Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

BWC Protocol Bulletin, August 10, 2001

By Jenni Rissanen

Uncertain Future as AHG Drafts Report

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) received a first draft of its report on Monday, August 6. The group has discussed the draft in one formal and three informal meetings and it looks like the drafting process will be long and arduous, with some signs that the AHG has - as one diplomat put it -"reached a stage when we start disagreeing even over consensus language". In the midst of this confusing procedural debate, few seem to have clear ideas for the long term - except, ironically, the United States, whose recent rejection of the Group's efforts to negotiate a Protocol has thrown the process into disarray. The US now appears to be trying to "lay down the law" to its Western Group partners, insisting they present a united front.

The first draft of the AHG report focuses on past developments, avoiding mention thus far of either the controversial developments of the current, 24th session, or any possible next steps. The 'backward-looking part' of the report drafted by the Chair consists largely of agreed language from past documents; the AHG's procedural reports from previous sessions, including its report from the fifth session just prior to the Fourth Review Conference in 1996, and the Final Document of the that Conference. No one has contested this language per se, but some countries want to make this section (currently about 2-3 pages) more concise than suggested by the Chair, Ambassador Tibor Tóth of Hungary. France, for instance, proposed in Wednesday's plenary (August 8) that the retrospective portion be made "briefer". In his explanation of the report, Tóth said that it was up to delegations to decide the "right volume and substance" of the report. However, he pointed out that the retrospective language had been two pages long in 1996, and that, since then, the AHG had done "much more" work. France and some other countries are believed to want to keep the backward-looking part brief in anticipation of the still-to-be drafted section on recent developments as well as on any future action. However, others disagree with France's approach, arguing that inadequate treatment of the section describing the AHG's work so far would undermine the six and a half years of efforts to negotiate the Protocol.

So far, three countries and the European Union (EU) have circulated textual proposals for the report: Cuba, Iran and South Africa. In addition, France has suggested from the floor that the report include a reference to the creation of the AHG and to its mandate. Further to its earlier proposed text on recent developments (see BWC Protocol Bulletin of August 7), Iran reportedly suggested on a formulation on the AHG's mandate and continuation of work. Iran wants to highlight the "validity" of the mandate - over which it has expressed concern, particularly vis-à-vis the attitude of the United States - and to include reference to the continuation of the efforts to elaborate a Protocol. In addition, Iran has sought a specific reference transfers and Article X of the Convention (scientific and technological exchange for peaceful purposes and technical cooperation). Cuba has made a proposal for the outstanding parts of the report. Hoping to contrast the US decision to reject the process to the "overwhelming commitment" by others in the AHG to conclude the negotiations, Cuba is seeking an explicit identification of the US rejection as the reason for the Group's failure. Cuba further wants to the report to underline that efforts to strengthen the BWC must come about through multilateral negotiations, and to recommend that the Fifth Review Conference, scheduled for November-December this year, decide on future action.

South Africa has proposed that a new paragraph be inserted, stating that the AHG has drawn from the work done by VEREX (the Ad Hoc Group of Technical Experts to Identify and Examine Potential Verification Measures from Scientific Standpoint) prior to the start of its negotiations in 1995, as well as from the results of the previous Review Conferences. The EU has also proposed including a reference to VEREX. In addition, the EU has submitted language on the 'forward-looking' part of the report. The EU wants the report to conclude that the AHG "has not yet been able to conclude its work and submit its report including a draft of a legally-binding instrument". Furthermore, it wants the AHG to invite the states parties "to consider further action" in order to fulfil its mandate "which remains valid".

In related developments, the United States reportedly delivered demarches (official diplomatic representations) to the governments of the Western Group earlier this week, demanding 'unity' among the western delegations. The US appears to be annoyed by some western governments' desire to hold a special conference, which it is known to oppose for various reasons (see BWC Protocol Bulletin of August 7), complaining that this is dividing the Western Group. Four countries from the group - The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Ireland - spoke in favour of a special conference on August 3. Evidently not wanting to specify how, or in which forum, if any, to continue efforts to strengthen the BWC, the US is understood to want a 'clear-cut' report, omitting any references to holding a special conference, or to decisions on the AHG's future. It also appears nervous about the descriptive parts of the AHG's report, knowing there will be a number of delegations wishing to shift the blame for failing to complete the Protocol before the Review Conference squarely onto its shoulders. Thus, it is likely to push for 'minimalistic' and 'anonymous' language on these parts of the report and - for appearance reasons - may try to persuade others in the western group to do the same.

Indeed, Thursday's (August 9) informal meeting confirmed that the United States would fight for not being named in the report. The meeting saw the opening of a general discussion on the report's descriptive parts. The United States reportedly announced in strong terms that it would not accept being named, implying that it would be ready to sacrifice the finalization of the report for this cause. The United States' declaration came after interventions by countries which wished to name the United States, such as Cuba and Iran, and a few western delegations, including France, Germany and Switzerland, who had wished for a 'concise' report.

It is understood that the backward-looking part of the report is now agreed except for two issues: whether the report should cover the AHG's deliberations since the Fourth Review Conference or since it began its work; and whether the AHG's mandate should be covered in its entirety, or in the shorter and more generic way adopted in the 1996 Final Declaration. With the backward-looking part of the report almost wrapped up, the AHG will start drafting its description of the recent events, which - as Thursday's debate illustrated - is likely to prove an uphill battle. Furthermore, the AHG is faced with the difficult task of trying to agree on any references to future activity. This will also present a stern challenge, with some countries aiming to explicitly secure the continuation of the AHG's work, and at least one - the United States - wanting to limit, if not totally prevent, such references.

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