BWC Conference Suspended After Controversial End
An international conference on the Biological Weapons
Convention (BWC) was suspended on its last day, December 7, after
the United States caused an uproar by proposing the termination
of the existing diplomatic process to strengthen compliance with
the treaty. The meeting will reconvene next November to work on
its final declaration—a politically binding measure agreed
to by consensus.
Many had hoped that the conference would approve a
protocol, which had been under negotiation by a body known as the
Ad Hoc Group, to strengthen compliance with the convention. But
the protocol talks collapsed in July when the United States rejected
the Ad Hoc Group chairman’s draft of—and any further negotiations
on—the protocol.
Washington made its most recent controversial move
right before the conference was due to wrap up, calling for a formal
end to the Ad Hoc Group. The United States was the only country
to favor terminating the group’s mandate.
Washington proposed that, instead of reconvening the
Ad Hoc Group, BWC member states meet annually in a new body—which
could convene expert groups after each meeting—to assess the
implementation of any measures agreed to by the conference and to
consider new measures for strengthening the convention. The BWC
bans biological weapons but contains no verification provisions.
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security John Bolton, who headed the U.S. delegation, told reporters
that he made the proposal so late in the conference because “this
is the last day, and that’s when you negotiate. We had foreshadowed
for weeks that this was coming.”
However, an official in Geneva said that the eleventh-hour
U.S. proposal was the first time Washington publicly made it clear
that it wanted to terminate the group’s mandate. A European
official added that the proposal came “out of the blue”
and that no other delegation had any warning. The United States
did not even mention its plans at a meeting of Western countries
held earlier that day.
Both officials said that almost all other countries
blamed the United States for the conference’s breakup. “Many
people were very, very angry at what the U.S. did. Even diplomats
who had, in the past, supported the U.S. could no longer support
them at all. [The U.S. proposal] just killed any chance at agreement
on a final declaration,” the Geneva official said.
Another European official said that Bolton “clearly
knew what the reaction [to his proposal] would be.” Not bringing
up the idea at an earlier time was “treacherous” and “sabotage.”
At the outset of the conference, Bolton named states
that Washington believes are not complying with the BWC. (See
ACT, December 2001.) The United States later insisted
that the conference’s final declaration refer to the problem
of noncompliance. But some countries, led by Iran, objected to the
U.S.-proposed language on this topic.
Other contentious issues included a Nonaligned Movement
proposal for the establishment of a committee to consult on, monitor,
and review trade and cooperation among states-parties and a pitch
by some hard-line nonaligned states for a mechanism to review and
overturn denials of requests for biotechnology transfers. Western
states opposed these measures, just has they did during the protocol
negotiations, where these ideas were also raised.
A State Department official said that certain European
Union (EU) states and the Nonaligned Movement “knew the conference
was in trouble based on noncompliance [and] based on transfer”
and contended that they “used this as the reason to shut the
conference down and blame it on us.” Why they did this is “puzzling,”
the official said, adding that the U.S. proposal to end the Ad Hoc
Group was “not the major issue that was blocking the conference.”
“The major issue that was going to block the final document…and
that dominated the entire conference was noncompliance,” the
official asserted.
The official said that the United States was surprised
by the European Union’s reaction to the U.S. proposal and that
the EU “seriously misrepresented” the circumstances surrounding
the conference’s breakup. The official contended that a similar
view was shared by a non-EU European delegate, who said that his
country was shocked that the EU was blaming the conference’s
breakup on Washington. The delegate said, “You have been run
over by the EU train,” the official recounted.
Despite the serious roadblocks encountered during
the conference, the delegates largely agreed upon a number of measures
to include in the final declaration. These included calling on BWC
states to support the World Health Organization’s disease surveillance
and control, criminalize BWC violations with national legislation,
institute a code of conduct for scientists working with pathogenic
microorganisms, and contribute to an international team that would
provide assistance with disease outbreaks. These ideas were included
in a package of U.S. proposals laid out on the first day of the
conference, November 19, and most were also proposed by other delegations.
Even though the conference was suspended in disarray,
the State Department official deemed the conference a “success”
for the United States. The official said that it was an “opportunity”
for Washington to emphasize its concern about compliance with the
BWC and that the conference’s focus on this issue “advanced
our interests and changed the terms of the debate from one of process
to one of substance.”
Looking ahead, one of the European officials said
that states would use the next year to cool off but noted that European-U.S.
cooperation on the BWC will be “very difficult” because
the coalition of Western states is now “effectively split.”
The “main problem is the United States doesn’t support
any meaningful follow-up work to elaborate ideas or negotiate them.
... Until there is some flexibility in the U.S. position, we’re
basically stuck,” the official said.
|
