The Politics of Biological Disarmament - Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945 - page 310

purely by propagandistic ends.” 24 A group of Western nations submitted
amendments to the resolution that further diluted its ability to cast blame
on the US for its actions in Vietnam or for its status as a nonparty to
the Geneva Protocol. The amended resolution noted that the ENDC had
the task of “seeking an agreement for a cessation of development and
production of chemical and bacteriological weapons” and called for strict
observance of the principles and objectives of the Geneva Protocol. The
resolution passed on a close vote, with Western states supporting the
resolution, Eastern states abstaining, and neutral and nonaligned states
split. 25
In late 1965 the government of Malta disclosed to the UK that it in-
tended to propose an extension of the 1925 Geneva Protocol “to cover all
biological methods of warfare and armed conflicts other than war.” 26 The
UK urged Malta to show its proposals to the US, which was unlikely to
react favorably because of Vietnam. 27 Nevertheless, in 1967 Malta in-
troduced a draft resolution in the First Committee suggesting that the
Geneva Protocol be revised, updated, or replaced. In addition, the draft
resolution requested the secretary general to prepare a report on the ef-
fects of CBW, to be submitted to the ENDC. 28 In presenting this draft reso-
lution the Maltese representative made a strong case for why the Protocol
should be reviewed. He argued that it covered only some CW, that its
scope included tear gas but not herbicides, and that whereas bacteriologi-
cal weapons were banned, viral and fungal weapons were not. More gen-
erally, he concluded that the Protocol was “hopelessly out of date and
should be either radically revised or a new international agreement nego-
tiated.” 29 He did allow that the Protocol “may be useful as a point of refer-
ence for the beating of propaganda drums.” 30
The Maltese interpretation of the Geneva Protocol was not widely
shared—at least on the public platforms of the UN. Hungary, in particular,
not only reintroduced a version of the resolution it had submitted the
previous year, but also publicly challenged many of the assertions made
by the Maltese representative. The Hungarian representative argued that
the Protocol “unmistakably refers to all kinds of chemical and biological
weapons...Itisbeyond dispute that this wording accurately covers not
only any one of the existing chemical and bacteriological weapons, but
also those that are now being developed.” He argued that the Protocol did
not need revision or replacement, “but to give a strong effect to its pro-
hibitive clauses.” 31