 |
Six-Year-Old CWC Passes Some Tests and Fails Others
The United States deposited its instrument of ratification for
the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on April 25, 1997, following
months of wrangling over the treaty between the Clinton administration
and Republican lawmakers. Opponents’ concerns included the
possibility that violations might be undetectable, states with chemical
weapons would remain outside the regime, the financial costs might
be high, and inspections might threaten legitimate U.S. industry.
Proponents countered that the world would be a safer place without
at least 70,000 tonnes of toxic gas lying around, creating an environmental
nightmare and increasing the risk of chemical weapons proliferation
and warfare.
More than five years later, as CWC states-parties prepare for the
treaty’s first review conference starting April 28, those arguments
are at the crux of the ongoing debate over the accord’s progress.
The CWC bans chemical weapons and requires their destruction within
a specified period of time. The treaty, which entered into force
April 29, 1997, contains verification measures and penalties to
ensure compliance. It currently has 151 member states, and another
25 states have signed but not yet ratified the treaty. Eighteen
states have not signed.
By some measures, the CWC has been a successful treaty. The vast
majority of the world has agreed to abide by the treaty’s terms.
Four states—India, Russia, South Korea, and the United States—that
have declared chemical weapons stockpiles are working to destroy
them. The deadline for destroying all their Category 1—the
most dangerous—chemical weapons is April 2007, although states
can request an extension until April 2012.
Russia, with the largest chemical weapons stockpile, began destroying
its Category 1 weapons at Gorny in the Saratov region in December
2002. The United States has destroyed 22.9 percent of its Category
1 weapons under the treaty. India had destroyed 20 percent of its
Category 1 arsenal by the end of 2001 and appeared to be on schedule
to meet the final CWC deadline, according to the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). South Korea finished
destroying 1 percent of its Category 1 weapons in 2000, and the
OPCW granted the country an extension on the 20 percent deadline
until April 2003.
As of late February 2003, the OPCW had conducted 1,359 total inspections
in 51 states-parties, including inspections of chemical weapons
production and destruction facilities, abandoned chemical weapons,
old chemical weapons, and chemical weapons storage facilities. Around
6, 700 tonnes of chemical agent have been destroyed, according to
the OPCW.
By other standards, however, the CWC has encountered many problems.
Although many states have joined the regime, 18 states have neither
signed nor ratified the treaty. Several of these states, including
Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea, are considered threats to U.S.
security. Several Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt, have
refused to sign the treaty until Israel signs the nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.
In addition to the states outside the treaty’s restrictions,
U.S. officials have indicated that some CWC states-parties, such
as Iran, are violating the treaty and developing chemical weapons.
Despite concerns about violations by states-parties, no state has
ever called on the OPCW to conduct challenge inspections. Under
the CWC, a state-party that suspects another party of violating
the treaty may request that the OPCW conduct a challenge inspection
of the suspected site. There are various reasons that might explain
why states have not called for challenge inspections, including
concern over the political risks. Some analysts have expressed concern
that, without use of challenge inspections, the CWC will not be
robustly implemented and verified.
Although many chemical weapons have been destroyed, there have
been some significant delays. The CWC includes four incremental
deadlines for destroying 1, 20, 45, and 100 percent of the stockpiles.
Russia has already missed the first two deadlines, and it has asked
the Conference of the States-Parties—the CWC decision-making
body—for extensions on all four of the incremental deadlines.
The conference granted Russia extensions on its first two deadlines
but has not yet decided whether to grant extensions on the next
two deadlines.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Defense approved a revised
schedule in September 2001 under which the United States would also
miss the 2007 deadline by two years. The United States has not yet
asked the CWC states-parties to extend its deadline in hopes that
plans to accelerate the demilitarization process will be successful.
Meanwhile, the OPCW has faced its own challenges, including serious
financial difficulties that forced OPCW officials to cut back on
inspections significantly. Different parties cited different reasons
for the financial problems. The United States blamed former OPCW
Director-General José Bustani—who led the organization
from its inception—for the situation; Bustani said the problems
resulted from an inadequate budget imposed by the United States
and from “chronic underfunding.”
The argument and other issues snowballed into a U.S. campaign that
began in January 2002 to remove Bustani. Supported by several countries,
the United States won a vote that removed Bustani in April 2002.
CWC states-parties chose Argentinean Rogelio Pfirter as the new
OPCW head in July 2002. The OPCW continues to suffer from financial
difficulties, but management and cooperation with states-parties
appear to be improving.
The states-parties are now preparing for their first review conference,
which will take place in The Hague from April 28 to May 9, 2003.
The CWC calls on states-parties to meet every five years to review
“the operation” of the convention. Some of the key issues
states-parties are likely to discuss include challenge inspections,
Russia’s destruction delays, and whether to reaffirm the treaty’s
importance. Developing countries might also call for discussion
of Article XI, which encourages trade among states-parties of chemical-related
goods for peaceful purposes; export controls is often a point of
contention between the developing and developed countries.
|
