The doors were pulled shut on Tuesday afternoon as the BWC States Parties began their formal article-by-article review of the operation of the Convention. First, however, additional opening statements were presented by several member states. Various intergovernmental organizations made presentations as well.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) noted that “both the urgency and complexity” of achieving the objective of the Convention (see top, this page) “increases each year as our lives and societies are increasingly shaped by what has been called the ‘age of biotechnology.’” The ICRC noted that prevention is now “an essentially multidisciplinary endeavour involving not only delegates to the BWC meetings but also the public health sector, life scientists, industry, law enforcement agencies and the defence and the security community.” It added that “the BWC is the central pillar and authoritative normative basis of multidisciplinary preventive efforts.” Its importance “extends beyond the ‘disarmament’ field. It is the best and only basis for building an effective ‘web of prevention’ which may protect humanity from poisoning and the deliberate spread of disease in the future.” While some may argue with this contention, it is worth considering what the world could look like if the prohibitions of the BWC weren’t there.

The highlight of the open proceedings on Tuesday, at least from this perspective, was the informal session during which 16 non-governmental made statements to the States Parties. As the official UN website for the BWC says: “it has become accepted practice for meetings of the BWC to set aside time during their activities to hear statements from NGOs. This provides an important interface for civil society to speak directly to the representatives of governments from around the world.”

So, what did the NGOs have to say? For one thing, they told the States Parties that finding ways to actively strengthen the BWC, and providing the support necessary for taking action, is critical for successfully countering the threat of biological weapons. For another, they offered their recommendations on steps the States Parties could take.

In what is now a clear theme for the Review Conference, many spoke of the importance of improving national implementation of the obligations nations have under the treaty, including enacting effective legislation and regulatory controls, and “ensuring an appropriate system is put in place for operating and delivering the aims of that legislation” (or as we said - “putting policies, procedures and resources for their enforcement into place”). VERTIC offered specific proposals in this regard and International Network of Scientists and Engineers for Global Responsibility pointed out the importance of ensuring that legislation and controls stay current with developments in science and technology.

National implementation applies to all obligations under the BWC. A number of NGOs, for example, discussed the importance of improving the Confidence Building Measure (CBM) system for information exchange. The CBMs are just one means of increasing transparency, however. The Research Group for Biological Arms Control at Hamburg University offered a very interesting new idea: a trade monitoring system for relevant materials. This idea has the benefit that it is non-discriminatory and thus may have some appeal to nations who complain that they are being denied certain technologies. As the Arms Control Association (ACA) pointed out, “transparency must be increased on the basis of universal rules, so that trust in the compliance of all relevant actors is increased.”

Several NGOs also addressed the important issue of peaceful cooperation, which has often been a divisive one for the States Parties. The Friends World Committee for Consultation pointed out that “action is needed to promote international cooperation for the prevention of disease and other peaceful applications of microbiology.” And the only non-Western NGO, the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), stated that “Africa, perhaps more than any other continent, experiences daily the devastating effect of natural and deliberate disease,” particularly in countries with inadequate health care facilities. The ISS called for “peaceful technology transfers and enhancing national health care systems to respond to disease outbreaks,” noting that “efforts to develop cures for, and vaccines to prevent, disease that are endemic to our continent should, in the spirit of Article X, be used to the benefit of all.” The ISS also called for the establishment of a continental or regional pool of vaccines for use in Africa.

In light of the fact that there will likely be a new round of annual meetings from 2007 – 2010, the NGOs proposed a number of topics. Many were similar to topics that have been proposed by some States Parties, but there were also some more interesting, daring, or novel ideas, including:

• That annual meetings should be empowered to address all issues of importance to the Convention, rather than specific topics (ACA) (only in today’s world could such a recommendation be considered daring!).
• Facilitating international cooperation (Bradford University Department of Peace Studies)
• The provision of timely assistance to States Parties upon request in the event they are attacked with biological weapons (Bradford)
• The goals, activities and oversight of national biodefense programs, and strategies to enhance their transparency (Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation/Scientists Working Group)
• Mobilizing and managing a global scientific response to a biological attack (UPMC Center for Biosecurity)
• Investigating allegations of biological weapons use, and of non-compliance with the BWC (several NGOs)

NGOs also promoted some other ideas that no States Party has suggested, including:

• A fresh look at ways to monitor compliance with the convention. (ACA)
• A clear statement that all new types of biological weapons are prohibited, including incapacitating biochemical weapons (ACA)
• Examination of the implications of the convergence of biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology and cognitive science, and their use for military purposes (Pax Christi International)
• A ban on the creation of new strains of deadly pathogens (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom)
• Segregation of advanced biodefense research from classified nuclear weapons laboratories (Tri-Valley CARES)

NGOs have ideas to offer and by pushing the boundaries of acceptable action, their work helps strengthen efforts to counter biological weapons. In the future, they should be allowed to make statements during formal plenary sessions, as they are entitled to do in meetings of States Parties to other international Treaties (the Land Mines Treaty, for example). That would surely improve all efforts to counter the threat of biological weapons.

(The complete collection of NGO statements will be posted soon)