|
|
The December 2008 Meeting of the States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventionby Graham S. PearsonAs reported in the ASA Newsletter 07-1 (January 2007), the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) in November/December 2006 agreed an intersessional programme of annual meetings to be held each year from 2008 up to the Seventh Review Conference in 2011. The second of these annual Meetings of States Parties was held in Geneva under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Georgi Avramchev of the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia on 1 to 5 December 2008 to discuss, and promote common understanding and effective action on:
The Meeting was prepared for by a one week Meeting of Experts (MX/2008) held on 18 to 22 August 2008 which produced a report (BWC/MSP/2008/MX/3 dated 8 September 2007 - this and other official BWC documentation is available at http://www.opbw.org and at http://www.unog.ch/bwc) to which was attached as Annex I a paper prepared by the Chairman listing the considerations, lessons, perspectives, recommendations, conclusions, and proposals drawn from the presentations, statements, working papers and interventions on the topics under discussion at the Meeting. As at the Sixth Review Conference and at the 2007 Meetings and the 2008 Meeting of Experts, Richard Guthrie in association with the BioWeapons Prevention Project provided daily reports on the 2008 Meeting of States Parties that were made available in hard copy to the delegations as well as electronically. These reports can be found at http://www.bwpp.org/2008MSP/ MSP2008Resources.html. Preparation for the Meeting of States Parties, 1 to 5 December 2008The Chairman wrote to the States Parties on 10 October 2008 to say that he had consolidated these proposals and ideas, removing duplications and merging similar concepts, to produce a synthesis paper. This 7 page document was subsequently issued, prior to the Meeting of States Parties, as MSP/2008/L.1 dated 31 October 2008. He went on to add that it is important that we take the opportunity to add value to the work done at the Meeting of Experts. Other PreparationsOn the weekend before the Meeting of States Parties, there was a workshop in Geneva of the Pugwash Study Group on the Implementation of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions entitled "Moving towards the Seventh Review Conference." About 55 participants from 20 countries had a very useful and intense exchange of views which stated by considering the intersessional programme and then moved on to considering preparations for the Seventh Review Conference including the convergence of chemistry and biology, preparing for a successful outcome, improving the CBM regime as well as strengthening the effectiveness and improving the implementation of the Convention. Opening Plenary SessionThe Meeting of States Parties began on Monday 1 December 2008 in plenary session when the Chairman, Ambassador Georgi Avramchev, welcomed the representatives from the States Parties. He then invited Mr. Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Director-General, UN Office at Geneva, to make a statement on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon. This statement started by noting that; You meet at the halfway point of the intersessional work programme, in advance of the next review conference in 2011. I am encouraged to know that the programme has been inclusive and productive, and that you have developed understandings on improving national implementation and regional cooperation. I urge you to maintain that spirit this week as you continue work on biosafety, biosecurity, oversight, education and awareness-raising, as well as next year, ... These efforts are crucially important in strengthening barriers against biological weapons and bioterrorism, and in addressing other threats to public health, agriculture, economic development and the environment. The statement went on to note that Governments alone cannot confront the risks posed by biological weapons. That is why the intersessional programme has also involved international organizations such as the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, Interpol, regional bodies, professional and scientific associations, academia and commercial industry. He concluded by looking ahead towards the Seventh Review Conference by saying: I also urge you to begin thinking about additional steps that could be taken at the next review conference. You might consider how to increase membership, and how to further develop the implementation support unit. You might also explore the potential for further multilateral cooperation in the fields of verification, compliance and enforcement of the Convention. The Chairman thanked him for his statement and then moved on to business. 97 States Parties to the Convention participated in the Meeting of States Parties which was one more than at the Meeting of Experts. Five Signatory States participated and one State neither Party nor Signatory, Israel, was granted Observer status. Five international organizations were granted observer status: the European Commission, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol, the World Health Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health. 17 Non-Governmental Organizations were present. The Convention now has 163 States Parties and 13 Signatory States (see BWC/MSP/2008/INF.3 together with the accession of the Cook Islands announced by the UK on Friday 5 December 2008). There were about 490 participants at the Meeting of States Parties of which 428 came from States Parties including some 134 participants from capitals. This compared well with the participation at the Meeting of Experts in August 2008 when there were just over 500 participants of which 365 came from States Parties including over 160 from capitals. The Chairman then made his introductory remarks by saying that I am eager to ensure that the outcome of our work this year makes a lasting contribution to the efforts of States Parties - and other relevant actors - to take practical measures to strengthen the Convention and help ensure the safe and secure development of the peaceful applications of biological science and technology. He went on to say that I believe that we would make a significant and practical contribution to fulfilling the objectives of the Convention is we could develop a report which, for example:
General DebateThe Chairman then moved on to open the General Debate. 24 States Parties made statements: Cuba (on behalf of the Group of the Non-Aligned Movement and other States), France (on behalf of the European Union and the candidate countries Turkey, Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, as well as Iceland, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia), Canada (on behalf of the JACKSNNZ group (Japan, Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand)), China, Turkey, United States, Germany, Russian Federation, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Iran, India, South Africa, Pakistan, Chile, Australia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Libya Morocco Nigeria Algeria, Brazil and Kenya. One intergovernmental organization, INTERPOL, also made a presentation on the INTERPOL Bioterrorism Prevention Programme in the General Debate. The Chairman then suspended the afternoon session in order to reopen the meeting in informal session to enable NGOs to make short statements. Statements were made by the following nine NGOs:
Working Sessions, 2-4 December 2008The meeting then went into closed session to consider the two topics as well as universalization and the ISU. The Chairman's report on universalization (BWC/MSP/2008/4 dated 28 November 2008) noted that a total of 33 states are not party to the Convention. Of these, eight states are reported to be well advanced in the ratification process, and a further three are reported to have begun the process. The eight States reported to be well advanced in the ratification process are Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Mozambique, Myanmar, and Tuvalu whilst the three reported to have begun the process are C™te d'Ivoire, Namibia, and Nepal. This report of some ten pages provides much more detail than previous reports on universalization and will provide a useful baseline against which further progress can be reported in 2009 and subsequent years. The Report of the ISU (BWC/MSP/2008/3 dated 28 November 2008) noted in regard to CBMs that As of 1 November 2008, 60 states (37 per cent of States Parties) had submitted CBMs to cover the calendar year 2007, down slightly from the total of 65 last yearÉ. Four States Parties submitted CBMs for the first time: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Indonesia and Kazakhstan. Thirteen States Parties which submitted CBMs in 2007 have not yet done so in 2008. The information provided in Annex II to the ISU report shows that the 13 States Parties which submitted CBMs in 2007, which have not submitted CBMs in 2008, were Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, India, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, San Merino, Senegal, Serbia, South Africa and Tunisia. Outcome of the Meeting of States Parties6 Working Papers were submitted: two on behalf of the European Union (WP.1 and WP.4), one on behalf of the NAM (WP.2) and one by Germany (WP.3), Pakistan (WP.5) and Switzerland (WP.6). The EU working papers addressed Dual-Use Awareness and Oversight under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013) [WP.1] and the European Initiatives for universalization of the Biological Weapons Convention [WP.4]. The NAM working paper addressed Capacity Building and Promotion of International Cooperation in the Field of Biosafety and Biosecurity [WP.2] whilst the one by Germany addressed the draft IASB Code of Conduct [WP.3], the one by Pakistan addressed Perspective on Oversight, Codes of Conduct, Education and Awareness Raising [WP.5] and that by Switzerland addressed preparing the Ground for the CBM Content Debate: What Information Builds Confidence? [WP.6]. The agreed version of the Final Report included contained 12 paragraphs addressing the two topics considered in 2008 with the first one setting the scene
The next five paragraphs addressed biosafety and biosecurity setting out their understanding of the meaning of these terms in the context of the Convention:
before considering how biosafety and biosecurity might be strengthened. Then moving on to the second topic of oversight, education and codes, a further five paragraphs addressed these.
In addition to the substantive paragraphs outlined above, the final report contained a paragraph on universalisation and another on the Implementation Support Unit. During the final session, the UK announced the Cook Islands had completed their ratification of the Convention bringing the number of States Parties to 163. The meeting then went on to adopt the report of the Meeting of States Parties. The final item was to decide on the Chairman for the topic in 2009 and for the dates of the Meetings in 2009. The Chairman for the 2009 meetings nominated by the Western Group is Ambassador Marius Grinius of Canada. The Meeting of Experts will be held on 24-28 August 2009 and the Meeting of States Parties on 7-11 December 2009. The topic for discussion in 2009 is:
Ambassador Grinius thanked the States Parties and said that he would be consulting widely in the New Year with a view to developing a work programme for 2009. The Chairman then closed the Meeting of States Parties by making some concluding remarks: I think the work we have done this year has considerably advanced the implementation of the Convention, through promoting effective action on biosafety and biosecurity, and on oversight, education, awareness-raising and codes of conduct. He went on to add that One highlight of our work this year has been the degree of involvement of the scientific community and also that I am pleased too with the progress we have made with engagement with industryÉ. I encourage States Parties to continue to develop links with the scientific community and industry, to give due recognition and credit to their efforts to support the aims of the Convention, and to encourage them to build on and expand these efforts in cooperation with the States Parties. The Meeting was then closed. ReflectionsThe Meeting of States Parties with over 490 participants had almost as many as the over 500 at the Meeting of Experts in August 2008. The general climate at the Meeting of States Parties was again very positive and constructive and it was evident that the Meeting of States Parties had indeed achieved the aim set out by the Chairman in his opening remarks of achieving refinement, structure and focus. The outcome as recorded in the 12 substantive paragraphs in the Final Report was more focused and set out useful concepts relating to biosafety, biosecurity, oversight, education, awareness-raising and codes of conduct. It was, however, evident that the emphasis throughout was that the lead should be taken by national authorities and national governments in accordance with national circumstances with care being taken that there should be no 'one size fits all' event though it should be apparent that national standards can and should be harmonized to the extent possible internationally thereby maximising the benefits for peace and security for all States Parties. The substantive paragraphs included a useful clarification of the terms 'biosafety' and 'biosecurity' although constrained to within the context of the Convention - and provided with a footnote to the effect that This constitutes an understanding and is not a definition of biosafety and biosecurity. It is not binding on States Parties. This constraint and definition shows an unwillingness by some States Parties to maximize the benefits from working together with all the organizations concerned with biosafety and biosecurity. A very useful step forward was shown by a number of States Parties and by the message from the UN Secretary-General looking ahead to the Seventh Review Conference in 2011. It was recognized that the States Parties were halfway through the intersessional process - and that it was timely to start thinking ahead now to what might be considered at the Seventh Review Conference. Of particular value, are the steps being taken by Switzerland to focus attention now on how best the Confidence-Building Measures might be strengthened and made more effective at the Seventh Review Conference. As Switzerland correctly pointed out in their working paper (WP. 6): First and foremost, it is important that States Parties have a common understanding of the challenges ahead. Discussions at the 2006 Review Conference showed how difficult it was to agree on solutions during an already packed agenda. In 2006 it was clear that there was no common understanding of what the challenges with the CBM mechanism were. Switzerland has clearly appreciated that for progress to be made in improving the CBM mechanism, it is necessary now to prepare the groundwork for its consideration at the Seventh Review Conference. The seminar on CBMs held during the Meeting of States Parties with the support of the French Government shows that other States Parties are interested in achieving an improved CBM process at the Seventh Review Conference and it is to be hoped that such States Parties will take the opportunity at subsequent intersessional meetings to submit working papers on how they would like to see the CBM process improved. In addition, the Swiss working papers at both the Meeting of States Parties and at the Meeting of Experts in August provide an excellent model which should be followed by any State Party wishing to see substantive progress made at the Seventh Review Conference as new ideas put forward at the Review Conference itself are unlikely to find consensus. It was also noted that several statements referred to the importance of strengthening the effectiveness and improving the implementation of the Convention. The statement delivered on behalf of the UN Secretary-General specifically encouraged States Parties to start thinking ahead now to the Seventh Review Conference and said: I also urge you to begin thinking about additional steps that could be taken at the next review conference... You might also explore the potential for further multilateral cooperation in the fields of verification, compliance and enforcement of the Convention. It is notable that some 9 States Parties (Cuba (on behalf of the NAM), Turkey, Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan. Chile, Algeria and Brazil Iran, India, Morocco, Russia, Algeria and Pakistan) out of the 24 who made statements in the General Debate referred to the importance of a legally binding compliance mechanism. The statement made by Russia was of particular interest: With the Seventh Review Conference to be held in 2011, the substantive preparations for it to be a success should start now. Real practical measures to strengthen the role of the BWC as a reliable barrier against the development, production and use of biological and toxin weapons are to be developed. We have no doubt in doing so one must make the full use of the valuable experience accumulated in the past by VEREX and the Ad Hoc Group. However, seven years have elapsed since the suspension of multilateral negotiations to develop a legally binding instrument of verification. All this time scientific knowledge has been rapidly advancing. If the future verification mechanism is to encompass all relevant S & T, then this work, vitally important for the success of the Convention, ought to be resumed at the earliest. The emerging favourable environment may encourage us as we make this new attempt. We are aware of the still circulating opinion that the BWC is inherently unverifiable, and the adoption of an ineffectual verification protocol will create a false sense of security without solving the problem of monitoring compliance. One may recall that the same objection had been raised in the past regarding the Chemical Weapons Convention, which, in the assessment of all its States parties, possessing powerful verification provisions successfully faces the challenges of the prohibition of chemical weapons. It is understandable that verification in multilateral arms control and disarmament may not fully guarantee compliance. However, it is difficult to deny that these verifiable treaties and conventions are the cornerstones of international security and ensure predictability, stability and strengthen confidence among participating nations. We are convinced that the BWC with verification is better off than without it. It is our firm belief that effective non-discriminatory verification mechanism is feasible and as such should be developed and adopted. The language was much more constructive than in previous statements which had appeared to suggest a resumption of the negotiations from where they had finished. It is very much to be hoped that the States Parties which have expressed a view about the importance of effectively strengthening and improving the implementation of the Convention will follow the example of Switzerland and submit working papers to prepare the ground for the debate at the Seventh Review Conference. It is, however, not a topic that should only be considered by the States Parties which have made recent statements. It should also be considered by those States Parties who have long demonstrated their support for strengthening and enhancing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention - such as the European Union, the JACKSNNZ group and the group of Latin American states. Ideally such a group of States Parties could develop a Working Paper for submission at the forthcoming intersessional meetings or alternatively this could be done by one or more individual States Parties - such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, South Africa, Sweden or Switzerland. The sooner that such a Working Paper is put forward the better as it will enable other States Parties to consider the concept and for ideas to be formulated and developed. Overall the Meeting of States Parties had a successful outcome that continued the momentum created by the successful outcome of the Sixth Review Conference and it usefully started to look forward towards the Seventh Review Conference in 2011. It is to be hoped that States Parties will follow the example of Switzerland and submit working papers in 2009 setting out their ideas as to how the key issues to be considered at the Seventh Review Conference can best be addressed. This will help to ensure a successful outcome in 2011. [A more comprehensive report is available at: http://www. sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/bulletin/CBWCB%2081.pdf] Editor's Note: Our thanks to Prof. Dr. Graham Pearson for his, as always, thoughful analysis of the current state of the BTWC, this particular intersessional Meeting of States Parties, and the preparations for the 2011 Seventh Review Conference. |
copyright©2009, ASA Inc. All rights reserved. |