Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

BWC Protocol Bulletin, August 15, 2001

By Jenni Rissanen

AHG Debates Mandate

In the wake of the US rejection of efforts to elaborate a protocol for the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC), the Ad Hoc Group (AHG) of states parties continues to draft its report, searching for language to describe the current situation as well as formulations for the section of the Group's mandate.

The backward-looking part of the report is now finalized, covering developments from 1996 to the 23rd AHG session (April 23-May 11, 2001). On Monday (August 13), the Chair, Ambassador Tibor Tóth of Hungary, divided the outstanding issues into two parts: the mandate-related paragraphs, and the paragraphs describing developments in the current, 24th session (July 23-August 17), the last before the Fifth BWC Review Conference (November 19-December 7). He suggested the AHG first tackle the formulations on the mandate. By Wednesday afternoon, the AHG was still stuck on this topic, although reportedly close to agreement.

Tóth circulated a proposal on the mandate-related section on August 13. The in-room paper set out a one-paragraph formulation stating that the AHG "was unable to fulfil its mandate by completing its work and submitting its report including a draft of a legally-binding instrument to the States Parties to the Convention. Thus the mandate remains valid". Some delegations had some immediate comments, including the European Union (EU), which had reportedly suggested alternative wording for the first sentence. It is understood the EU would prefer to say the AHG had "not yet" fulfilled its mandate, therefore conveying an expectation that the task was yet to be done. In its statement on Monday, the EU had stressed that "the objective of the [AHG] as defined in its mandate...retains all of its relevance". The Union believed the "best means to achieve this objective" was the "continuation of the work of the [AHG] beyond the 5th Review Conference". It noted, however, that the modalities of the Group's work "cannot be the same as those...followed to date". In this context, the EU said it "stands ready to examine with interest concrete proposals from [the United States] part, which can be achieved in the framework of the of the Convention, and which could help us out of the deadlock, in due time before the 5th Review Conference". South Africa has attached great importance to the text under discussion. It is understood not to have been content with the EU's formulation, believing that this, as well as the Chair's proposal, left the 'door wide open' on the AHG's future. Instead, South Africa is believed to be pressing for tighter language, not wanting to leave the future of the AHG open-ended but determine what will happen next with greater precision.

Not everyone, however, was ready to comment on the Chair's proposal on Monday. A number of delegations asked for more time to reflect on the proposal. In addition, some Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) delegations, including Cuba and Iran, had reportedly shown interest in seeing the missing parts of the report before making their minds up on the Chair's proposal on the mandate, thus creating a link between the descriptive part of the report - in which they want to single out the US rejection as the reason for not concluding the negotiations - and the mandate-related section.

The AHG convened again on Tuesday. The Chair had redrafted his proposal based on the comments received the day before. Taking into account the EU's proposal, the new wording read that the AHG "has not yet been able to fulfil its mandate", ending with a reaffirmation that "The mandate remains valid". A reference to the 1994 Special Conference has also been added.

But matters were by now moving fast. Wednesday afternoon's informal meeting saw yet another proposal by the Chair. Drawing from suggestions by the Americans, Iranians and others, and explaining why the AHG was not able to fulfil its mandate, the latest version (August 15) now reads: "The Ad Hoc Group has not been able to fulfil its mandate, since by the end of the twenty-fourth session it was not able to complete its work and submit its report, to be adopted by consensus, including a draft of a legally binding instrument to the States Parties to the Convention. This mandate, as agreed by the Special Conference in 1994 and set out in paragraph 6.1. remains in force and determines any future work of the Ad Hoc Group."

The new proposal prompted a number of suggestions from the floor. The EU for instance still wants to hold onto the word "yet" - or "to date" - in the first sentence. The United States, however, holds a different view, and has additionally suggested the deletion of all reference to the mandate, wanting the paragraph to merely state that the AHG was unable to complete its work and to submit its report, including a legally-binding instrument, to the States Parties of the Convention. In addition to the current text, both Iran and the EU suggested additional forward-looking language. The EU has suggested that the following sentence be added: "The AHG invited the States Parties to the Convention to consider further action with a view to fulfilling its mandate, which still remains valid." Iran wants to invite the States Parties to "consider this report and determine future work of the Ad Hoc Group." It further wants the report to clearly spell out that "the Ad Hoc Group shall continue its work to fulfil its mandate". South Africa requested more time consider the Chair's new formulation.

The AHG will convene again on Thursday afternoon to continue finalising the mandate-related language and possibly begin discussing the forward-looking elements. In addition, there is still the open question of the description of the 24th session. This is likely to prove stormy. While some delegations can be expected to argue that this matter has already been dealt with in the paragraph currently under discussion - stating simply that the AHG was not able conclude its work by the end of the 24th session - others might continue to press for a separate and more detailed description of the events in this session. With all this still unresolved, the AHG is on a tight schedule to conclude its report.

Jenni Rissanen is the Acronym Institute's analyst monitoring the BWC AHG Protocol negotiations in Geneva.

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.