP.1, November 24, 2006, Paragraph 7.

28. The Netherlands, “Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to the Biological Weapons Convention,” September 2006, BWC/CONF.VI/INF.4, Misc. 5, in the series of national background papers made available in advance of the conference as contributions to its background document on new developments in science and technology.

29. United States, proposal on Article III, “Proposed Language Submitted to the Committee of the Whole,” BWC/CONF.VI/CRP.1, November 24, 2006, Paragraph 35; Japan (at Paragraph 32 of the same document) had proposed “catch-all controls.”

30. United States, proposal on Article III, China at Paragraph 24 and India at Paragraph 31.

31. United States, proposal on Article III, Finland on behalf of the EU at Paragraph 27, and the United States at Paragraphs 36, 37, 39, and 40.

32. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 8, 2006, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 8(vi) in relation to confidence-building measures, and Paragraphs 11(a)(iii) and 11(c)(ii) in relation to the promotion of universalization.

33. China, proposal on Article IV, “Proposed Language Submitted to the Committee of the Whole,” BWC/CONF.VI/CRP.1, November 24, 2006, Paragraph 42; European Union, “EU Council Joint Action in Support of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention,” 2006/184/CFSP, February 27, 2006, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L 65/51, March 7, 2006.

34. Finland on behalf of the EU, proposal on Article X, at Paragraph 173 of BWC/CONF.VI/CRP.1.

35. Santiago Oñate, Ralf Trapp, and Lisa Tabassi, “Decision on the Follow-Up to the OPCW Action Plan on Article VII: Ensuring the Effective Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” CBW Conventions Bulletin 69 and 70 (September–December 2005), pp. 5–10.

36. Finland on behalf of the EU, proposal on Action Plan on National Implementation, in ”Proposed Language Submitted to the Committee of the Whole,” BWC/CONF.VI/CRP.1, November 24, 2006, Paragraphs 244–246. Earlier papers in favor had included those of Germany, “EU Paper on Assessment of National Implementation of the BTWC,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.2, September 19, 2006; and Japan, “Paper on Review of National Implementation of the BWC,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.17, September 2006.

37. Guthrie, RevCon Report 15, December 8, 2006.

38. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 8, 2006, Final Declaration, Paragraph 16.

39. Sims, Diplomacy of Biological Disarmament, p. 119.

40. Jozef Goldblat, SIPRI, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Volume IV: CB Disarmament Negotiations, 1920–1970 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1971), pp. 316–320.

41. Sims, Evolution of Biological Disarmament, pp. 176–182.

42. Canada, “Towards the Sixth BTWC Review Conference: An Accountability Framework,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.1, April (and following) 2006. In particular, the ideas of a new accountability session within the Meeting of States Parties, and of a comprehensive accountability package of balanced elements as key to strengthening the treaty regime, await further development.

43. Nicholas A. Sims and Graham S. Pearson, “Article XII: Review Conferences,” in Pearson, Sims, and Dando (eds.), Key Points for the Sixth Review Conference, pp. 217–231.

44. Nicholas A. Sims, “Strengthening Structures for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Options for Remedying the Institutional Deficit,” UN Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva, Disarmament Forum 2006/3 (September 2006), pp. 17–26.

45. Lennane, “Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat,” pp. 5, 9.

46. Final Document of the BWC Fourth Review Conference, Final Declaration, Paragraph 7 of the Solemn Declaration, which (as in 1991 and 2006) preceded the article-by-article sections.

47. Richard Guthrie, “[Tuesday, December 5] Working Towards a Conclusion: More Text Agreed,” BioWeapons Prevention Project, RevCon Report 13, December 6, 2006; Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, Final Declaration, Paragraph xi of the Solemn Declaration: “[The States Parties … solemnly declare] xi. Their recognition of their consideration of the issues identified in reviewing the operation of the Convention as provided for in Article XII, as well as their consensus on the follow-up actions contained herein.”

48. Sims, Evolution of Biological Disarmament, pp. 23, 116–118.

49. Iris Hunger and Nicolas Isla, “Confidence-Building Needs Transparency: An Analysis of the BTWC's Confidence-Building Measures,” UN Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva, Disarmament Forum 2006/3 (September 2006), pp. 27–36.

50. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 9.

51. France, “EU Paper on the Enhancement of the CBM Process,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.4, September 19, 2006; Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, “Paper on CBMs,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.12, September 2006.

52. China, proposal for Article V, ”Proposed Language Submitted to the Committee of the Whole,” BWC/CONF.VI/CRP.1, November 24, 2006, Paragraph 82.

53. Feakes and Pearson, ”Achieving the Outcomes,” pp. 41–43.

54. France, “EU Paper on the Enhancement of the CBM Process”; Switzerland, “Paper on Actions to Improve Confidence-Building Measures,” BWC/CONF.VI/WP.14, September 2006.

55. Guthrie, RevCon Report 15.

56. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 8 (vii).

57. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraphs 8(i)–(iii).

58. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 25.

59. Final Document of the BWC Sixth Review Conference, Decisions and Recommendations, Paragraph 9.

60. The UN Security Council adopted a further Resolution 1673, on April 27, 2006, which renewed the mandate of its “1540” Committee for a further two years and decided that the committee should intensify its efforts to promote full implementation of Resolution 1540.

61. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay are the Latin American 12; JACKSNNZ (pronounced “Jacksons”) was an acronym formed from the initial letters of the names of seven non-EU, non-nuclear-weapon members of the Western Group: Japan, Australia, Canada, Korea (Republic of), Switzerland, Norway, and New Zealand.

62. Bulgaria and Romania (which were to become EU member states on January 1, 2007); Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Finland occupied the EU presidency for the second half of 2006, taking over the coordination role from Austria (EU president for the first half of 2006), which in turn had built on foundations laid by the United Kingdom (EU president for the second half of 2005).

63. Sims, “Diplomacy Still in the Doldrums,” pp. 8–16.

64. Lennane, “Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat,” p. 6.

65. United States, Statement by Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Proliferation John C. Rood, November 20, 2006.

66. Kofi Annan, “The Secretary-General: Remarks to the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention,” November 20, 2006.

67. United Kingdom and France, “EU Paper on the Intersessional Program of Work,” Paragraph 13.

68. Sims, Evolution of Biological Disarmament, pp. 22, 191.

69. Canada, “Towards the Sixth BTWC Review Conference: An Accountability Framework.”

70. Piers D. Millett, “The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in Context: from Monolith to Keystone,” UN Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva, Disarmament Forum 2006/3 (September 2006), p. 59.