According to the BWPP, traditionally there are three regional groupings that operate in the BWC context: the ‘Western European and Other States Group’ (commonly referred to as the Western Group); the ‘Group of Eastern European States’ (commonly referred to as the Eastern Group); and the ‘Group of Non Aligned Movement and other States’ (commonly referred to as the NAM group). Each of these groupings derives from the Cold War era. A quirk of the modern era is that EU past and potential expansion has meant that a number of eastern group members are also members, or potential accession candidates, of the EU. This includes the co-ordinator of the eastern group, Hungary, which acceded to the EU in 2004. This makes the EU a major player in two of the three groupings that are used for organizing BTWC meeting activities.

In parallel with the changing role of the EU, and perhaps influenced by it, comes the emergence of new smaller active groupings of states in the BTWC context. A new Latin American grouping – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay – presented a number of joint working papers [note – BWC Observer has been referring to this as the Latin American Group] as did the JACKSNNZ (occasionally referred to as Jacksons 7) – Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand. They [i.e. the Jacksons] basically represent the Western Group without the EU and the United States.  According to a recent analysis in Arms Control Today, what we are seeing is that “the two most important regional groupings [the NAM and the Western Group] have been considerably weakened as other subgroups have formed.”

BWPP asks: “will these developments challenge the existing group structure?”  And Arms Control Today states that “these changes are likely to remove obstacles that previously had hindered progress.”

Let’s hope so – the old structure is a relic of the Cold War.  On the other hand, the new structures have their own problems.  For instance, “once the EU has come to a policy conclusion, there can be little flexibility in the position without taking the question back to the 25 Member States” reports the BWPP.  As we’ve said elsewhere, the BWC seems to be inventing new ways of operating.  What those new ways are, and their implications for biological weapons control, will not be apparent for some time.