The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) Database
REPORT FROM GENEVA -- FRIDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2000
A series of accasional reports on developments in the Geneva Negotiations
1. The Ad Hoc Group commenced a three week long session, its 21st session, on Monday 20 November 2000. This was the first session since the four week session in July/August 2000 in which a useful step forward was taken by the Chairman initiating a series of bilateral conceptual discussions with delegations to explore how the Category III "Strong conceptual differences in views" issues might be resolved. In setting up these discussions, the Chairman both approached delegations having a particular interest in a particular issue and encouraged any delegations that wished to discuss a particular issue to approach him. These bilateral conceptual discussions were structured during the July/August session as follows:
a. Investigations
b. Compliance measures and objective criteria
c. Transfer measures
d. Cooperation measures
e. Other issues
with the Chairman, Ambassador Tóth, providing feedback to the Ad Hoc Group as a whole on his perceptions following these bilateral discussions both on a weekly basis and at the end of the session. Some 90 such informal bilateral discussions were held during the July/August session.
2. On the opening day, Monday 20 November 2000, of the Ad Hoc Group session, Ambassador Tibor Tóth, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Group, said that it was with a sense of anticipation and some impatience that he opened this, the 21st, session of the Ad Hoc Group which would be the last session for this, the sixth year of the Ad Hoc Group. He expected much from those present -- as individuals, as delegations and collectively as the Ad Hoc Group. He noted that after 20 sessions, the Ad Hoc Group had before it the 14th version of the draft Protocol. By comparing the present text with that in the first few versions, it is possible to see the progress made from 1997. There are now wide sections of the text that are almost clean which is very pleasing. What had previously been referred to as 'islands of bracket-free text' have grown enormously over the last few sessions. This progress underlined even more those sections of text where there are almost as many square brackets as there are words and Ambassador Toth noted that the Ad Hoc Group were all aware that not all the text is at an advanced stage and that a lot of additional effort is needed to move these particularly difficult issues forward. At previous sessions the first steps have been taken to address these issues and he was confident that the present session will provide the opportunity for delegations to engage fully in discussing these issues and developing solutions. The time for preliminary discussion is now over; it is time to negotiate solutions.
3. In this session Ambassador Toth looked for continued cooperation in the formal Friends of the Chair meetings -- these are the main forum where the text is progressively developed, concepts are clarified and explained and changes are negotiated -- as well as in informal meetings and bilateral consultations both by the Chairman and by the Friends of the Chair. He anticipated these methods of work continuing in this session. The Chairman said that he intended to carry forward informal consultations in the same way during the 21st session structuring these into investigations and compliance measures issues during the first week, transfers, cooperation, objective criteria and legal issues during the second week and organization and other issues during the last week. He would report back continuously in bureau meetings and plenary sessions on how the process is developing and any results achieved. If as a result of these informal consultations at all levels support emerges for compromises then he would introduce the 'bracket bazaar' format where proposals for restructuring and streamlining of the text could be considered by the Ad Hoc Group in plenary session. Ambassador Toth said that he very much hoped that all delegations would look at suggested changes in a spirit of compromise but made it clear that, in this process, no delegation will be spared the pain of compromise.
4. He concluded by calling on all delegations to provide their continued support in bringing the work of the Ad Hoc Group to a successful conclusion next year. Not only did the Ad Hoc Group have to conclude the negotiations on the draft Protocol but the Special Conference has to be convened that will approve it. He noted that we have a deadline to meet and that no delegation should need reminding that our deadline is fast approaching. Consequently, primarily due to this deadline, he believed that the Ad Hoc Group needed to make significant progress at this session and why he expected much everyone -- as individuals, as delegations and as the Ad Hoc Group.
5. The opening plenary session continued with a number of statements. Ambassador Hubert de la Fortelle of France spoke on behalf of the European Union and the associated central and eastern European countries of Bulgaria, the Czech republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and also the associate countries of Cyprus, Malta and Turkey. In this he noted that the Fifth Review Conference would open in a year's time and that this was the deadline set by the Fourth Review Conference to conclude negotiations on the Protocol to strengthen the BTWC. He said that the Member States of the European Union "today affirm their determination to respect the 2001 deadline which is mandatory for all the States Parties to the Convention." He went on to review the progress achieved as after five years of negotiation, the Ad Hoc Group has succeeded in bringing points of view closer on the provisions at the heart of the Protocol. These achievements were recalled as follows:
"- The general structure of declarations is no longer under discussion and it has now been agreed that declarations will focus on biodefence facilities, maximum biological containment facilities, and on industrial facilities relevant under the Convention;
- The concept of visits has been agreed;
- The principle of a clarification procedure followed by a visit if necessary has also been agreed by delegations;
- The value of the provisions relating to investigations in the event of a strong suspicion that the Convention is being breached is no longer questioned by anyone, and most of the provisions relating to their conduct no longer raise any difficulties;
- It is also acknowledged that a small, independent and cost-effective organization is needed to implement these measures;
- Inclusion in the Protocol of a specific and significant article on cooperation is also one of the items about which differences have been smoothed out. The draft article contains a substantial series of measures that the States parties are invited to adopt, as well as the specific duties of the Secretariat. It also puts forward the idea of a Cooperation Committee about which a number of European Union member States made innovative proposals a year ago. Overall, Article VII of the Protocol is very much more comprehensive as regards cooperation and assistance than any other such articles in other legal instruments on security issues.
- Furthermore, some progress has been made during the last sessions as regards the way in which issues relating to transfers are addressed: precise and realistic proposals were put forward by a number of European Union Member States."
6. He then went on to outline a number of steps that need to be taken:
"1. declarations must be tailored in such a manner as to provide for an increased transparency of relevant facilities.
2. Visits should apply to all declared facilities as the justification for declaration triggers is identifying those facilities liable to be diverted for purposes contrary to the Convention. It is therefore important, to improve transparency, that all declared facilities are can be visited. We do not think certain declared facilities are more relevant than others.
3. It should be possible to include within the scope of clarification measures those facilities which were not declared but should have been, depending on their particular characteristics. We know that this is a sensitive point, but we believe that this issue is not a matter first and foremost for challenge investigations. It should be possible to work out a clarification procedure suited to this problem.
4. Investigations should remain credible as, in the end, the possibility of establishing whether or not the Convention has been breached depends on them. From this point of view, it is essential for them to be launched rapidly without unnecessary delay, on the basis of a clear mandate and conducted in the most effective manner possible."
7. Finally, he mentioned that there are essentially two obstacles to be overcome, from the point of view of European Union Member States. These are:
"- Activities relating to defence against the risk of biological aggression are legitimate, but they also legitimately arouse the interest of the international community. The balance to be struck here is complex as no country would accept that its security should be reduced by excessive transparency, although neither is false transparency acceptable in this area.
- Export controls contribute directly to the security of all States and are an obligation for all States Parties. Their existence is thus justified and necessary. It is for each State to determine the ways in which such controls are to be exercised. European Union Member States have adopted a European Union regulation on this issue which was revised in June of this year; this regulation cannot in any way be regarded as discriminatory."
Ambassador de la Fortelle concluded by stating that the European Union Member States would fully support the Chairman in his efforts to achieve "the conclusion of a balanced and effective Protocol which will increase the security of all States through enhanced transparency and cooperation."
8. Further statements were then made in plenary on a variety of other subjects by a number of different States including South Africa, Brazil, UK, Iran, Italy, Norway, China, Cuba, Pakistan, India and Indonesia. Several of these interventions related to the introduction of working papers. South Africa in noting that this was the start of the 21st session of the Ad Hoc Group suggested that the Ad Hoc Group was coming of age and saw this session as being a particularly significant one. South Africa then introduced a Working Paper (WP.430) which addressed the implications of the Annexes and Appendices to the Protocol being subject to Reservations which would follow if language was to be adopted stating that the Annexes and Appendices of the Protocol "shall not be subject to reservations incompatible with its object and purpose or that of the Convention". Iran, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia and Pakistan spoke in respect of a working paper addressing the settlement of disputes arising as a result of denial of transfers. It was noted that the Chinese intervention included a statement that subjecting the control of transfer of equipment and materials to stringent export controls was conducive to the prevention of proliferation and in conformity with the object and purpose of the Convention. In regard to transfers, it is important to take a long term view over many years as increased confidence between States Parties does not happen at the instant of entry into force of the Protocol -- rather entry into force should be the start of a process that will over years increase transparency and build confidence between States Parties to the Protocol. The Italian intervention during the plenary session drew attention to a seminar relating to Article VII of the Protocol which would be held at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Trieste, Italy on Saturday/Sunday 25/26 November 2000 to which delegations had been invited.
9. The first week of the 21st session also saw additional events. On Monday 20 November 2000, an informal meeting was held at lunchtime between NGOs and the delegations of the European Union at which short statements relating to the Protocol were made by France as the Presidency and by representatives from the University of Bradford, the Harvard-Sussex Programme, VERTIC, the Federation of American Scientists and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES). These were then followed by about 45 minutes of discussion on declarations, declaration follow-up procedures, export controls and cooperation. This meeting attended by about 20 representatives from a dozen NGOs and a similar number of representatives from EU delegations provided a valuable opportunity for the informed discussion of some of the key issues relating to the Protocol.
10. On Tuesday 21 November 2000, a further Briefing Paper and an Evaluation Paper in the series produced by the Department of Peace Studies of the University of Bradford, UK were presented and distributed to all the Ad Hoc Group delegations:
11. On Thursday 23 November 2000, a lunchtime briefing was held in the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters entitled "Global Health Security: filling the surveillance gaps: new alliances against infectious diseases" with opening remarks by Dr David Heymann, Executive Director, Communicable Diseases followed by a presentation by Dr G. Rodier, Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response.
Graham S. Pearson
25 November 2000