BBC News
May 8, 2003

Chemical weapons treaty in spotlight

By Michael Voss
BBC correspondent in The Hague

While American troops search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, representatives of more than 150 countries are meeting in The Hague to assess global progress towards eliminating all chemical weapons.

It is the first review conference of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons since the international ban on such weapons came into force six years ago.

It is a treaty with real teeth, including full verification and inspection regimes, something the biological weapons treaty, which dates back to the dark days of the Cold War, lacks.

Attempts to strengthen the biological treaty in Geneva came tantalisingly close but were blocked by the Americans.

All the major powers, including Russia, China and the United States, have ratified the chemical weapons convention.

Israel signed the treaty, though its parliament has yet to ratify it while Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and North Korea have all refused to sign up.

DESTRUCTION TIMETABLE
2000 - 1%
2002 - 20%
2004 - 45%
2007 - 100%

The US met the treaty's deadline for destroying 20% of its chemical weapons ahead of schedule, while Russia has had to ask for extensions and just managed to fulfil its 1% quota before the review conference got under way.

So far, five countries have admitted to having chemical weapons of which Russia - 40,000 tonnes - and the United States - 30,000 tonnes - have by far the largest stockpiles.

Under the treaty, both were given a fixed timetable for destruction.

The Russians may be behind the original schedule but the destruction process is starting to speed up.

According to Sergei Baranowsky, president of the environmental group Green Cross Russia, the problems are primarily financial and technical rather than lack of political will.

The US destruction programme appears to have stalled, with fears being expressed at the conference that the final elimination date may slip to 2012 -2015.

The US faces the problem of individual states opposing the siting of plants on their territory for destroying chemical weapons.

In particular, they are opposed to using incinerators, and alternative technologies will take time and money.

The initial cost of destruction was estimated at about $2.6bn but that has now risen to $25bn.

New generation

The fate of existing chemical weapons stockpiles may be the main focus of the review conference, but the issue being hotly debated outside is recent scientific advances that could see new chemical agents being developed that are not covered by the treaty.

Under the treaty, countries are allowed to develop and use riot control agents for civilian policing operations. Until now, this has mainly involved chemicals such as tear gas.

Malcolm Dando, professor of International Security at the University of Bradford's Peace Studies department, fears that because of the revolution in life sciences there could be a whole new generation of chemicals used to incapacitate people.

"If the convention does not clearly stop that we could then see an escalating arms race in new chemical weapons," he said.

The fear is that several countries, particularly the US, are developing a whole range of so called non-lethal chemicals that could temporarily incapacitate or calm people, because the treaty does allow for their use in policing operations.

There are also concerns over the safety of such chemicals after more than 120 hostages died when Russian troops used an opiate-based incapacitant to end the Moscow theatre siege last year.

According to conference spokesman Peter Kaiser, the convention allows incapacitants, riot control agents and chemicals that only have a temporary effect to be used for law enforcement, including domestic riot control.

"But they are absolutely and entirely prohibited for use as a means of warfare," he stressed.

US view

The Americans, though, have long maintained that there are circumstances where such chemicals could be used.

David Fidler, from the Federation of American Scientists working group on biological and chemical weapons, points to a number of instances where, under US law, such chemicals could be used.

These include instances where the enemy are using civilians to either mask an attack or shield themselves from attack, rescuing downed aircrews and re-capturing escaped POWs.

It is a highly controversial position but one that this review conference does not appear likely to address in its final communique.

Graham Pearson is a former director general of Porton Down, the UK's chemical and biological defence establishment.

He would like to see the conference send a strong message that it is concerned that the development of new non-lethal weapons constitutes a serious erosion of the convention.

"This convention has the stated aim of totally eliminating the use of chemical weapons for the sake of mankind. To open the door to non-lethal weapons is a serious erosion of that aim," he said.

"But I don't think they are going to bite the bullet. I think they will duck the issue and miss an opportunity."