Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Move afoot to lend bioweapons treaty more muscle

Biological Weapons Convention to consider rapid-response team.

Paris

An international rapid-reaction unit to investigate bioweapons incidents is being discussed this week at a meeting in Geneva of the parties to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

The treaty, which has been in force since 1975, outlaws states from developing, stockpiling or using biological weapons. But efforts to give it a mechanism for checking whether states comply with its terms were blocked by the United States in 2001 (see Nature 414, 675; 2001) and are still in limbo.

With no broad verification scheme expected any time soon, supporters of tougher checks are trying to promote less ambitious alternatives. The proposed rapid-reaction unit, for example, which is being championed by Britain, would be limited to fact-finding missions after an alleged bioweapons incident had taken place. It would have no powers to investigate allegations that a state or plant was manufacturing bioweapons.

A rapid-response unit would at least give the BWC some teeth, its advocates say, and planning for it will force the treaty's 152 parties to discuss technical and other issues relevant to wider verification procedures. This would include drafting lists of experts, equipment and transport, as well as agreements on procedures for handling samples and carrying out laboratory tests.

Angela Woodward, a disarmament specialist at the non-profit Verification Research, Training and Information Centre based in London, points out that Kofi Annan, the director-general of the United Nations (UN), already has powers to call for investigations of alleged chemical or bioweapons uses under a 1989 UN law.

The law was developed with chemical weapons in mind, and has become largely redundant since the Chemical Weapons Convention was equipped with its own verification procedures in 1997. But it could be resuscitated relatively simply, Woodward says, and adapted for bioweapons fact-finding missions.

A working paper drafted by UK experts agrees that the law has not “been reviewed or updated” since 1989. “It is therefore now time to re-establish an effective United Nations procedure for investigating allegations of biological weapons use or suspicious outbreaks of disease,” the paper says. It argues that the BWC could guide an update of the law to take account of the specific needs of a rapid-response unit.

This week's meeting is one of three annual summits intended to keep discussion on bioweapons alive before the next major negotiations on the BWC in 2006. It will discuss the rapid-response proposal but will not take a decision on whether to implement it. Advocates hope, however, that the meeting will pave the way for putting the proposal on the agenda at the UN general assembly next year.

Authors

Related links

Related links

Related links in Nature Research

Bioweapons treaty in disarray as US blocks plans for verification

Genomics and future biological weapons: the need for preventive action by the biomedical community

Related external links

Vertic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Butler, D. Move afoot to lend bioweapons treaty more muscle. Nature 432, 662 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/432662b

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing