Second CWC Review Conference 2008

Many more of the national papers submitted to the Second CWC Review Conference have now been posted on the OPCW website, including four from China and four from Switzerland. Among the Swiss papers is RC-2/NAT.12 on “Riot Control Agents and Incapacitating Agents under the Chemical Weapons Convention”, the first time this issue has been raised in detail in a formal national paper.

The Swiss paper notes how Switzerland considered the RevCon “to be an opportune time” to launch a discussion of the ambiguities of the CWC regarding riot control agents, and the lack of provisions pertaining to incapacitating agents, given that uncertainty surrounding the status of incapacitating agents risks undermining the treaty. After outlining nine theses for consideration by states parties, the paper concludes by calling upon states parties to

consider adopting during the Second Review Conference a mandate for a discussion of, inter alia, an agreed definition of incapacitating agents, the status of incapacitating agents under the Convention, and possible transparency measures for incapacitating agents.

Such a decision wasn’t taken by the RevCon, although language on incapacitants was nearly included in the final report, as Oliver Meier explains in his recent Arms Control Today article.

The additional national papers are all linked on the “Documents” page of this website.

The web edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has a column on the Second CWC Review Conference by Malcolm Dando of the University of Bradford. In the article, “Missed opportunities at the chemical weapons treaty meeting”, Dando focuses on the lack of attention paid by the RevCon to the issue of incapacitating chemical agents. Concluding his column, Dando says:

Considering the scope and pace of change in our understanding of the central nervous system, and the possibilities for misuse of that knowledge in the development of new forms of incapacitants, I take the pessimistic view that the Second Review Conference of the CWC made a major mistake in failing to deal with this issue. Waiting until 2013–or beyond–to deal with this problem may be far too late.

[NB: The Swiss paper to which Dando refers in his column has now been posted on the OPCW website].

Dando’s column follows on from an article in the March/April 2008 issue of the Bulletin by Jonathan Tucker of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies on “The body’s own bioweapons” and a subsequent roundtable discussion on incapacitants on the Bulletin website between Tucker, Ralf Trapp formerly of the OPCW and now an independent consultant on CBW, Paul Aass of the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment and Alan Pearson of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

I posted a while ago about the 18 March debate in the House of Lords on the Second CWC Review Conference. In that post I pointed out the sightly strange answer that the Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown gave in response to a question from Lord Walton of Detchant. Well, it transpires that the answer was indeed “off-message”, so much so that Lord Malloch-Brown had to offer this correction on 29 April:

Chemical Weapons Convention: Correction to Oral Answer

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): On 18 March 2008, during the debate on the Second Review Conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), in response to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I said that,

“it is certainly correct that there are toxic chemicals that fall outside the so-called schedule 1 to this convention. One of the issues for review and for any successor convention after 2012 will be to make sure that there is a more comprehensive list of such chemicals”.-[Official Report, 18/3/08; col. 136.].

I should have said that the CWC’s prohibitions apply to all toxic chemicals and their precursors, unless they are intended for permitted purposes and provided that they are of a type and in a quantity consistent with such purposes. The schedules of chemicals do not limit the scope of the convention’s prohibitions; they provide only a framework for the application of verification measures. Reinforcing the comprehensive nature of the CWC has been a key UK objective for the Second Review Conference and the subject of one of the UK’s four working papers submitted to the preparatory working group. It has also been a priority for the EU as set out in the EU’s common position 2007/469/CFSP of 28 June 2007.

The CWC is a key component in the disarmament and non-proliferation agreements and regimes and will remain so after the 2012 deadline for completion of destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles. We have already started to consider how the CWC will need to adapt to face future challenges and see this as a key issue to be addressed in the years ahead.

In double-quick time exactly one month to the day since the Second CWC Review Conference started, here’s the first published analysis of the RevCon. Oliver Meier of the Arms Control Association has written a great article in this month’s issue of Arms Control Today replete with interesting quotes from diplomats involved in the RevCon. In particular, Oliver’s section on “incapacitants” adds a lot to the public record on this “hidden debate” at the RevCon.

29 April is the international Day of Remembrance for all Victims of Chemical Warfare, as designated by the 10th session of the OPCW Conference of the States Parties in 2005. The day is being marked by a commemorative event at OPCW Headquarters in The Hague. Additional details are on the OPCW website.

The US Senate has now joined the UK House of Lords (here and here) and the German Bundestag in paying attention to the CWC and its Second Review Conference, although like the most recent House of Lords example, its action comes a little late.

On 22 April, Senator Joseph Biden, co-sponsored by Senator Richard Lugar, introduced Senate Resolution 525 on “Recognizing the Progress Made by States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention on the Occasion of the Second Review Conference”. Introducing the resolution, Senator Biden said:

“Mr. President, 11 years ago this month, the Senate gave its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC. Those of us who were here then remember all too well how contentious and difficult a task that was.

Eleven years later, I have no doubt in my mind that the Senate did the right thing. The CWC clearly serves the national security interests of the U.S. It continues to enhance international peace and security.

Since the CWC entered into force, 183 States have signed on to the treaty’s commitment to forgo poison gas forever, and have subjected themselves to the treaty’s verification procedures. States Parties to the CWC have destroyed over 27,000 tons of chemical weapons-over a third of the world’s declared stockpiles-and 11 destruction facilities around the world are working to destroy even more. Sixty-five chemical weapons production facilities that, without a Chemical Weapons Convention, could have churned out still more poison gas are no longer carrying out that horrible work, and all but 4 of those former weapons production facilities have been verifiably destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes. Most importantly, there has been no use of chemical weapons by any country in the last 11 years, and no international support for the use of such weapons by terrorist groups.

Under the able leadership of its Director-General, Ambassador Rogelio Pfirter, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons runs a tight ship. It works with all States Parties to improve national declarations, to mount effective inspections, and to secure the adoption of effective national laws, regulations and procedures that criminalize and guard against the production or stockpiling of chemical weapons.

The States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention are gathering over the next 2 weeks in The Netherlands for the Convention’s Second Review Conference. Senator Lugar and I have introduced this resolution during the Review Conference in order to reaffirm the Senate’s commitment to the goals of the CWC. We are proud of the progress that has been made so far, and we call upon all States Parties to continue to meet their commitments under the CWC and to do all they can to further the noble aims of the Convention.

I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.”

The OPCW has finally posted the oficial version of the final report of the Second CWC Review Conference (RC-2/4) on its website. Unlike the draft version I mentioned this morning, this final version includes information on the organization of the RevCon, numbers of states parties participating, election of officials and so on.

A couple of additional national papers have also been posted; the statement by the Non-Aligned Movement and China (RC-2/NAT.5) during the General Debate and a position paper by the NAM and China (RC-2/NAT.17).

As there seems to be a delay at the OPCW in releasing the official version of the final declaration of the Second CWC Review Conference, Richard Guthrie has posted the draft final declaration that was circulated to the RevCon early on Saturday morning. Here is the announcement on his CBW Events website:

Stop Press — final declaration

There appears to be a delay in producing the official version of the final declaration of the Review Conference. As of the morning of 23 April, UK time, the declaration has not appeared on the OPCW’s Second Review Conference website.

Having received many e-mails asking if I could post the copy of the declaration that was circulated to the Conference in the early hours of Saturday morning, it is with some hesitation I am now posting the two sections of the declaration below. I hesitate because there may be some changes that will have to agreed to the texts, notwithstanding that these were the texts legally adopted.

cwc-dec01.pdf (0.5MB) contains the preambular text agreed at 2am on 19 April (not 18 April as printed on the draft) and adopted by the Conference later in the morning. The paragraphs will need renumbering owing to the edits.

cwc-dec02.pdf (2.6MB) contains the main section of the declaration adopted by the Conference. The paragraphs will need to be renumbered as the preamble may be considered to have an extra paragraph, the paragraph numbers 35, 36 and 37 are repeated, and the number 67 is not used. These are simply consequences of the rapid production of the draft declaration at such a late hour.

Richard Guthrie,
23 April 2008

Once again, many thanks to Richard!

Update - The official version of the final report has now been posted on the OPCW website.

As of the end of the day on Tuesday 22 April, we are still waiting for the final report of the Second CWC Review Conference to be publicly released. It was due yesterday, but delays have obviously crept into the process of preparing it for publication. Looking at the OPCW website today, you could be forgiven for not realising that the RevCon has finished. Besides the lack of the final report, there is also no mention at all of the close of the RevCon - no press release, no announcement, nothing. The only word we have on the outcome of the RevCon has been provided by an NGO observer, Richard Guthrie, in his final daily report.

However, there has also been some press reporting on the RevCon, for example this article in today’s Australian. Unfortunately the article totally misunderstands the CWC’s destruction deadlines and what the RevCon agreed. It states that the RevCon agreed on a “new global deadline of 2012″ saying that the OPCW gave itself a “new five-year mandate to achieve total disarmament”. It then states that the US, Russia, India and Libya (no mention of the fifth possessor state, South Korea), previously had individual deadlines, some before 2012, but that they had all signed up to the “revised founding treaty”.

I know the CWC is a complex and arcane treaty, but you might have hoped that the authoring “correspondents at The Hague” would have a bit more knowledge about one of the main international organizations in the city.

Somewhat bizarrely, the following question was asked on Monday (21 April) in the House of Lords by Lord Avebury. Bizarre given that the Second CWC Review Conference to which it refers finished on Friday.

Whether they will propose that the role of incapacitating biochemical weapons in military operations and law enforcement be discussed at the Chemical Weapons Convention Review Conference.

In response, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, replied as follows:

The issues surrounding so-called incapacitating biochemical weapons and their potential impact on the Chemical Weapons Convention are highly complex and most states party to the convention have yet to express clear ideas on the implications for the convention. The UK believes that thorough study of the complex technical and legal implications is required and therefore does not consider the issue ready for detailed discussion at the second review conference. But we are willing to examine, with other states party to the convention, the options for taking forward work after the conference, if it appears that consensus on how to move forward seems achievable, and if a suitable mechanism and scope for discussions can be decided.

It’s a shame that this answer was not published before or during the RevCon. According to Richard Guthrie’s final daily report, all mention of incapacitants was removed from the final declaration, so it would appear that there was no consensus among states parties on how to move forward, nor a decision on a suitable mechanism and scope for discussions. Nonetheless, “thorough study of the complex technical and legal implications” is still required. If states parties have been unable to agree on a mechanism, perhaps NGOs and academics can further the studies that many of them have already undertaken.