Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
ments on relevant national activities. A hopeful sign is that states such as
Australia and the US have made their CBMs available on the Internet and
thus opened them to public scrutiny. It is to be hoped that other states
will quickly do the same.
Thus far there is little indication that States Parties other than the UK
and the US have used declarations made under the CBMs as a basis for bi-
lateral consultations on BWC-related matters of concern. The UK and the
US did so during their démarches to South Africa already noted, as they
had previously done following the démarches to the Soviet Union and
then Russia that had furthered the trilateral process among them. There
is substantial potential for States Parties to use their CBM declarations of
past offensive programs to achieve as much transparency as possible, es-
pecially in regard to the use of facilities and capabilities subsequent to the
abandonment of a national offensive program. Likewise, States Parties
should use their CBM declarations of national biological defense pro-
grams and facilities to demonstrate that the capabilities and activities are
indeed consistent with permitted protective purposes under the Conven-
tion. The omission of parts of national biodefense programs and activities
from such declarations can only heighten suspicions and harm the build-
ing of confidence in compliance.
Although there are similarities between activities required for an offen-
sive program and some activities required for a defensive program—for
example, a defensive program needs to evaluate the hazard to which its
forces or population may be exposed as a result of a biological attack—
there would seem to be little need for practical demonstration on any sig-
nificant scale of the feasibility of production, weaponization, or disper-
sion of agent. States Parties would be wise to review their national biolog-
ical defense programs from the point of view of other states, which might
form incorrect perceptions of their objectives—and, if so, to take steps
aimed at providing sufficient transparency to reduce the likelihood of
such incorrect perceptions.
The absence of any secretariat for the BWC and hence of any forum,
other than the Review Conferences at five-year intervals, in which States
Parties can collectively address issues relating to compliance concerns is a
serious deficiency. A secretariat involving only a few people could en-
courage the timely submission of the annual CBM declarations by all
States Parties, arrange for their translation into the UN official languages,
Search WWH ::
Custom Search