July 27, 2001	atimes.com

Front Act III: US blocks biological weapons accord By Gustavo Capdevila GENEVA - United States rejection appears to have doomed negotiations to set up an international system to enforce a 30-year-old ban on the use of biological weapons in war, and has once again marked Washington's isolation when it comes to multilateral accords. Washington announced on Wednesday its discrepancy with the draft protocol - negotiated over the last seven years - to enforce compliance with the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. The US negotiator, Donald A Mahley, justified the decision by arguing that the draft text "would put national security and confidential business information at risk". The draft was presented by Tibor Toth of Hungary, chairman of the Ad Hoc group that has been negotiating the protocol to the convention since 1994.The protocol was intended to come up for a final vote during the conference to review the 1972 Convention this November. Toth drew up a document of concession between the stance of most Western nations - particularly the United States - which are fearful of industrial espionage, and the position of developing countries, which demand greater dissemination of technological knowledge. The Toth proposal received backing from 51 of the 56 delegations participating in the sessions that the Ad Hoc Group is holding in Geneva and which are slated to end on August 17. Marc Baptist, head of political relations for Belgium's Foreign Affairs Ministry, announced support for the Toth text on Monday on behalf of 28 countries, including the 15 nations of the European Union as well as several central and eastern European countries. A protocol based on the chairman's proposal would strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention and would be an effective complement to the existing multilateral regimes in the areas of disarmament and anti-proliferation, Baptist pointed out. Brazil's negotiator in the biological weapons talks, Celina Assumpcao do Valle Pereira, presented an opinion on Tuesday, also favorable to the Ad Hoc chairman's text, on behalf of 36 countries from various regions, including numerous members of the Non-Aligned Group. Toth maintained that other nations, such as China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan and Russia, had declared their willingness to negotiate based on the same text despite objections to certain stipulations included in the draft. The Hungarian diplomat commented that, at this point, the negotiations were no longer a technical exercise, but had turned into a political matter. Mahley, however, denied that the US government's decision to reject the draft protocol was political. On the contrary, he said, it was based purely on technical criteria, declaring that the measures for transparency contained in the text were insufficient. The US negotiator also said allegations that Washington's decision was the result of pressure from that country's pharmaceutical and biotech industries are "incorrect". "If you look at the public positions of the pharmaceutical industry you do not find them diametrically opposed to any kind of international agreement," he said. Mahley underscored the separate nature of the decision on biological weapons and his country's recent rejection of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and its position on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He maintained that Washington's negative responses should not be interpreted as opposition to the principle of multilateral negotiations. Academics and non-governmental organizations had sharp criticisms for the United States due to its move to block negotiations on the protocol. "The US position on the protocol is totally at variance with the US position over the past decade and more - over several administrations," said Malcolm Dando, of Britain's University of Bradford. In the past, Washington opposed the "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by all possible means, including a strong prohibition regime", stressed Dando, who exhorted the United States to reconsider its position. (Inter Press Service)

Front | China | Southeast Asia </