The Outcome of the Second Review Conference: an NGO perspective

Daniel Feakes is a Research Fellow with the Harvard Sussex Program at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom. Richard Guthrie is Co-ordinating Editor of the CBW Events project.

Daniel Feakes

Richard Guthrie

From an NGO perspective, the Second Review Conference was successful in that it reviewed the Convention and concluded a Final Report, but it did so with some difficulty. Given the circumstances of its negotiation, the Report does not signal any radical departures from past practice, indeed it largely maintains the status quo set by the First Review Conference in 2003.

But difficult decisions loom on the horizon as the final extended deadline for the destruction of chemical weapons in 2012 approaches.

The purpose of the Conference is to review implementation of the CWC, taking into account relevant developments in science and technology. Doing this requires States Parties to adopt a long-term strategic perspective rather than focusing on the day-to-day operation of the OPCW, for which other forums exist such as the Executive Council and Conference of the States Parties. However, it proved difficult for States Parties to “isolate” the Review Conference, as many focused their plenary statements on routine implementation issues. The First Review Conference was described as “an annual Conference of States Parties without the budget negotiations”, and the Second Review Conference could be similarly described.

Looking at the Conference alone, it is hard to disagree with the “business as usual” view. However, this downplays the substantive work that preceded it, which in many ways is where the real work of “reviewing” the CWC took place. One way to make the review process more “strategic” might be through greater involvement of outside agencies (for example international organizations, professional bodies, chemical industry and NGOs) in both the Working Group and the Conference itself, as did the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

While the final report covered most matters related to the CWC, one subject of concern to many NGOs – incapacitating agents – was left out. Although riot control agents (RCAs) are specifically mentioned in the CWC, incapacitants are not. Advances in understanding life processes create new opportunities to exploit this knowledge for hostile purposes. The issues surrounding incapacitating agents will have to be addressed at some point, although it seems that positions on the subject are sufficiently diverse to make this difficult at the moment. Interested States Parties will hopefully find a way to discuss this issue in future years.

There will always be some difficulty in bringing a large number of States Parties to a consensus, but the method this Review Conference used to produce a final report was not ideal.  The use of small groups to hammer out agreed texts in contentious areas is a tactic used in many negotiating situations. However, this is normally done on discreet subjects with only those states with particular interest participating. The ‘other meeting’ at the Review Conference was different – the invited States Parties debated all of the subject areas in the Final Report, leaving those not invited feeling left out of the process. It will be important to avoid repeating this procedure at future meetings.

An innovation for this Review Conference was to hold the ‘Open Forum’ within the OPCW Secretariat building, making it much easier for delegates to attend compared to the same event at the First Review Conference. The Open Forum offered a chance for NGO and industry representatives to address delegates in the same style as at BWC side events in Geneva. Indeed, the Open Forum had more attendees than is usually possible in the Geneva lunchtime meetings. What is still lacking though is an opportunity for NGOs to address the Review Conference directly, as they can at BWC meetings.

An NGO lunch with the Director-General provided a useful opportunity for interaction of a sort that is available in Geneva through the NGO dinners with the Chairman/President. The Director-General acknowledged in his opening statement to the Review Conference the OPCW’s ‘constructive interaction with a number of NGOs that have consistently followed the evolution of the Convention and the OPCW, and have continuously supported us with their interest, their analysis, and thoughtful – and occasionally provocative – contributions.’

Arrangements for NGOs were better than at previous OPCW meetings thanks to the dedicated assistance of staff members of the Technical Secretariat and some delegations. However, there is still much that could be done to make the CWC/OPCW more ‘NGO-friendly’ although this also reflects the lack of a significant NGO presence in The Hague on security issues. Some States Parties and staff of the Technical Secretariat still exhibit a cautious approach to interactions with NGOs but hopefully such attitudes will change in acknowledgement of the useful role NGOs play in modern world politics.

The future vitality of the CWC and the ability of the OPCW and national regulators to interact with practitioners of the chemical sciences is reliant on how those practitioners perceive the Convention. NGO analyses, commentaries and other publications are a major component of how such perceptions are formed. It is therefore important to have a strong partnership between NGOs, the OPCW and States Parties in order to promote a world free of chemical weapons which benefits from the peaceful uses of chemistry. NGOs should find ways to increase their activities in The Hague, perhaps in collaboration with the few security-related NGOs located there.

Review Conferences only make a dramatic impact when they fail. Positive outcomes tend to make modest advances that accumulate over successive conferences. The problems, potentials and threats of the hostile uses of toxic chemicals will require continuing vigilance in the coming decades. Taking a decades-long view on the CWC helps put the progress that has been made so far into perspective. Twenty years ago there were at least three countries with overt chemical weapons programmes; now there are no overt programmes anywhere – CW possession has been de-legitimised and the declared stockpiles are being destroyed. The OPCW has made a significant contribution to international peace and security in its first 11 years, but much remains to be done. NGOs, as they have done since the first talks on a CWC in the early 1970s, stand ready to assist in reaching this goal.

Daniel Feakes organized the NGO resources webpage for the Second Review Conference which can be found at cwc2008.org. Richard Guthrie produced daily reports from the Second Review Conference which can be found at www.cbw-events.org.uk/cwc-rep.html.

Categories: RC-2