Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

BWC Review Conference Bulletin, December 9

Anger After The Ambush: Review Conference Suspended After US Asks for AHG's Termination

By Jenni Rissanen

The Fifth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) was dramatically suspended on the last day, Friday December 7, after the United States proposed the termination of the Ad Hoc Group (AHG) in charge of negotiating a verification Protocol to the Convention. The proposal was greeted with general shock and anger, not only because of its controversial content but also due to its unexpected introduction less than two hours before the Conference was scheduled to end, thus jeopardizing the entire meeting and the progress made towards agreement on a Final Declaration. To prevent outright failure, states parties decided to adjourn the Conference until November 11-22 next year, allowing a year's 'cooling-off' period.

The unprecedented suspension came early on Friday evening, after a day of intense formal and informal consultations on outstanding issues. Delegates had also worked until midnight on Thursday, going through the first draft of the Final Declaration issued that morning. The read-through had revealed that, in addition to the two major unresolved issues of non-compliance and follow-up to the Conference, a number of smaller matters required further attention. These concerned references in the draft Declaration to the recent anthrax letters; transfers and export controls; guidelines on penal legislation; retaliation with biological weapons (BW); a Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) proposal for a Cooperation Committee; and a European Union (EU) proposal for establishing an investigation mechanism. Although the Drafting Committee continued its work on these areas on Friday morning, progress seemed to be slowing down. A number of delegates claimed the United States was being 'difficult' on some of the minor issues, reopening matters thought to have been already resolved by the Facilitators. They further complained that the US was unresponsive to requests for clarification and explanation.

In the meantime, informal consultations were continuing on non-compliance and follow-up. With regard to the former, some negotiating room seemed to opening. The United States, which had earlier proposed that the Final Declaration ask non-compliant countries to "terminate their offensive biological weapons programmes and fully comply with their obligations", on Friday morning introduced a counter-suggestion to the compromise language proffered by the Chair of the Drafting Committee, Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan (see BWC Rev.Con. Bulletin, December 6). The new US proposal sought to have states parties express "grave concern that compliance with Articles I, II, and III has been subject to doubt in certain cases". This language was informally discussed with key countries throughout the day, with encouraging progress reported.

The whole question of non-compliance, however, which had been described throughout the Conference as a 'make or break' issue, was suddenly rendered irrelevant when the US delegation made its explosive suggestion with regard to the AHG, whose long labours on drafting a Protocol stalled in late July when the US rejected both the Chair's compromise text and further negotiating efforts.

The bombshell was dropped as follows. The US proposed that the Conference decide to hold annual meetings - a widely endorsed concept - starting in November 2002, to "consider and assess progress by states parties in implementing the new measures adopted at the Fifth Review Conference", and to "consider new measures or mechanisms for effectively strengthening the BWC". It further proposed that the annual meetings might decide to establish expert groups, although such groups would not be allowed to "negotiate measures" on the above matters. In exchange for this follow-up mechanism, however, the US demanded the termination of the AHG's mandate. The demand sent shockwaves through the room, with countries from all regional groups expressing dismay and disappointment over this surprise attack on the AHG, jeopardizing the Conference at the eleventh hour. The question of the AHG had been, as one observer put it, 'a Sleeping Beauty' at the Conference: all countries had learned the bitter lessons from the last session of the AHG, when the Group was unable even to agree on its procedural report, so they understood that unreasonable demands on the Final Declaration would only lead to the Conference's failure.

The Drafting Committee's meeting was suspended so delegations could convene in their regional groups. EU delegates were reportedly so upset that they boycotted the Western Group meeting and gave priority to an EU meeting. It is understood the US delegation was confronted in the Western Group by its closest allies, deeply offended they had been given no prior indication of US intentions. Overall, the heated corridor discussions revealed a strong sense of 'betrayal' and a feeling that the US action was a deliberate last-minute attempt to derail the Conference. In doing so, however, it has succeeded in turning all other states parties against it.

Following the group meetings and a short meeting of the General Committee, a consensus decision was reached to adjourn the Conference until November 11, 2002. The Conference then adopted an interim procedural report in a short plenary meeting, thereby putting an end to proceedings. Suspending the Conference was generally considered the only wise option available, given the impossibility of reaching agreement in the acrimonious atmosphere generated by the US move.

To read a full analysis of the Fifth Review Conference, please see Disarmament Diplomacy No. 62, due to be published in January.

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

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.