 |
A Successful Outcome to the Sixth BTWC Review Conferenceby Graham S. PearsonThe Sixth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) took place in Geneva from 20 November to 8 December 2006. Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan was elected President and successfully oversaw and led the Review Conference to a successful outcome in the Final Document adopted on 8 December. 107 States Parties and 10 Signatory States participated in the Review Conference Ð significantly more than the 91 States Parties and 6 Signatory States at the Fifth Review Conference in 2001 Ð which had to be suspended for a year and was unable to agree a Final Declaration. The 2006 Review Conference opened with a statement delivered by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, in person. In this he set the scene for the Conference by saying "Now it is time to take further steps to ensure that the Convention will continue to serve as an effective barrier against biological weapons." as well as putting the BTWC into the wider context "we can no longer view the Convention in isolation, as simply a treaty prohibiting States from obtaining biological weapons. Rather, we must look at it as part of an interlinked array of tools, designed to deal with an interlinked array of problems. Certainly, we need to deal with disarmament and non-proliferation in the traditional sense. But we must also address terrorism and crime at the non-state and individual levels, with responses encompassing public health, disaster relief and efforts to ensure that the peaceful uses of biological science and technology can safely reach their potential." The President of the Review Conference, Ambassador Masood Khan, urged the States Parties to move forward "This conference is a vital opportunity to take action against a threat which is too serious to ignore. Thanks to the energy, resourcefulness and commitment of the States Parties over the past months, the time is ripe for success. At this review conference, we will look at the implementation of each article of the Convention, build on the work of the past four yeas, and take decisions on strategy and activities beyond 2006." The General Debate took place on the first two days with statements being made by 40 States Parties and one Signatory State (Egypt). Six specialized agencies and other international organizations [The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)] made statements. One Signatory State (Syria) exercised its right to reply. In an informal session with the President in the chair, 16 NGOs made short statements to the Review Conference. Following the General Debate, the Committee of the Whole (COW) then met from 21 to 30 November under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Doru Costea (Romania) to consider the substantive issues relevant to the Convention. At its final meeting on 30 November, it adopted its report (BWC/CONF.VI/3) [this and other Review Conference documents and the statements made in the General Debate are available at http://www.opbw.org] which included as Annex I a draft of the final document of the Conference whilst Annex II provided a compilation of the proposals presented by States Parties on language for the various Articles of the Convention as well as for Action Plans on Universality, National Implementation and Article X, an Implementation Support Unit, a further Intersessional Programme and CBMs. In parallel with the COW, plenary sessions addressed cross-cutting issues that did not fit easily into the Article by Article review. These included consideration of how the follow-on intersessional process in 2007 to 2010 might function, the results of the 2003 to 2005 intersessional process, confidence-building measures, national implementation, universalisation, and implementation support. In addition, a list of possible topics for the 2007 to 2010 intersessional meetings was circulated for consideration. Argentina coordinated consideration of text on an implementation support unit whilst Norway coordinated consideration of text on the outcome of the 2003-2005 meetings. Draft action plans were proposed for universality, national implementation and Article X implementation. The first two appeared to have wide support and had been referred to in statements made in the General Debate. Language was proposed in the COW for a universality action plan by the Latin American group, Australia and the EU, and for a national implementation action plan by the EU. The proposal for an Action Plan on Article X implementation was the subject of language proposed by the NAM to the COW. Following the completion of the work of the COW, the President conducted a series of informal consultations in which he was assisted by a number of Facilitators as follows:
Thematic discussions continued focusing on topics such as the intersessional process for 2007 to 2010, possible action plans and confidence-building measures. The list of possible topics for 2007 to 2010 was twelve at one stage with four possible recurring topics on universality, national implementation, scientific and technological developments, and coordination with other international bodies. Unlike at previous Review Conferences, the Drafting Committee did not meet and the Chairman (Knut Langeland of Norway) and Vice-Chairmen met and decided to assist the President in his informal consultations. In effect, the President in his informal consultations and in informal plenary meetings carried out the drafting of the Final Declaration of the Review Conference. A number of successive drafts were circulated. The final plenary session opened at 1655 on the afternoon of Friday 8 December 2006. The President referred delegations to CRP.4 and said that there were certain oral amendments that needed to be made. He also drew the attention of the meeting to the cost estimates contained in BWC/CONF.VI/4 which included the implementation support unit. The cost estimates were formally accepted as were the dates in 2007 for a Meeting of Experts from 20 to 24 August 2007 and a Meeting of States Parties from 10 to 14 December 2007. It was also agreed that the intersessional meetings in 2007 should be chaired by the NAM Ð by Ambassador Khan, in 2008 by the Eastern Group, in 2009 by the Western Group and in 2010 by the NAM. The Final Document as amended was then formally adopted. Analysis of the Outcome Overall, the outcome is a very satisfactory with a comprehensive Final Declaration and Decisions and Recommendations relating to Work of the 2003-2005 Meetings of States Parties, Implementation Support Unit, Intersessional Programme 2007-2010, Confidence-Building Measures, and Promotion of Universalisation. However, the final few days saw the loss of largely agreed Action Plans on Universality and on Implementation. This stemmed from the fairly late proposal by the NAM of an Action Plan on Article X Implementation and despite the attempt of the President to develop language for an Action Plan on Comprehensive Implementation of the Convention, agreement on this was not possible. The Action Plan on Universality was consequently transformed into a decision on ÔPromotion of UniversalityÕ. Article by Article Review The Final Article by Article Declaration comprised some 67 paragraphs compared to the 88 paragraphs in the Fourth Review Conference Final Declaration. This reduction reflected the exhortation by the President for "a concise and accessible outcome document". The opportunity was taken advantageously to consider new language rather than developing the previously agreed language of previous Final Declarations. The new language is welcomed but the failure, because of US opposition, to obtain a more explicit recognition of the value of previous Final Declarations is regretted. Solemn Declaration This has three useful new sub-items addressing compliance, terrorism and public awareness: (iv) Their determination to comply with all their obligations undertaken pursuant to the Convention and their recognition that States Parties not in compliance with their Convention obligations pose fundamental challenges to the Convention's viability, as would use of bacteriological (biological) weapons by anyone at any time; (vii) Their conviction that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and whatever its motivation, is abhorrent and unacceptable to the international community, and that terrorists must be prevented from developing, producing, stockpiling, or otherwise acquiring or retaining, and using under any circumstances, biological agents and toxins, equipment, or means of delivery of agents or toxins for nonpeaceful purposes, and their recognition of the contribution of full and effective implementation of UNSC Resolution 1540 by all States to assist in achieving the objectives of this Convention. (x) Their recognition that achieving the objectives of the Convention will be more effectively realized through greater public awareness of its contribution, and through collaboration with relevant regional and international organizations, in keeping within their respective mandates, and their commitment to promote this; Article I (basic prohibition) The language in paragraph 1 is new, stronger and emphatic: 1. The Conference reaffirms the importance of Article I, as it defines the scope of the Convention. The Conference declares that the Convention is comprehensive in its scope and that all naturally or artificially created or altered microbial and other biological agents and toxins, as well as their components, regardless of their origin and method of production and whether they affect humans, animals or plants, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes, are unequivocally covered by Article I. The declaration that the Convention is comprehensive in its scope is welcomed as is the clarification that "all naturally or artificially created or altered microbial and other biological agents and toxins, as well as their components, regardless of their origin and method of production and whether they affect humans, animals or plants", are unequivocally covered. Paragraph 2 has a shorter simpler formulation: 2. The Conference reaffirms that Article I applies to all scientific and technological developments in the life sciences and in other fields of science relevant to the Convention. Paragraph 3 has a new final sentence regarding use: The Conference affirms the determination of States Parties to condemn any use of biological agents or toxins for other than peaceful purposes, by anyone at any time. Article II (destruction) A new sentence stressed the importance of providing information under CBM 'F': The Conference also stresses that these States Parties should provide appropriate information to all States Parties via the exchange of information (confidence-building measures form F). Article III (transfers) Paragraph 8 reaffirms that Article III is sufficiently comprehensive "to cover any recipient whatsoever at the international, national and sub-national levels." In its second sentence is a clearer and stronger statement of the action to be taken by States Parties: The Conference calls for appropriate measures, including effective national export controls, by all States Parties to implement this article, in order to ensure that direct and indirect transfers relevant to the Convention, to any recipient whatsoever, are authorized only when the intended use is for purposes not prohibited under the Convention. Paragraph 9 is essentially new calling for the safeguarding of biological agents and toxins: 9. The Conference calls for appropriate measures by all States Parties to ensure that biological agents and toxins relevant to the Convention are protected and safeguarded, including through measures to control access to and handling of such agents and toxins; Article IV (national implementation) Paragraph 11 is a much clearer and stronger version which has the requirement for "including penal legislation": 11. The Conference reaffirms the commitment of States Parties to take the necessary national measures under this Article. The Conference also reaffirms that the enactment and implementation of necessary national measures under this Article would strengthen the effectiveness of the Convention. In this context, the Conference calls upon States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes, legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures, including penal legislation, designed to: Paragraph 13 is new calling for surveillance of outbreaks of disease: 13. The Conference reaffirms the commitment of States Parties to take the necessary national measures to strengthen methods and capacities for surveillance and detection of outbreaks of disease at the national, regional and international levels. Paragraph 14 has a new second sentence which addresses training and education: The Conference urges States Parties to promote the development of training and education programmes for those granted access to biological agents and toxins relevant to the Convention and for those with the knowledge or capacity to modify such agents and toxins, in order to raise awareness of the risks, as well as of the obligations of States Parties under the Convention. Paragraph 15, also new, takes this message further to call for professionals to report activities conducted in breach of the Convention and also to recognize the importance of codes of conduct: 15. The Conference encourages States Parties to take necessary measures to promote awareness amongst relevant professionals of the need to report activities conducted within their territory or under their jurisdiction or under their control that could constitute a violation of the Convention or related national criminal law. In this context, the Conference recognises the importance of codes of conduct and self-regulatory mechanisms in raising awareness, and calls upon States Parties to support and encourage their development, promulgation and adoption. Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 are all new addressing provision of assistance, SCR 1540 and designation of a national focal point. Article V (cooperation & consultation) Paragraph 24 notes several measures agreed regarding the transmission of CBM information are detailed in paragraph 8 of Part III: Decisions and Recommendations. Paragraph 25 includes as its last sentence restrictive language proposed by the three Depositaries: The information supplied by a State Party must not be further circulated or made available without the express permission of that State Party. Article VI (complaints) Largely developed from the language in 1996. Paragraph 28 is a clearer and stronger expression of what had been said previously in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Article VII (assistance) Largely developed from the language in 1996. Paragraph 34 is developed from the previous paragraph 5 but with the useful explicit addition of OIE, FAO and the IPPC. Paragraph 35 is new pointing out that national preparedness contributes to international capabilities: Article VIII (Geneva Protocol) Paragraph 39 is a clearer call to all States not yet Parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol to ratify or accede to it without delay. Article IX (chemical weapons) Language reflecting the entry into force in 1997 of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Article X (international cooperation) This is largely new clearer language that reflects what was in the language in 1996. Paragraph 56 is new with its reference to the role of the private sector: 56. The Conference recognises the important role of the private sector in the transfer of technology and information and the wide range of organisations within the United Nations system that are already engaged in international cooperation relevant to this Convention. Article XI (amendment) As in 1996, Iran had again formally presented a proposal to amend Article I and the title of the Convention to explicitly include the prohibition of use. The need to resubmit such a proposal in 2006 is far from clear as the Final Declaration in 1996 had in several Articles recorded explicitly that use was prohibited. Article XII (reviews) Paragraph 61 is a clearer statement, with new sub-items (ii) and (iii), of what was previously in paragraphs 1 and 2: 61. The Conference decides that the Seventh Review Conference shall be held in Geneva not later than 2011 and should review the operation of the Convention, taking into account, inter alia:
Article XIII (withdrawal) Clearer expression of the previous language. Article XIV (accession) Similar language to that in 1996. Article XV (languages) Paragraph 66 is new and states that Arabic should be considered an official language in addition to the five languages mentioned in Article XV. Decisions and RecommendationsThis is a new part of the Final Document which had no counterpart in previous Final Documents. This analysis considers in turn each of its topics: Work of the 2003-2005 Meetings of States Parties, Implementation Support Unit, Intersessional Programme 2007-2010, Confidence-Building Measures, and Promotion of Universalisation. Work of the 2003-2005 Meetings of States PartiesParagraph 4 provided a concise yet comprehensive endorsement of the consensus outcome documents. Implementation Support UnitA significant step forward was the establishment of the Implementation Support Unit consisting of three full time staff members in DDA in Geneva to carry out the following tasks in 2007-2011: Administrative support:
Confidence Building Measures:
Intersessional Programme 2007-2010Six topics to be considered by the four annual Meetings of States Parties to be held in 2007 to 2010: two in 2007, two in 2008, one in 2009 and one in 2010. Each Meeting of States Parties will be prepared by a one week Meeting of Experts - a regrettable reduction from the two week Meetings of Experts in 2003 to 2005. Otherwise the arrangements are the same as in 2003 to 2005 with consideration of the work and decisions on any further action being put off until the Seventh Review Conference. The topics to be addressed are:
Confidence-building measuresThis addresses enhanced participation of States Parties in the CBM process primarily through development of an electronic format for the existing CBM forms and provision for electronic submission of the CBMs which shall then, should the State Party submitting them consent, be displayed on a secure website. The ISU shall provide statistics on the level of participation in the CBMs to the annual Meetings of States Parties. States Parties shall designate a national point of contact in charge of preparation of CBMs and provide contact details to the ISU. No consensus could be found on modification, improvement or introduction of new CBMs. Promotion of UniversalisationThe Conference agreed a concerted effort by States Parties is needed to persuade States not Parties to join the Convention and called upon signatories to ratify the Convention and other States not Party to accede to it without delay. Although there had been suggestions during the General Debate that a target should be set for universalisation and the EU proposal to the COW included Ôthe goal of achieving universal membership to the BTWC by the time of the Seventh Review Conference in 2011Õ, there is no target in the agreed language. ReflectionsThe Sixth Review Conference was very successful in its agreement of a Final Declaration with its Article by Article review and in the Decisions and Recommendations section with its elements on the topics: Work of the 2003-2005 Meetings of States Parties, Implementation Support Unit, Intersessional Programme 2007-2010, Confidence-Building Measures, and Promotion of Universalisation. Much of the credit for this success goes to the President, Masood Khan of Pakistan, who successfully kept the Review Conference moving forward rapidly considering both a draft final document as well as language for the cross-cutting issues. It is worth noting that the proposals put forward in advance of the actual Review Conference in advance copies of Working Papers had the best chance of finding consensus as they could be taken into account in preparing for the Review Conference. Proposals put forward during the Conference were generally too late for reflection and consideration. The Latin American group and the EU functioned well in putting forward their ideas prior to the Review Conference enabling them to be given due consideration. The JACKSNNZ group (Japan, Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand) made a good start with a group statement in the General Debate and again in the closing remarks. It is to be hoped that for the Seventh Review Conference, the JACKSNNZ group will propose JACKSNNZ language to the COW and could consider whether to have JACKSNNZ Working Papers available prior to the Review Conference. The Article by Article Final Declaration was successful in that much of the language was stronger and clearer than it had been in previous Final Declarations. Nevertheless, the US unwillingness to allow a clear reference to the value of the previous Final Declarations was a mistake in that far more was potentially lost by failing to explicitly endorse the previous extended understandings as a set than would have been put at risk by adopting language endorsing such understandings. After all, all States Parties want to be perceived as being in support of strengthening the effectiveness and improving the implementation of the Convention. The Implementation Support Unit is a long overdue step forward even though its mandate is so tightly constrained. Nevertheless, there is a real opportunity to move forward and show how valuable such a unit can be. The progress on CBMs was less than had been hoped for. As already noted, this reflected the inability of States Parties due to time pressure to develop a consensus as to how the CBMs should be modified and extended. It is regretted that CBMs are not the subject of an intersessional Meeting of States Parties prepared for by a Meeting of Experts as this would have resulted in a thorough review of the CBMs themselves and of the process. It is also regretted that instead of encouraging wider dissemination of the CBM returns, the Review Conference chose to make them more secretive and less available, so defeating the aim of increasing transparency and building confidence. The intersessional programme for 2007 to 2010 is welcomed. However, it is regretted that the Meeting of Experts was reduced to one week - in a year when two topics are being considered this will effectively limit consideration of each topic to a single day when allowance is made for the opening of the Meeting of Experts and for agreement of the report of the meeting. It is also regretted that explicit language was not adopted on the "recurring" topics for the Meeting of States Parties and that decisions are once again put off until the Review Conference in 2011. The promotion of universalisation is also welcomed even though it lacks any real sense of urgency as it has no specified targets. Although there is a requirement for annual reports it is not explicit that the States Parties will be monitoring progress closely each year and taking further decisions thereon as appropriate. This is really rather short of what could and should have been agreed in a year when it was evident that all those States which have become States Parties to the CWC - which has currently 181 States Parties compared to the 155 States Parties to the BTWC - should also be relatively easy to persuade to adhere to the BTWC. The failure to agree an Action Plan on National Implementation is to be regretted. This largely was due to the rather late proposal by the NAM of a Plan of Action on Implementation of Article X and the insufficient time during the Review Conference to reach agreement on what could be agreed. Although the NAM draft Action Plan needed to be sharpened and focused onto activities of particular relevance to the Convention, there appeared to be nothing particularly contentious in the concepts underlying either of the Action Plans and it might have been wiser to keep them apart rather than trying to combine them into an Action Plan on Comprehensive Implementation. Nevertheless, although the Review Conference could have made even more progress than it did, the President in his concluding remarks rightly commended the States Parties for their achievements in the outcomes that they had agreed at the Review Conference. Ed. Note: A more comprehensive report by Prof. Pearson on this Sixth Review Conferencce has been published in the CBW Conventions Bulletin, Issue No. 74, December 2006. Our thanks to Prof. Pearson for his time and effort at ensuring the details of the BTWC Reviews are well noted and documented. His capabilities in this arena are very unique and are based on his many years of experience at the very highest levels. To watch this gentleman take meticulous notes and also ask meaningful, insightful questions at the end of each and every presentation, is to observe a true professional.
|
|
For the Professional in Government and Industry with an interest in Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense, Disarmament and Verification; Emergency and Disaster Medical Planning; Industrial Health and Safety; and Environmental Protection copyright©2007, ASA Inc. All rights reserved. |