US PROPOSALS to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention have come
under heavy criticism since they were announced last week by President Bush.
Instead of coming up with new ideas, say experts, the US has simply revived
some sections of a protocol that it rejected earlier this year, while ignoring
crucial parts that it doesn鈥檛 like. So despite the recent anthrax attacks on the
US, few people expect any progress on enforcing the convention when its members
meet in Geneva later this month.
The protocol rejected by the US had taken six years to negotiate. It required
governments to allow international inspectors to check any facilities suspected
of being used to produce bioweapons, and to declare in advance any legitimate
activity that might raise such suspicions. But the US vetoed the protocol
(快猫短视频, 4 August, p 17),
claiming that it would create a false sense
of security while not actually catching cheats. It promised to come up with
alternative proposals this month.
Advertisement
But neither Bush鈥檚 statement nor an internal White House briefing document
obtained by 快猫短视频 contain any original proposals. 鈥淓ither they
are goodwill measures, like ethical guidelines for scientists, which the US has
rejected before as unverifiable, or they were already in the protocol,鈥� says
Trevor Findlay of Vertic, a disarmament think tank in London.
It鈥檚 what has been left out or watered down that will most annoy countries
involved in past negotiations. Among the measures the US wants to weaken are
those involving inspections and information exchange. Countries would not have
to routinely declare biological research and manufacturing activities,
information which is essential to guide inspectors, should suspicions arise.
鈥淭hat means an accusing country would have to put together all the information
the inspectors would need, from scratch, unilaterally,鈥� says Findlay.
Bush鈥檚 proposals also lack any provision for a specialised bioweapons agency
to help with information and inspections. Instead, the onus would be on
individual countries to gather enough evidence to convince the UN to send in
investigators. Only rich countries would have the resources needed to do
this.
Having dismantled the package of hard-fought compromises that would have
given poor states an incentive to participate, Bush is now asking countries to
put forward ideas鈥攕omething that particularly enrages some observers. 鈥淲e
did, from before 1995 until 2001,鈥� complains Nicholas Sims of the London School
of Economics. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 just cherry-pick a carefully balanced agreement like
the protocol.鈥�
European delegates to the Geneva talks are said to be planning to accept
anything the US proposes that they think won鈥檛 actually be harmful, just to keep
the prospect of an agreement open. But developing countries, still smarting from
this summer鈥檚 rejection of their efforts, are unlikely to play along.
