<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Inter Press ServiceDISARMAMENT: Verification System for Bio-Weapons, But Only By 2001</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.ipsnews.net/1996/12/disarmament-verification-system-for-bio-weapons-but-only-by-2001/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.ipsnews.net/1996/12/disarmament-verification-system-for-bio-weapons-but-only-by-2001/</link>
	<description>News and Views from the Global South</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2026 12:00:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>DISARMAMENT: Verification System for Bio-Weapons, But Only By  2001</title>
		<link>https://www.ipsnews.net/1996/12/disarmament-verification-system-for-bio-weapons-but-only-by-2001/</link>
		<comments>https://www.ipsnews.net/1996/12/disarmament-verification-system-for-bio-weapons-but-only-by-2001/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gustavo Capdevila</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Geopolitics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science and Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipsnews.net/?p=50772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gustavo Capdevila]]></description>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font color="#999999"><p class="wp-caption-text">Gustavo Capdevila</p></font></p><p>By Gustavo Capdevila<br />GENEVA, Dec 8 1996 (IPS) </p><p>Northern states used to dub biological weapons the &#8216;poor man&#8217;s atomic bomb&#8217; on the grounds that their ease of manufacture put arms of mass destruction within the reach of almost any state.<br />
<span id="more-50772"></span><br />
Generally overlooked was the ease in which such programmes can be hidden under cover of conventional research, both North and South: Soviet Russia secretly continued manufacture of biological weapons for years after publically co-sponsoring a pact prohibiting it.</p>
<p>This was because the tiniest quantity of a disease organism can be lethal, John Holum, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, told a meeting here called to review the 1972 treaty banning the development or stockpiling of biological arms worldwide.</p>
<p>Treaty signatory nations ended the two week review meeting Friday without commitment to rapid establishment of a verification &#8212; merely a general commitment to introducing one &#8220;within five years,&#8221; a 2001 deadline that falls well short of the originally tabled proposal to set a 1998 target.</p>
<p>The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention remains the only multilateral disarmament treaty to lack a system for investigating violations.</p>
<p>The session&#8217;s closing declaration would only go as far as endorsing a South African call for a special ad hoc group working on a definition of verification measures to &#8220;intensify its work&#8221; with a view to completing it as &#8220;soon as possible,&#8221; before the start of the Fifth Review Conference scheduled for 2001.<br />
<br />
But the group, headed by Hungarian ambassador Tibor Toth, which will meet only three times in 1997, still lacks a single negotiating text and has to work with a collection of different documents, noted one diplomat here.</p>
<p>Sir Michael Weston, the British ambassador chairing the negotiations, said there was &#8220;broad consensus&#8221; that verification procedures should be added to the pact. But there was also wide disagreement on the power of the investigators to call on-site inspections, similar to those run by the U.N. Special Commission on Iraqi Disarmament (UNSCOM) since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.</p>
<p>However there were renewed pledges to the most important principles of the &#8216;Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction&#8217; &#8212; particularly the treaty&#8217;s key part in ensuring an end to the threat of global warfare.</p>
<p>And delegates did agree that though the pact only specifically refers to development, production, storage and acquisition of bio- war weapons, the signatory nations accepted in principle a ban on their use in warfare.</p>
<p>Iran had called for an amendment to the first article of the Convention to include a ban on the &#8216;use&#8217; of biological weapons as well as &#8220;development, production, maintenance, stockpiling, acquisition and transfer of biological or toxin weapons&#8221;.</p>
<p>Non-aligned nations leaned towards Iran&#8217;s position, while the countries of eastern Europe remained cautious, a diplomat said. Western countries were divided.</p>
<p>The Conference agreed to refer the amendment to the three trustees of the Convention &#8212; Russia, the U.S. and Britain &#8212; to consult with the 138 States that have ratified it before calling a fresh session to approve the proposed amendments.</p>
<p>The sessions were also preoccupied by the concerns of two &#8216;chief suspects&#8217; &#8212; Iraq and Russia &#8212; who used their effective veto on the consensus run convention review process to ensure that their reported breaches of the convention stayed off the record.</p>
<p>In signing an order bringing them to an end, Russian president Boris Yeltsin disclosed in 1992 that the Soviet Union had maintained bio-war programmes for years after it co-sponsored the treaty. And U.N. inspectors say that Iraq, which had denied that it had a germ war programme, had built up a stock of some 160 bombs and 25 missiles filled with biological agents before the 1991 Gulf War.</p>
<p>Both countries kept references to this evidence off the official documentation. Moscow also objected to any disclosure of conversations being held between the three trustees on the former Soviet Union&#8217;s violations of the Convention.</p>
<p>Russia also prevented the declaration from listing countries believed or known to have stockpiles of biological weapons, and requiring them to report on their destruction, said the source.</p>
<p>The United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency claims that up to a dozen countries could still be running bio-war programmes, including China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Russia and Syria.</p>
<p>Delegates did recognise however that scientific and technological developments since 1972 have raised the threat of terrorist or other criminal acts by individuals or groups.</p>
<p>The conference agreed that the treaty should take account of the considerable advances in biology and biotechnology since the ban took effect in 1975.</p>
<p>&#8220;There is more concern today than 20 years ago, when they were considered strategic weapons,&#8221; said Chilean ambassador Jorge Berguño, president of the conference&#8217;s principal committee.</p>
<p>The so-called &#8216;doomsday sect&#8217; Aum Shinrikyo, which used the nerve gas sarin in its 1995 attacks on the Tokyo metro planned similar attacks with biological weapons.</p>
<p>Scientist Graham Pearson from Britain&#8217;s University of Bradford said that in 1992 members of the sect had been sent to Zaire to collect samples of the lethal Ebola virus with a view to cultivating them as weapons in Japan.</p>
		<p>Excerpt: </p>Gustavo Capdevila]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.ipsnews.net/1996/12/disarmament-verification-system-for-bio-weapons-but-only-by-2001/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
