test_pdf.pdf
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ASSESSING<br />
THE RECORD<br />
OF ARMS<br />
CONTROL<br />
for hostile purposes. And the focus of this new process is on things like strengthening controls over pathogens and<br />
encouraging countries to pass national implementing legislation.<br />
Expectations are relatively low, at least based on the first meetings of countries participating in this new BWC<br />
process, that much of significance will come out of this. But the real problem is that whatever does materialize will<br />
not fundamentally address the key issue confronting the BWC, and that is the continuing concern that a number of<br />
countries are pursuing biological weapons programs. In recent years, as is known, the U.S. government has said that<br />
more than a dozen countries are believed to either have or be pursuing biological weapons.<br />
Outside of the treaty, the key holdouts, if you will, about which there are concerns, are Egypt, Israel, and Syria.<br />
Within the treaty, the U.S. government has identified Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia, and China as being BW<br />
proliferators, as having illicit BW programs contrary to the terms of the BWC. And several other countries have also<br />
been mentioned: India, Pakistan, Sudan, and Taiwan, which of course has a special status, a complicated status with<br />
respect to international treaties.<br />
As everyone knows, and has been much in the news in recent weeks, both UNMOVIC [the UN Monitoring,<br />
Verification and Inspection Commission] and U.S. inspections—under David Kay in Iraq—appear to have resolved<br />
the concerns that Iraq possesses biological weapons. But those inspections did show—and I think this is important<br />
to bear in mind—clear evidence of not only a laboratory network but also procurement efforts aimed at reconstituting<br />
Iraq’s biological weapons program in the future.<br />
The other significant development with respect to BW proliferation in recent months of course has been the<br />
Libyan announcement that it will comply with the BWC. That is also a very welcome development. Ultimately of<br />
course we need to ensure that both the Iraqi program is not reconstituted in the future and that any required Libyan<br />
disarmament efforts are carried out. And of course we need to address the concerns that have been expressed by the<br />
U.S. and others about continuing BW programs in the other countries that I mentioned.<br />
What about the CWC? I think the track record of participation in this treaty is even more impressive than with<br />
respect to the Biological Weapons Convention. At entry into force in April of 1997—that’s less than seven years<br />
ago—there were 87 states-parties. With the recent accession of Libya and Tuvalu, we are now at 160 states-parties to<br />
the CWC; 160 countries have agreed now not to develop or produce or possess or use chemical weapons. As I<br />
mentioned, unlike the BWC, the CWC does contain detailed declaration and inspection provisions that are designed<br />
to ensure that its parties are meeting both their disarmament and their non-armament obligations. So you can look at<br />
how countries have met these declaration and inspection requirements to get a more tangible feel for the impact of the<br />
CWC.<br />
So what has happened since entry into force of the CWC? Let me just run through a few data points that I think<br />
are important.<br />
First, five states-parties, including three who had not previously acknowledged possessing chemical weapons,<br />
have declared CW stocks. These countries are the U.S., Russia, India, South Korea, and most recently Albania,<br />
which apparently has some bulk agent that may or may not be militarily usable.<br />
Since entry into force of the CWC, some 8,000 metric tons of chemical agent and approximately 2 million<br />
munitions have been destroyed under international supervision. This represents approximately 11 percent of the<br />
70,000 tons of chemical agents that have been declared under the treaty, and close to 25 percent of the 8.6 million<br />
munitions or containers that have been declared.<br />
Since entry into force, 11 states-parties have declared 61 current or past CW production facilities. These countries<br />
are the U.S., Russia, India, South Korea, China, Iran, France, Japan, the U.K., Bosnia and Herzegovina, and<br />
Serbia and Montenegro. All 61 facilities have been inactivated. Two-thirds of them have either been destroyed or<br />
converted to permitted purposes under international supervision.<br />
Finally, over 1,600 inspections have been carried out at close to 700 sites in 58 countries. Two-thirds of these<br />
inspections have been at chemical weapons-related facilities, (chemical weapons stockpile sites, chemical weapons<br />
destruction facilities), and roughly a third of these inspections have been at industry facilities that handle chemicals<br />
that could be used to make CW agents, the so-called scheduled chemicals.<br />
Pretty impressive record, at least in terms of the numbers. But as is well known, the CWC, like the BWC, faces<br />
some important challenges, and let me just quickly mention a few of them.<br />
First, we have the continued existence of chemical weapons programs. Prior to the ratification of the CWC here<br />
in the United States, U.S. officials said that there were some two-dozen countries that either had or were seeking<br />
chemical weapons. In recent years, the number used is roughly a dozen. So we’ve seen a significant reduction in the<br />
number of countries of CW proliferation concern, but still, a dozen countries is a dozen too many. Among the<br />
countries that are outside the treaty, there are concerns about Iraq, Libya (until recently), Syria, North Korean, Egypt,<br />
and Israel. Myanmar and Taiwan have also been mentioned as countries with probable chemical weapons programs.<br />
15<br />
15