GOVERNMENT & POLICY UNITED Delegates from 110 member states assemble for first Chemical Weapons Convention review conference.
At the next annual treaty meeting in October, OPCW will report its progress in implementing recommendations in the final declaration and will offer a plan for ensuring full and effective implementation of the treaty Full and effective means that countries "enact penal legislation to make possession of chemical weapons a punishable offense," a US. delegate says.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY'S FIRST REVIEW Delegates from member states assessed implementation, offered future road map LOIS R. EMBER, C&EN WASHINGTON
L
IKE A LONG-MARRIED COUPLE DE-
ciding to renew wedding vows, some 900 delegates to the first review conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) came together inThe Hague to assess the effectiveness of the six-year-old treaty and to reaffirm their nations' support for eliminating these heinous weapons. The two-week-long meeting from April 28 to May 9 was attended by 110 of the 151 nations that had then ratified the treaty The meeting was distinguished by an absence of drama—though occasional angry sparksflew—anda political will to make this disarmament treaty work. Even the U.S., which has recently deemphasized multilateral agreements, termed this "a good, serious, constructive meeting," according to a U.S. delegate. Unlike sharp disagreements at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty conference held concurrently in Geneva and the failed effort in 2001 to craft a verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, the CWC review conference "was considered a political successj" says Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organization HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which administers the treaty Kaiser gauges this success by two consensus documents that delegates approved at the end ofthe meeting. One is a short political statement renewing support for the ultimate goal ofthe treaty— total chemical weapons disarmament under a verification scheme. The other, a 32-page final declaration, offers a running "commentary on the past sixyears and plans for the next five years," a U.S. delegate to the conference explains. The final declaration's leitmotiv stresses the importance of incorporating evolving legal and scientific and technological developments. It offers OPCW a road map for improving implementation of the treaty by flagging specific areas for attention. Of particular concern is the number of nations, including such countries as Portugal and Belgium, that haven't enacted domestic legislation and regulations to implement the treaty
THE FEW INSTANCES of confrontation at the meeting occurred when the U.S. accused Syria, Libya, and Iran of possessing chemical weapons, and India called for the abolition ofthe Australia Group. Syria and Libya have not joined the treaty so U.S. charges fell on deaf ears. But Iran is a member and took heated exception to the allegation. The Australia Group was formed before the existence of the CWC to stem the spread of chemical weapons by regulating trade in precursor chemicals. It is an informal organization of 33 countries and the European Commission, the administrative arm of the European Union, which have harmonized their export controls. All Australia Group countries are members of CWC, and all monitor worldwide trade in dual-use chemicals. India is not a member of the Australia Group but has similar export controls. Given that, India's protest against the existence of the Australia Group "is increasinglyritualistic,"a delegate from a western country contends. For the most part, however, the delegates were in agreement, especially on the need to destroy chemical weapons and their production facilities in a verifiable and timely manner. They approved the need for a credible verification regime related to the chemical industry as a confidence-building measure and a means of ensuring nonproliferation. Industry, amply represented at the conference by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), supports those goals. Destruction ofweapons and their production facilities as well as "a credible industry verification regime for confidence-building and nonproliferation purposes are important to realizing the goals of the convention," says
It is very clear that destroying chemical weapons is an expensive, complicated, and somewhat unpredictable process."
C & E N / MAY 26, 2003
25
GOVERNMENTS POLICY Marybeth Kelliher, senior ACC manager for trade and a conference attendee. She also points out that "industry and the I CCA were singled out for their cooperativeness and vision by O P C W Director-General Rogelio Pfirter." Delegates also reaffirmed the need for universal membership in the treaty. Their thinking, Kaiser explains, is that universality and "full and effective implementation of the convention will help to prevent access to chemical weapons by terrorists." Indeed, conference Chairman Noureddine Djoudi, Algeria's permanent O P C W representative, underscored that sentiment by saying that the treaty "serves to bind together the international community in its effort to achieve enhanced security" But, he stresses, the treaty does more. It also "fosters trade and economic and technological development." When needed, it provides assistance and protection to more than 90% of the world's population. Enhanced security involves the destruction of all existing stockpiles of chemical weapons. What the two largest pos-
Fidler
Murphy
sessor nations—Russia and the U.S.—did not mention, although it is an open secret, is that neither would likely meet the treaty's original 2007 deadline or the extended 2012 deadline for destroying 100% of their chemical stockpiles. Paul F. Walker, director of the Legacy Program of Global Green USA, had no such reluctance. "It is very clear that destroying chemical weapons is an expensive, complicated, and somewhat unpredictable process," he says, ^et the treaty deadlines "failed to take this into account," he continues. Walker predicts "the U.S. is likely to finish its chemical weapons stockpile destruction program between 2012 and 2015." Assuming adequate foreign funding and sufficient public outreach, "Russia will require at least until 2020" to destroy its chemical weapons, he says. 26
C & E N / MAY 2 6 , 2003
" O P C W must therefore in the next few years consider how it best deals with the schedule and deadline challenge." Less controversial than Walker's predictions were the science and technology (S&T) issues that permeated conference discussions, although not to any depth. General statements about the need for continued scrutiny of S&T developments made it into the political and final declaration documents. More in-depth consideration of S&T issues took place at an informal half-day open forum for nongovernmental organizations. Some 250 delegates, including Pfirter, who opened the forum, and representatives from the chemical community attended. The presence of some delegates was impressive because the forum ran concurrently with official conference sessions.
could provoke the development of even newer weapons and their countermeasures in an ever-spiraling arms race. Dando's colleague at Bradford, Graham S. Pearson, called on O P C W member countries to address the issue of the legality of nonlethal agents, which he considers "a serious risk to the convention." And Robin M. Coupland, an adviser to the legal division of the International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC), chided the conference for not formally addressing the issue of incapacitants. ICRC is especially concerned about the increasing interest in these agents among police, security, and military forces. The U.S. and some other countries have robust programs to develop so-called nonlethal weapons. However, as the hostage-taking situation in a Moscow theater last year showed, such toxic agents can kill when delivered at high concentrations in enclosed spaces. The Russians used fentanyl to liberate the hostages but killed 121 people in the process. Fentanyl is not a riot-control agent, yet general consensus is that its use in this instance was allowable under the treaty because it was used for law enforcement purposes.
Full and effective implementation of the convention will help to prevent access to chemical weapons by terrorists."
Dando Of the S&T issues discussed at the open forum, none was more controversial than incapacitating agents—also called nonlethal weapons. The treaty explicitly allows the use of incapacitating riot-control agents for law enforcement purposes but not for warfare and requires that such agents be declared to O P C W Malcolm Dando, a professor in the department of peace studies at the University of Bradford, in England, cites the ongoing revolution in the life sciences as concern that anewgeneration of chemical weapons could be developed and used to incapacitate specific groups of people. He fears that if the treaty does not explicitly stop the development of such weapons, "we could see an escalating arms race in new chemical weapons." Used outside the field oflaw enforcement, these chemical agents could spur new countermeasures which, in turn,
INCAPACITANTS, or nonlethal weapons, are not specifically listed on any of the treaty's schedules of chemicals. But they are covered under Article II of the treaty, known as the General Purpose Criterion. G P C is a catch-all provision that allows the treaty to remain abreast of technological change and to permit the use of toxic dual-use chemicals for peaceful purposes. GPC defines chemical weapons as "toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes." Article II explicitly allows toxic chemicals to be used for "law enforcement, including domestic riot-control purposes." Many presenters at the open forum acknowledged the importance of GPC. Pearson called it "central to the health of the convention... and the strongest protection against new agents," including incapacitants. He warned that GPC is being neglected by those nations that haven't yet implemented domestic legislation to enforce HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
the treaty, including penal legislation to make it a crime to possess and/or use chemical weapons. Indiana University law professor David P. Fidler, representing the Federation of American Scientists, concluded that the treaty "does not limit the use of toxic chemicals for domestic law enforcement purposes to riot-control agents, but excludes the use of Schedule 1 {chemical warfare] chemicals for any law enforcement purpose." He stressed "the need for a declaration procedure for toxic chemicals that are notriot-controlagents but are intended for law enforcement purposes." Fidler also concluded that military forces canuseriot-controlagents to maintain public order and safety during occu-
TREATYATAGLANCE First multilateral disarmament treaty to eliminate whole class of weapons under verification protocol entered into force on April 29, 1997. First Review Conference took place April 28 to May 9, 2003. 151 nations have joined the treaty; East Timor soon to join. More than 70,000 metric tons of chemical agents in nearly 9 million munitions and containers have been declared. Largest stockpiles are in Russia and U.S., with smaller ones in India, Albania, and South Korea. Over 10% of agents and over 25% of munitions have been destroyed. Possessor nations were to destroy 1% of their stockpiles in 2000 and 20% in 2002, and have to destroy 45% in 2004 and 100% in 2007; no nation is expected to meet the 100% deadline. Nearly 900 inspections have taken place in more than 160 chemical weapons production facilities worldwide. More than 66% of declared weapons production facilities have been destroyed or have been converted to peaceful purposes. More than 98% of the global chemical industry must comply with the treaty's verification regime, including data declarations and on-site inspections. Over 550 inspections in more than 445 industrial facilities in 52 nations have been conducted.
HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
pations—as the U.S. can as an occupier of Iraq. Military forces may also use such chemicals to control prisoners ofwar, and for peacekeeping operations, he said. The U.S. maintains that it can use riotcontrol agents under certain battlefield circumstances as well, including rescuing downed airmen and incapacitating an enemy using civilians to ward off an attack. Corralling escaped prisoners ofwar is also permitted under US. law. The issue of incapacitants, including the permitted uses of riot-control agents, came up too late in the two-week meeting to make it into the political statement or the final declaration. There may not be agree- Pf irter ment with US. interprétation of the permissibility of riot-control agents in battle. But there was broad recognition among the delegates that scientific and technological advances can substantially affect future implementation of the treaty, a point raised in the International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry's presentation at the open forum. Christopher K. Murphy, a program officer of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Chemical Sciences &Technology, outlined IUPAC's keyfindingson the impact of scientific developments on the treaty "THE STUDY OFFERS two take-home messages," Murphy says. First, "the development of microreactors and the changing nature of chemical plants—smaller and batch-processing facilities—offer the potential for synthesizing small amounts of chemical weapons continuously until significant quantities are produced," he says. These weapons can be made and not be detected by traditional satellite imagery or even by inspection procedures, if the plants are not declared, he stresses. On the positive side of the balance sheet, Murphy cites analytical methods. "Instrumentation is becoming more sensitive and more portable, making it easier for OPCW to conduct on-site inspections," he explains. Murphy also cites IUPAC's recommendation that continuing education of OPCWs technical secretariat and "outreach between OPCW and the chemical community are important" and necessary Edwin (Ted) D. Becker, IUPAC's secretary general, attended the review conference and was present at the open forum.
He says IUPAC's presentation was Veil received," especially by Pfirter, who sat in the front row Pfirter understands the importance of "maintaining scientific competence at the technical secretariat," Becker says. "IUPAC would be glad to help in whatev-
Djoudi
er would be needed to keep the secretariat up to date on scientific issues," he adds. And so would the I CCA. René Van Sloten, director of international trade and competitiveness at the European Chemical Industry Council, represented ICCAat the open forum. He said I CCA—which represents 70% of the global chemical productive capacity—"remains committed to the CWC." And he reminded the delegates present at the forum that the "chemical industry is a partner and a resource for CWC implementation." Van Sloten highlighted technical and market trends in industry that materially affect treaty implementation. For example, he said that sophisticated computerdriven process control "makes verification more complex, poses a higher risk of loss of proprietary information, and offers inspectors fewer sampling points." On the marketing front, Van Sloten said the increasing mergers and acquisitions trend of the 1990s increased the "complexity of compiling aggregate national data for national authorities and [may have resulted] in loss of know-how regarding declarations and inspections." To prevent the loss of confidential business information, the treaty calls for company declarations to be sent to a national authority—the State Department in the case of the U.S. The national authority in turn aggregates the declarations and sends the national data to OPCW In concluding his presentation, Van Sloten delivered ICCA's bottom line: "Industry hopes the review conference will improve CWC implementation and seek industry involvement." • C & E N / MAY 2 6 , 2003
27
