|
|
How
Indutry Came to Support the CWC |
|
|
|
The United States chemical industry initiated its participation in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) negotiations in 1978. Far-sighted leaders of the chemical industry and in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) had discussions on how the Manufacturing Chemists Association (MCA) could participate. It was agreed that the trade association—soon to become the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)—would provide a resource person to interface with ACDA. The ACDA appointed Dr Robert Mikulak as its representative. The industry representative was the author. |
||
|
The relationship between government and industry in the USA in the late 1970s was not good. Communications were not sufficient, and often confrontational. In retrospect, the effective, comfortable working relationship established by government and industry in relation to the CWC was not predictable.
We must maintain the history, the logic, and the rationale that can help the effective implementation of the CWC.The key to the progress and the results we achieved over the past 20 years can be attributed to several factors. First, we both (government and industry) realised that we each needed to become knowledgeable as to the other’s objectives, needs, concerns, and methods of operation.That underlying understanding is still critical to the effective implementation of the CWC. The realisation by industry, as well as by government officials, that there is a chain of history, fact and logic that demands the active, positive participation of the chemical industry for the successful implementation of the CWC is probably the second key point. Chemical weapons still in use today, such as mustard gas, were manufactured from 1915-1918. Some 80 years later, a sophisticated chemical industry under the control of a government determined to produce chemical weapons has the capability of doing so, even if not necessarily by choice. It is that history, and fact, that leads to the inevitable conclusion that industry must be involved at all stages. The third point that has been effective is that multiple lines of communication were established between the two parties. The industry committee met frequently in Washington, and issued routine invitations to a large number of government representatives from several different departments. This led to people being able to communicate with many others as potential resources. In addition, communications were initiated among several chemical industry trade associations, including Australia, Canada, Europe, and Japan. We in industry were able to better articulate our views with government officials, and to resolve many issues through discussion with our counterparts in the international chemical industry. There are other trade associations in our country on which the CWC also has an impact, and it was necessary to keep those organisations informed of progress. We also were able to participate in activities of Pugwash and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which proved to be quite useful. One underlying factor that contributed to the success we had was the firm, continuing support of the CMA, headed by Bob Roland, and followed by Fred Webber. Without their leadership, results could have been less satisfactory. Probably the most difficult task of the CMA task group was persuading member companies to assign people to this issue in the face of an overwhelming demand for people to work on major issues that would have an immediate impact on their respective organisations. These representatives— though few in number—made significant contributions. We were fortunate that there was a thread of continuity for over 15 years for both industry and government. Each side gained knowledge about the other in terms of institutional procedures, methods of operation, decision-making, and issues of concern.The six to 10 members of the CMA group provided institutional knowledge for industry, and Bob Mikulak and his colleagues in government did the same. The chemical industry from many countries received an excellent insight as to the progress of CWC negotiations by attending the Geneva meetings as observers for their respective governments, and, in some cases, by participating in the discussions in sessions established for that purpose. On numerous occasions, industry testified before the US Congress in support of the CWC. In fact, on more than one occasion testimony by a member of Congress gave industry credit for being a key reason for the CWC becoming a reality.
On numerous occasions, industry testified before the US Congress in support of the CWC.The process—from beginning to end—was not only the responsible one for the chemical industry to take, but it was also of substantial benefit to industry to have been involved from the early stages to the signing and ratification of the CWC. The industry had substantial and numerous opportunities to participate in the discussion of subjects that directly impacted on industry. Both the CWC and industry have been well served by this proactive participation on the part of the international chemical industry. The CWC contains compromises, as does any instrument dealing with such a sophisticated and complex subject. Industry played a critical role in bringing good science to bear on the issues, and in the negotiators having access to an understanding of the industry as they prepared the language of the Convention, while still achieving the objectives of the CWC. The process of the last 22 years, that worked well, is still the key to the effective implementation of the Convention. The OPCW is to be commended for its efforts to involve the chemical industry in the early years of the Convention. The United States officials involved in the implementation at both the national and international level are continuing to maintain an effective dialogue with industry. There are some issues that deserve the attention of all parties. During the years of negotiations of the CWC, a com-paratively small number of people were involved at both the national and the international level. Since implementation, the number of people involved in both industry and government has increased, probably by tenfold! At a minimum, the institutional knowledge of the last 20 years has been diluted and, in some cases, lost. To the extent possible, we must maintain the history, the logic, and the rationale that can help the effective implementation of the CWC. As we move through the first few years of implementation, it is to be expected that certain parts of the Convention can be considered for change. Indeed, it would be surprising if no changes were required. Industry has changed, technology has changed, and science has changed. These changes will continue indefinitely, and will require constant evaluation of their possible impact on the CWC. One important point, however, will not change. The successful and unique working relationship between the chemical industry, Member States, and the OPCW is essential to the continuing success of the CWC as the way to achieve a world society free from the threat of chemical weapons.
|
||
