Between travel back to the United States, and the fact that news is slim now that the States Parties are firmly ensconced behind close doors, there has been less to report about the BWC RevCon in recent days – and family and friends to enjoy.

Still, in Europe they don’t do Thanksgiving (except presumably in the US Embassy), and so the US delegation spent the day in meetings with everyone else. Luckily, the BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP), of which we are a member, is issuing daily reports on the activities in Geneva. Last Thursday (Nov. 23) for instance, BWPP reported on the rapid progress being made in the article-by-article review of the Convention, which at first seemed to be virtually completed by the end of the day Wednesday. The potential problem with this, as many were observing, was that it was all seeming a bit too easy. With so much agreement, everyone was wondering if and when the proverbial other shoe would drop. At least through the end of the week, no shoes had been heard.

One reason for the rapidity of the review seems to be that, at least at first, it was largely conducted at a rather surface level. Few proposals for specific language for the Final Declaration of the RevCon were being offered. As BWPP noted after Thursday’s sessions, “the Review Conference is still at the stage of airing issues rather than seeking consensus so many topics have been discussed without bringing them to a conclusion.” That said, Thursday and Friday did see more in depth discussions on two topics: peaceful cooperation (Article X) and assistance to member States if they are “exposed to danger as a result of violation of the Convention” (Article VII), especially in relation to terrorist attacks .

Moreover, by the end of the week the European Union, the U.S., India and China, and the Non-aligned States (NAM) had all submitted suggested text. India’s proposals were the first submitted by a non-Western nation (except for specific proposals relating to Article X submitted by the NAM) and apparently covered every article of the Convention. The proposals were also notable for including text that incorporated considerations resulting from the 2003-2005 series of annual meetings. This is important for connecting the BWC to the new process inaugurated with the 2003 annual meeting, a process that many States Parties want to see continued and enhanced.

In addition, RevCon President Masood Khan circulated an informal paper on Friday proposing text for a draft Final Declaration in order “to stimulate discussion and focus negotiation,” and the RevCon Secretariat circulated a compilation of all proposed language that had been submitted thus far for the Final Declaration based on the article-by-article review. Hopefully, all of this activity signifies that the States Parties are moving ahead and that the apparent consensus that exists around some issues actually extends below the surface to the actual nuts and bolts operation of the Convention. However, thus far most of the proposals have come from Western nations, so other proposals may yet be in the offing.

In addition to the article-by-article review, the States Parties began discussing so-called “cross-cutting” or “thematic” issues on Thursday, starting with a discussion of how a 2007 - 2010 intersessional process might work. A number of proposals on the form and structure of these meetings are on the table, ranging from a back-to-back one week meetings of Experts and of States Parties, to a two-week meeting of Experts separated by several months from a one-week meeting of States Parties. On Friday, discussions focused on the Confidence Building Measures. It is expected that other cross-cutting issues to be discussed will include the 2003 – 2005 annual meetings (with India having placed specific language on the table, these discussions will hopefully cut to the chase rather quickly), national implementation, universalization, and implementation support. It is on the cross-cutting issues (see our key issues document for more information on these topics) that the States Parties face their most difficult challenges, so it will be interesting to see how the discussions develop.

Of note as well are two other developments. First, President Khan circulated an informal paper on Thursday which collated suggestions that have been made for topics for the inter-sessional meetings. According to the BWPP, the paper “also highlights some practical questions not yet discussed about how a new inter-sessional process should be organized. Examples of these questions include: should one or two topics be covered each year? Should the meetings be able to come to decisions? With four years of meetings, but three groupings of States Parties [historically, these have been the Western Group, Eastern Group, and Non-Aligned Group], how will the allocation of chairs be done equitably? It is likely that the questions in the paper will not be discussed in a single session and will have implications for a number of issues discussed in various sessions.”

Second, Iran has now formally requested that the Convention be amended to prohibit the use of biological weapons, stating that the provisions against use in the 1925 Geneva Protocol are not strong enough. However, other States Parties do not believe that amending the Convention would strengthen the legal situation, especially in light of their affirmation during the Fourth Review Conference in 1996 that the use of biological weapons is “effectively prohibited under Article I of the Convention.” It remains unclear whether and to what extent Iran will be able to carry its request forward.

So, how might week one of the BWC Review Conference best be summed up? The States Parties appear to be making real progress towards issuing a Final Declaration that incorporates the insights garnered from the 2003 – 2005 annual meetings, establishing a new round of inter-sessional meetings for 2007 – 2010, and providing some mechanism for institutional support. The “firm consensus” supporting a new inter-sessional work program, and the focus of discussions on the content of that program, stands in marked contrast to expectations of just a few months ago that significant time would be spent discussing whether there should be a work program at all. Moreover, as BWPP notes, the “role of central arrangements for implementation support also appears to have been the subject of an unexpected early consensus. Barely a few weeks ago there were indications that the creation of any form of central support mechanism would be resisted by a number of States Parties, the most notable of which was the United States. Now it seems there is a growing consensus that a small implementation support unit may be agreed as part of an overall package of measures relating to a new inter-sessional work programme.”

At this point, the outstanding questions revolve around the content of the new work program, how much and what form the institutional support will take, and whether anyof this will significantly advance efforts to counter the threat of biological weapons. These are all very important questions, but the fact that they are being addressed is a significant advance over the situation of five years ago. With effort, the States Parties will also attend to the need to build closer links between the BWC and the plethora of activities occurring outside of the formal BWC context. There is reason for cautious optimism.