From: Colombian Labor Monitor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 09:11:48 -0500 (CDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JANE'S: US policy risks undermining bioweapons control regime
________________________________________________________________________
C O L O M B I A N L A B O R M O N I T O R
http://www.prairienet.org/clm
For updates throughout the day visit the most thorough and
complete Colombian news service at http://www.prairienet.org/clm
________________________________________________________________________
JANE'S INTELLIGENCE REVIEW
1 October 2001
US policy risks undermining
bioweapons control regime
---------------------------
By Daphne Biliouri and Tamara Makarenko
The USA's failure to sign the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention and
its role as a leading advocate and developer of biological fungi and
viruses aimed at narcotics eradication is, according to opponents of
Washington's policies, the beginning of the end of the worldwide ban on
bioweapons. Daphne Biliouri and Tamara Makarenko report.
As state concerns about security cover an ever wider spectrum of
issues, the use of biological weapons for defence purposes has
attracted growing attention in recent years. With the 5th Review
Conference of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BTWC)
taking place in November 2001, combined with the recent failure to
finalise a protocol that would strengthen the BTWC, the
international community finds itself faced with yet another
challenge.
The BTWC was originally established in 1972 to ban the development
of biological weapons. It aims to cover the use of genetically-
modified biological weapons and the development of all biological
agents and toxins used for hostile purposes. One of the aspects of
the BTWC that has attracted international attention is the need to
define the boundaries of how biological agents are used in drug
control. Recently, biological agents have been used for narcotic
crop eradication in South America and in Asia.
Efforts to strengthen the BTWC emerged after the United Nations Drug
Control Programme (UNDCP) established a project to develop a fungus
that could be used to eradicate coca and opium poppy crops.
Highlighting the controversy surrounding the initiation of this
project is the adoption of the name 'agent green' by organisations
and states holding the belief that anti-drug crop agents are
comparable to the herbicide 'agent orange' used during the Vietnam
war.
Among the groups dedicated to establishing and strengthening the
BTWC has been the Sunshine Project - an international non-
governmental organisation (NGO) created in 1999 dedicated to
distributing information on biological weapons and to stop the use
of microbial agents against narcotic crops. A leading concern for
the organisation is that certain scientific (biological) advances
may undermine peace, disarmament, health and the environment, thus
leading the Sunshine Project to promote research and public
awareness in order to establish an international consensus to stop
the use of biological weapons.
Since 1972, more than 140 countries have signed the BTWC. The
majority of these states have subsequently begun to introduce
national legislation to enhance the aims of the convention. As with
many UN conventions, however, there was no way to enforce the BTWC.
This changed in 1995 when a protocol was introduced to ensure the
convention could be enforced. This protocol, known as the Cartagena
Biosafety Protocol, was eventually adopted in January 2000 and was
opened for signing in May 2000. Despite many states expressing their
intention to sign the protocol, the US withdrawal from the first
round of negotiations of the BTWC in July 2001 has crippled any
efforts to establish global measures against biological weapons.
US policy interests
The USA's refusal to sign the BTWC has also complicated debates
about the role of biotechnology for defence purposes and for drug
control. During the July 2001 negotiations, the USA demonstrated its
overarching interest was to ensure the secrecy of biodefence
projects over international weapons control. It openly expressed its
priority of preserving national control over the development of
biological agents, and stated it had no interest in seeing the
development of an international verification system. In his capacity
as the chief US negotiator on biological weapons, US Ambassador Don
Mahley declared: "The United States is the world leader in
biotechnology. The cost of early research and development is
enormous. Providing others with the means to avoid such costs or to
obtain process information for unfair competition would endanger not
only the industry, but the benefits that industry provides to the
entire world."
Following the same approach it used in withdrawing from the climate
change talks of the Kyoto protocol and its disavowal of the ABM
treaty, for a third time running the USA appears to be placing
global security in jeopardy. Despite advocating the importance of
international co-operation in ensuring global security, US
withdrawal from the BTWC reveals that Washington prefers national
measures to an international watchdog established through the UN
system. Ignoring the willingness of other countries in the
international community to compromise and finalise a protocol text
before the BTWC's fifth review conference, the USA remains silent. A
gesture that confirms Washington's lack of interest to ensure the
verification of the protocol.
Given no guarantee that the protocol will ensure the complete
control of the illicit use of biotechnology, the US government
argues that it should be ignored - despite the fact that the
majority of experts and states agree that deterrence should be the
goal. The Sunshine Project calls the US position the 'wing and a
prayer doctrine'. Edward Hammond explains: "The wing and a prayer
doctrine is a dangerous substitute for UN verification. The wings
are those of cruise missiles streaking toward a suspected bioweapons
facility. The prayers are for US intelligence to be right. The
consequences are fatal... and a further destabilising breakdown of
international co-operation to avert biological warfare. It is a
flawed doctrine that proposes eliminating single threats while
creating many more."
Despite the uncompromising position of the US, there are positive
aspects to the US reaction. For example: "While eventual US
ratification is highly desirable, the USA's self-imposed exile opens
possibilities of strengthening the protocol in deficient areas,
where the US was obstructive, such as declarations, visits, and
export controls," states Jan van Aken, a biologist working for the
Sunshine Project.
Based on these needs, other groups of states - such as the European
Union and the African Union - are willing to set more stringent
measures. A current example of relatively stringent control of
biotechnology for defence purposes are the legal penalties
introduced in Africa. In August 2001, following the failure of the
negotiations of the BTWC, the African Union introduced a new model
law to control future biotechnology research and development on the
basis of the UN's biosafety protocol. This is an exemplary action
showing that African states have taken the lead in addressing the
dangers posed by the abuse of biotechnology on 'human health,
biological diversity, the environment, or property'.
In addition to African efforts, an alliance of more than 100
international organisations called on 'all governments to undertake
every effort to reach consensus on a strong protocol' - a view that
was also shared by the European Parliament in the form of a
resolution passed in February 2001. The resolution indicated that
the European Union "must take the necessary steps to secure an end
to the large-scale use of chemical herbicides and prevent the
introduction of biological agents such as fusarium oxysporum, given
the dangers of their use to human health and the environment alike".
Commissioner Paul Nielson, speaking on behalf of the European
Commission, declared that he was "completely in agreement" with
sponsor Joaquim Miranda of Portugal, who specifically attacked the
eradication of narcotic crops with biological agents as dangerous
for biodiversity. This decision was viewed as a blow to the use of
biological agents in drug eradication, and as an important step
towards a global ban on the use of biological weapons against
illicit crops. According to van Aken, Europe has a critical role to
play: "It is now time for Europe to make it unmistakably clear to
the Bush administration that it will not tolerate a third treaty to
be trashed by short-sighted American policy."
The war on drugs
The USA has played a leading role in developing biological fungi and
viruses that primarily target the opium poppy, marijuana and coca
plants. These agents are designed to kill plants at a high rate once
they are sprayed in drug-producing areas - such as those found in
the Americas and Asia. However, there are major concerns that some
of these agents can spread uncontrollably with devastating effects
on the environment and the health of people and animals in the
targeted areas.
Despite unanswered questions about the security of biological agents
in the use against drugs crops, the USA and, to a lesser extent, the
UNDCP, remains adamant that they are potentially the most efficient
way to stop the agricultural production of illicit narcotics.
Arguably cheaper than targeting demand, and/or focusing more
resources to securing borders to stop the transportation of
narcotics, biological agents are seen as a panacea. Regardless of
their effectiveness in destroying drugs crops, the use of biological
agents may prove to produce more threats than they eliminate, such
as wreaking havoc on the legal agricultural sectors of target areas.
Furthermore, Washington's refusal to consider the negative aspects
of biological agents has given the impression that it is merely
using the war on drugs to justify its own bioweapons research -
confirmed by the fact that the USA wants to maintain national
control over its own bioweapon projects.
The most publicised eradication project has been in Colombia where,
for the past decade, the coca-killing fungus fusarium oxysporum has
been developed and used by the UNDCP with the help of US funding. To
ensure that Colombia would comply with the project, the US
government linked the application of 'agent green' to a US$1.3
billion aid package (Plan Colombia). Although in his last year in
office former US President Bill Clinton did attempt to lift the
pressure placed on the Colombian government by promising the
financial aid package without conditions for the use of biological
agents for drug control, the Bush administration appears ready to
pressure Colombia and other Andean states again.
The second project in which biological agents have been developed
and used against narcotics crops has been taking place in Central
Asia since 1995. The US Department of Agriculture co-operated with
research institutes in Kazakhstan and Russia to identify fungi that
attack cannabis and opium. Field trials have been held in Krasnodar,
Russia and near Almaty in Kazakhstan. In addition, another project
has been taking place at the Institute of Genetics in Tashkent,
Uzbekistan - allegedly a large bioweapons facility during the Soviet
period. The institute has developed a fungus called pleospora
papaveracea to kill opium poppy. Since February 1998, the institute
has signed a contract with the UNDCP to develop this fungus for drug
eradication programmes in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and
Afghanistan. Funded by the USA and UK, field trials have already
been conducted in all four states. It is worth noting, however, that
both Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have recently refused to hold
further field trials with this fungus.
Criticism directed against both projects has been rapidly increasing
as evidence on the risks that these biological agents have on the
environment and the health of the population are uncovered. For
example, scientific studies have revealed that both fungi are not
host specific and, therefore, can irreversibly damage other species
of plants that are cultivated for industrial production. Four close
relative species of the coca plant have already been listed as
endangered, while certain strains of the fungi can cause sustained
damage to the soil for years. This is an important consideration
given that most states in the Andean region and Central Asia depend
on their agricultural industries. Should future drug-eradication
programmes include the use of biological agents, efforts to control
the drugs trade may inadvertently lead to further economic crises.
In regions already suffering from the perils of poor socio-economic
conditions, this may create an additional pressure on domestic and
regional security.
Most disturbing, however, is the toxic nature of the fungi that can
affect animals and people. Although UNDCP researchers have
reportedly complained of respiratory difficulties due to exposure to
pleospora papaveracea, it has not deterred the continuation of the
project, nor did it raise any concerns about the implications to the
health of the local population. Instead, the UN supervisor of the
project in Uzbekistan, Sandro Tucci, dismissed these fears: "The
idea that this is some kind of plot from Dr No - that a monster is
being created in a laboratory - is nonsense. The United Nations does
not engage in these kinds of things." UNDCP experts went on to state
that control of the use of these fungi will diminish the success of
drug eradication and that the UNDCP will continue to support their
use because they consider them 'adequately specific'. Susan Pimiento
from the Sunshine Project has stated that: "UNDCP's record of
environmental judgment is appalling. It long ago abdicated
credibility in assessing environmental impacts of chemical and
biological crop eradication. With its record plain to see, any UNDCP
assertion that the fungus is safe will not be trusted by responsible
governments or civil society."
Considering the position of the USA and the UNDCP, an international
network of NGOs have joined the Sunshine Project in its fight to
control the use of biological weapons. Following Colombia's decision
to abandon the eradication of narcotic crops via the use of
biological agents earlier this year, several other South American
states have also taken measures to control the use of such agents.
Potentially because of this, the UNDCP decided to withdraw from all
regional efforts to use biological eradication against drug crops.
However, fearing that the US will withdraw financial aid guaranteed
via Plan Colombia, the Colombian environment minister Juan Mayr has
agreed to adopt a domestic programme for the development of
biological agents for drug control - thus essentially succumbing to
US pressure.
According to Hammond: "If the US used these agents alone, it would
be an outright illegal act of war... Thanks to opposition by civil
society, a slumbering UN is waking up to the abuse; but smug US
officials still step beyond their bounds, talking about UNDCP policy
as if Kofi Annan headed an inconsequential section of the State
Department." NGOs warn that the UNDCP's withdrawal only applies in
the Andean region and that important steps remain to be taken to
ensure biological agents are not used anywhere else in the world to
eradicate drugs crops. According to Martin Jelsma of the
Transnational Institute: "UNDCP may have backed out on clear terms
from the fusarium project in Colombia; but it has done so without
even questioning its role in the Uzbekistan project. UNDCP defends
its mandate to collaborate in developing 'safer eradication agents'
using a misleading discourse on environmental protection and blinded
by the illusion that total eradication of poppy and coca from the
planet is possible in a decade."
It is possible, therefore, that 2001 will turn out to be the year
that a verification agreement falls apart instead of setting a
stronger BTWC and further demonstrates the failure among major
powers to reach an agreement in another sensitive international
issue, this time the use of biological weapons. "This could well be
the beginning of the end of the global ban on bioweapons," says Jan
van Aken of the Sunshine Project. "Failure might re-ignite some
countries' interest in weapons of mass destruction."
Tamara Makarenko is an independent political and security consultant
specialising in the Russian Federation and Central Asia. Daphne
Biliouri is an environmental policy consultant specialising in
environmental and developmental issues in Eurasia.
Copyright 2001 Jane's Intelligence Review
________________________________________________________________
****************************************************************
* CLM-NEWS is brought to you by the COLOMBIAN LABOR MONITOR at *
* http://www.prairienet.org/clm *
* and the CHICAGO COLOMBIA COMMITTEE *
* Email us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or *
* Dennis Grammenos at [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
****************************************************************
* To unsubscribe send request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* unsubscribe clm-news *
****************************************************************
_________________________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
General class struggle news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geopolitical news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
