Trust-Building Efforts Under Biological Arms Ban at Near-Decade Low

South Korean soldiers check samples during a 2010 biological- and chemical-terrorism drill north of Seoul. Global participation in data-reporting measures for a biological-weapons ban is at its lowest point in almost a decade, the United States reported at a conference of member states last week.
National Journal
Diane Barnes
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Diane Barnes
Dec. 18, 2013, 10:02 a.m.

Glob­al par­ti­cip­a­tion in data-re­port­ing meas­ures for a bio­lo­gic­al-weapons ban is at its low­est point in nearly a dec­ade.

U.S. en­voys re­por­ted that find­ing at an an­nu­al con­fer­ence of Bio­lo­gic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion mem­ber states in Geneva last week. The lag­ging com­pli­ance oc­curred des­pite a high-pro­file fo­cus on boost­ing the treaty’s cred­ib­il­ity.

As of Wed­nes­day, just 63 of 166 coun­tries had sub­mit­ted vol­un­tary data about bio-re­lated activ­it­ies un­der con­fid­ence-build­ing meas­ures, or “CBMs,” sought from all BWC mem­ber na­tions over the past year.

“The situ­ation is get­ting worse, rather than bet­ter,” Wash­ing­ton warned in a work­ing pa­per sub­mit­ted for the Switzer­land con­fer­ence. “Time is run­ning out on our best op­por­tun­ity to ad­dress the prob­lem of low CBM par­ti­cip­a­tion.”

Un­like its coun­ter­part agree­ment cov­er­ing chem­ic­al arms, the bio­lo­gic­al-weapons treaty has no aud­it­ors or re­quire­ments for veri­fy­ing that mem­ber states are ad­her­ing to rules against de­vel­op­ing, man­u­fac­tur­ing or stor­ing or­gan­isms or tox­ins for mil­it­ary use.

States parties to the treaty are asked to an­nu­ally sub­mit de­tails on do­mest­ic bio­lo­gic­al-de­fense sites for the pri­or year. One U.S. ex­ample was a re­port on the scope and aims of patho­gen stud­ies at the U.S. Army Med­ic­al Re­search In­sti­tute of In­fec­tious Dis­eases in Mary­land. Re­port­able in­form­a­tion also may re­late to newly in­sti­tuted laws, changes to fa­cil­it­ies or dis­ease in­cid­ents.

“In any giv­en year, the ma­jor­ity of states parties do not sub­mit CBMs,” U.S. of­fi­cials said in their work­ing pa­per.

“Many states parties [have] noted the im­port­ance of CBMs” dur­ing “ab­bre­vi­ated ses­sions” held among BWC mem­bers in the past, ac­cord­ing to the doc­u­ment. But there has been “dis­ap­point­ingly little dis­cus­sion about why the rate of par­ti­cip­a­tion re­mains so low in a re­gime widely noted as an im­port­ant com­pon­ent of na­tion­al im­ple­ment­a­tion,” the U.S. pa­per reads.

Par­ti­cip­a­tion in the vol­un­tary data-shar­ing has av­er­aged just 35 per­cent since 1987, the U.S. team re­por­ted.

“While par­ti­cip­a­tion im­proved slightly in re­cent years, hov­er­ing near or above 40 per­cent,” the rate of in­form­a­tion-shar­ing by mem­ber na­tions ex­ceeded 50 per­cent only once — in 1991, ac­cord­ing to the pa­per.  

The 34 per­cent level of mem­ber-na­tion re­port­ing in 2013 con­sti­tutes “the low­est par­ti­cip­a­tion rate since 2005,” the Wash­ing­ton dip­lo­mats said. “Of a cur­rent total of 166 states parties, 52 (or 31 per­cent) have nev­er sub­mit­ted a CBM re­turn. Nearly half of these (a total of 24) have been party to the BWC since the CBM re­gime began in 1987.”

At the con­ven­tion’s 2013 Meet­ing of States Parties last week, par­ti­cipants agreed to seek in­put from coun­tries that rarely or nev­er sub­mit de­clar­a­tions “on the spe­cif­ic reas­ons on why they do not par­ti­cip­ate.” That ini­ti­at­ive was in­cluded in a pre­lim­in­ary list of ele­ments for the five-day gath­er­ing’s fi­nal re­port.

Elec­tron­ic sub­mis­sion, tech­nic­al work­shops and tweaks to an­nu­al writ­ten re­mind­ers were also on the table as pos­sible meth­ods of en­cour­aging mem­ber states to sub­mit the de­clar­a­tions. Still, it re­mained un­cer­tain how gov­ern­ments might act in com­ing years to shore up dis­clos­ures un­der the non­bind­ing trans­par­ency scheme.

The in­form­a­tion re­ques­ted is “quite min­im­al” for gov­ern­ments that do not op­er­ate bio­lo­gic­al de­fense pro­grams or sens­it­ive dis­ease-re­search fa­cil­it­ies, the U.S. del­eg­a­tion as­ser­ted in its pa­per.

By ten­der­ing a single page, a coun­try could in­dic­ate “that there is ‘noth­ing to de­clare’ or ‘noth­ing new to de­clare,’” the U.S. doc­u­ment states.

Meet­ing par­ti­cipants were di­vided, though, on wheth­er the trust-build­ing sys­tem is in need of sig­ni­fic­ant change, ac­cord­ing to is­sue ex­pert Richard Gu­thrie of the BioWeapons Pre­ven­tion Pro­ject, a net­work of non­gov­ern­ment­al or­gan­iz­a­tions.

“It was not clear from the dis­cus­sion what might con­sti­tute ap­pro­pri­ate changes that could com­mand con­sensus,” Gu­thrie wrote last week in a brief re­port.

A sev­en-year push to ne­go­ti­ate a bind­ing veri­fic­a­tion mech­an­ism for the treaty ended in 2001, when the United States with­drew from the talks. The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has up­held Wash­ing­ton’s op­pos­i­tion to the es­tab­lish­ment of a man­dat­ory mon­it­or­ing re­gime for the bio­lo­gic­al-arms treaty based on con­cerns about cost to re­search in­sti­tu­tions and in­dustry.

Last week’s meet­ing marked the fi­nal form­al dia­logue over con­cerns about the vol­un­tary de­clar­a­tions ahead of the bio­lo­gic­al-arms treaty’s next re­view con­fer­ence in 2016. Mem­ber na­tions are ex­pec­ted to ad­dress oth­er is­sues pri­or to the next five-year gath­er­ing, in­clud­ing how they would col­lab­or­ate in re­spond­ing to a bio­lo­gic­al strike.

This art­icle was pub­lished in Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, which is pro­duced in­de­pend­ently by Na­tion­al Journ­al Group un­der con­tract with the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. NTI is a non­profit, non­par­tis­an group work­ing to re­duce glob­al threats from nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al, and chem­ic­al weapons.

What We're Following See More »
ABSENT FROM LIST: GENNIFER FLOWERS
Most Trump Guests Have Military Ties
44 minutes ago
THE LATEST
TOP OF MIND
Trending on Google: ‘Why Should Trump Not Be President’
54 minutes ago
THE DETAILS
WHO PLAYED THE DONALD?
Longtime Clinton Aide Played Trump in Mock Debates
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

After keeping the information private for most of the lead-up to the debate on Monday, it has been revealed that longtime Clinton aide Philippe Reines has been playing the role of Donald Trump in her debate prep. Reines knows Clinton better than most, able to identify both her strengths and weaknesses, and his selection for a sparring partner shows that Clinton is preparing for the brash and confrontational Donald Trump many have come to expect.

Source:
WEEKEND POLLING ROUNDUP
New Polls Still Show Razor-Thin Margins
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
  • A national Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Clinton leading Trump by just two points among likely voters, 46% to 44%.
  • A national Bloomberg poll out Monday morning by Selzer & Co. has Clinton and Trump tied at 46% in a two-way race, and Trump ahead 43% to 41% in a four-way race.
  • A CNN/ORC poll in Colorado shows likely voters’ support for Trump at 42%, 41% for Clinton, and a CNN/ORC poll in Pennsylvania has Clinton at 45% and Trump at 44%.
  • A Portland Press Herald/UNH survey in Maine has Clinton leading Trump in ME-01 and Trump ahead in ME-02.
THE QUESTION
How Many Times Has the Trump Campaign Emailed Ted Cruz’s Supporters?
3 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 30 times, in the case of some donors. Long before Cruz endorsed Trump—and before he even snubbed the nominee at the Republican National Convention—"the senator quietly began renting his vast donor email file to his former rival, pocketing at least tens of thousands of dollars, and more likely hundreds of thousands, that can be used to bankroll the Texan’s own political future."

Source:
×