| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
The Ad Hoc Group (AHG) of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC) began its twenty-second session in Geneva on Monday, February 12, 2001. Statements during the first day proved that the AHG is faced with a significant challenge in completing the negotiations on a verification protocol to the BWC on time, before the Fifth BWC Review Conference scheduled for November 19-December 7 this year.
Ambassador Tibor Tóth of Hungary, the Chair of the Group, is under pressure from different sides on the introduction of a so-called 'vision text', the Chair's proposal of what the end product should look like. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that with only nine weeks of negotiations this year, a breakthrough enabling agreement cannot be reached without a major political push and some vigorous and efficient negotiations. While many feel that introducing the vision text is essential to stimulate such negotiations, the heated exchanges during the first day of the negotiations showed that some important countries hold a diametrically opposed view.
Tóth opened the twenty-second session of the AHG by stating that the Group needed to have a collective understanding of how, and through which mechanism, it can complete the negotiations before the Review Conference. In his view, the main working procedures used thus far would not in themselves allow the AHG to complete its deliberations on time. Tóth reminded delegations that concluding the task included not only finalizing the text, but also drafting the AHG's report, considering issues relating to the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) for the future organisation, as well as convening a Special Conference to adopt the report, all before November.
Tóth said he would continue to hold bilateral consultations with delegations, at an average frequency of eight meetings per day. In addition, he had distributed a new set of written elements that reflected the results of these consultations, known also as Tóth's 'building blocks', further to the first set he had distributed at the November session. Turning to what he expected of the negotiators, Tóth said delegations could no longer expect others to move while they stood still - every delegation would have to move from their long-standing positions towards a middle ground. Tóth stressed that the task ahead was not one of devising a new treaty but strengthening existing obligations to prevent deliberate disease. He asked all delegations "to deliver on their promises of cooperation and compromise".
South Africa's Peter Goosen took the floor to say that his country believed that the method of negotiation that had been adopted previously had taken the AHG as far as it could go. Believing that time was "not only short but...of essence", Goosen argued that the moment had now arrived for a new methodology to be adopted, and for the Chair to issue his 'best guestimate' of the compromises that should be considered as the basis for concluding the negotiations: a complete vision text through which delegations could see the full picture. This was the only way to create the necessary new momentum and meet the AHG's mandate. Goosen asked Tóth to distribute the text "as soon as possible before the end" of this session. New Zealand associated itself with South Africa's call, as did Norway and the Netherlands. Ambassador Chris Sanders of the Netherlands added that he got the impression that "some us here play with the concept of deadlines as it was something we can freely decide upon", stressing that the AHG had a mandate from a higher authority.
Italy welcomed Tóth's building blocks and hoped that they be followed by a consolidated text "from which to take the final leap". It also stressed that the negotiations were the only on-going real disarmament negotiations, so failure "open or disguised" would send "a very negative and worrying signal to the international community" on its commitment to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.
In a slightly more moderate call for a vision text, Ambassador Leslie Luck, who is Friend of the Chair on Legal Issues, said Australia also looked forward to seeing the full picture, but believed the timing for the vision text was best judged by Tóth. Agreeing with Tóth, Luck said he also believed the AHG's process and dynamic was starting to get "just a little stale and outlive its purpose" and that Australia was ready for any kind of negotiation style that suited the Group.
In an angry response to these calls, and perhaps particularly the call by a fellow-member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), South Africa, Ambassador Ali Ashgar Soltanieh of the Islamic Republic of Iran sent a strong message to both Tóth and other delegations in the room. Soltanieh fiercely rejected their approach, saying that the introduction of the vision text would "endanger the friendly and cooperative atmosphere" and kill the negotiations and the Protocol. He warned that such calls would only compel Iran, and possibly others too, to work on and introduce their own 'clean texts', reflecting their respective views, as had happened during the negotiations on the Chemical Weapons Convention. Soltanieh said he did not share Tóth's pessimistic assessment of the November session, believing that the number of brackets did not necessarily indicate progress or lack of progress. He stressed that Iran had welcomed the modifications in the negotiation methodology so far, namely the bilateral consultations and resulting building block papers by Tóth, regarding them as useful. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that Iran accepted the need to build on them by introducing a clean text in this session.
Ambassador Hu Xiaodi of China felt that although the negotiations were now making "steady progress", great efforts were needed to complete them in time. Hu recognized that there were significant differences on some major outstanding issues and that expectations of the future Protocol did not coincide with one another. Hu stressed that the future Protocol was a military and security legal instrument that needed to focus on high risk activities and facilities, without hindering normal economic and trade activities. Commenting on the Group's working methods, Hu argued that the informal consultations and compromise proposals were a part of "logical development" of multilateral negotiations. Nevertheless, the AHG now needed to "look squarely" at the facts: there were divergent views on major key elements of the Protocol. Although informal consultations and textual fixes had their merits, the major issues called for political solutions. Indicating that China was not ready for a 'vision text', and suggesting that, like Iran, it would react strongly if one were now brought forward, Hu insisted that this could only be achieved by focusing on the rolling text as the basis of discussions. As previously stated by China, Hu also reminded that "arms control and disarmament negotiations are never conducted in a vacuum" and that "the Protocol was no exception". International environment of universal security, harmonious stability and mutual trust would contribute to progress in these negotiations.
Pakistan's Malik Azhar Ellahi believed that the working methods so far had served and would continue to serve the AHG well. Any departures from the textual negotiations (based on the rolling text) would need to remain informal. It was not the time to look at "texts that were sent from heaven", as they would only lead to problems. Pakistan was ready to "devote extra time to the negotiations", a statement that indicates that Pakistan is ready to take the negotiations beyond the deadline. Libya said the AHG should not bind itself by deadlines that it might fail to meet. Trying to reach "half solutions" would not enable the Group to come up with an instrument that served the interests of all member states.
Russia said that while it was strongly supportive of the task of establishing a monitoring system for the BWC, it was also important that the Protocol was a balanced, high-quality document, arrived at through consensus. Thus, Russia was ready to examine Tóth's 'building blocks'. However, Russia voiced concern with regard to the omission in the second set of blocks of a Russian proposal on definitions in the document. If this was not a technical error, Russia was "disturbed".
There are some profound differences of view on how the AHG should proceed with its work in order to meet the deadline, or even on the necessity of meeting the deadline. Countries in the Western Group, in particular the European Union, and South Africa are keen on introducing a vision text and thus moving the negotiations into another, final stage. This approach is flatly rejected by China, Iran, and Pakistan, and most likely India as well. Where the United States stands on this issue is unclear, but it, too, is thought to have trouble with the introduction of a vision text, partly due to the change of administration and the major policy reviews now underway or planned. With only nine weeks of negotiations this year, Tóth is under extreme pressure. There is a general feeling that this session will not see the introduction of the vision text, but that this may happen in the period between this and the next session, due to begin on April 23. If it is not issued by then, some may argue that the AHG deadline is certain to be missed, and perhaps the whole game lost.
Twenty-second session, February 12-23
Twenty-third session, April 23 - May 11
Twenty-fourth session, July 23 - August 17
In addition, the BWC Review Conference will take place from November 19 - December 7. The Preparatory Commission to the Conference is scheduled for April 25-27.
Jenni Rissanen is the Acronym Institute's analyst monitoring the BWC AHG Protocol negotiations in Geneva.
© 2001 The Acronym Institute.