An Arms Control Today Reader The 2008 Chemical Weapons Convention Review Conference: A Collection of Articles, Essays, and Interviews on Tackling the Threats Posed by Chemical Weapons. April 2008 An Arms Control Today Reader The 2008 Chemical Weapons Convention Review Conference: A Collection of Articles, Essays, and Interviews on Tackling the Threats Posed by Chemical Weapons. April 2008 ii Chemical Weapons Convention Reader Arms Control Today (ACT), published by the Arms Control Association (ACA), provides policymakers, the press, and the interested public with authoritative information, analysis, and commentary on arms control proposals, negotiations and agreements, and re- lated national and international security issues. ACA is a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for arms control policies. In addition to ACT, ACA provides additional information through its web site, regular press briefings, and commentary and analysis by its staff for journalists and scholars in the United States and abroad. Acknowledgements ACA thanks each of the contributors to this reader for their work and insights. It would also like to thank OPCW Director-General Rogelio Pfirter, U.S. Ambassador Don- ald A. Mahley, and British Ambassador Lyn Parker for their participation in interviews with ACT. ACA thanks its individual members and contributors, as well as the following organizations for their financial support, which made this series on chemical weapons issues possible: Colombe Foundation Ford Foundation John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation New-Land Foundation Ploughshares Fund Prospect Hill Foundation Public Welfare Foundation Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust ©Arms Control Association, April 2008 Chemical Weapons Conve Chemical Weapons ntion Reader Cover Photo: Japanese police participating in a chemical weapons drill Oct. 22, 2004, AFP/Getty Images iii i v Chemical Weapons Convention Reader TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction: No Time for Complacency: Adapting the Chemical Weapons Convention for the Future by Oliver Meier 3 Section 1: Chemical Weapons Parlay’s Outcome Uncertain by Oliver Meier (Originally published in March 2008 issue of ACT.) 6 Section 2: The Chemical Weapons Convention at 10: An Interview With OPCW Director-General Rogelio Pfirter (Originally published in April 2007 issue of ACT.) 11 Section 3: Getting Down to the Hard Cases: Prospects for CWC Universality by Daniel Feakes (Originally published in March 2008 issue of ACT.) 17 Section 4: Advances in Science and Technology and the Chemical Weapons Convention by Ralf Trapp (Originally published in March 2008 issue of ACT.) 21 Section 5: Looking Back: The Continuing Legacy of Old and Abandoned Chemical Weapons by John Hart (Originally published in March 2008 issue of ACT.) 26 Section 6: Verifying the Chemical Weapons Ban: Missing Elements by Jonathan B. Tucker (Originally published in January/February 2007 issue of ACT.) 34 Section 7: Convention in Peril? Riot Control Agents and the Chemical Weapons Ban by Kyle M. Ballard (Originally published in September 2007 issue of ACT.) 38 Section 8: An Interview with U.S. Ambassador Donald A. Mahley, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Threat Reduction, Export Controls, and Negotiations (Interview Conducted February 8, 2008.) 44 Section 9: An Interview with British Ambassador Lyn Parker, Conve Chemical Weapons Chair of Open-Ended Working Group Preparing for The 2008 Chemical Weapons Convention Review Conference (Interview Conducted November 20, 2007.) 50 Appendix I: The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) at a Glance ntion Reader 53 Appendix II: Statement of ACA to the Meeting with Non-Governmental Organizations at the OPCW, The Hague v vi Chemical Weapons Convention Reader No Time for Complacency: Adapting the Chemical Weapons Convention for the Future INTRODUCTION uring April 7-18, state-party representatives of the 1993 Chemical Weapons DConvention (CWC) will meet in The Hague for a second time to review the op- eration of the treaty and to find ways to adapt it for the future. The 183 states-parties will be able to look back on some extraordinary successes. As Rogelio Pfirter, director- general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), stated in an April 2007 interview with Arms Control Today, “We have been able to prove that, through multilateral action, it is possible to address effectively the issues related to peace and security and, more concretely, issues that involve disarmament and non- proliferation. This is particularly important at a time when the multilateral system has been questioned in several areas, especially in the area of peace and security.” The contributions to this reader are a collection of articles The likely inability of the United States and Russia to com- and interviews published in Arms Control Today and on the plete the destruction of their chemical weapons stockpiles by Arms Control Association’s website between January 2007 and the treaty’s 2012 deadline is expected to be a major issue at the March 2008. The authors, including many leading experts in review conference and a potential stumbling block to a suc- the field, summarize the CWC’s achievements but mainly look cessful outcome. Donald A. Mahley, acting deputy assistant forward to the convention’s future. Ambassador Lyn Parker, secretary for threat reduction, export controls, and negotiations, chair of the open-ended working group that has been preparing argued in a February 2008 interview with Arms Control Today the review conference, captured the common theme of many that “it’s too early to try to do something that will formally ad- contributions when he asked in a November 2007 Arms Control dress that issue at this review conference,” but others are likely Today interview: to bring it up. Mahley suggested that the review conference may want to establish a working group that within a two- to three- [The] real question for the future is what more year time frame could develop options for states-parties on how can we do and also how do the balances built to deal with a possible violation of the 2012 deadline and es- Conve Chemical Weapons into the convention change over time as we move tablish a timeline for destruction of any remaining stocks. This towards the deadline for destruction of chemi- proposal may run into opposition from other countries that cal weapons stocks and we start to look at what want to highlight the potential noncompliance of Russia and lies beyond the destruction of existing chemical the United States. weapons stocks. What kind of organization does A related challenge, as John Hart points out, will be to safely this need to become? What are the balances be- remove and destroy old and abandoned chemical weapons, tween the traditional destruction and verification which still pose a safety risk and a threat to the environment. ntion activities and some of the other activities such as More than a dozen states have declared that such weapons have cooperation, assistance, and protection, which been found on their territory. Hart argues that the issue requires Reader are important to a lot of states-parties who are not “continued cooperation and information sharing, including themselves directly involved in the processes re- within the framework of the OPCW.” He suggests that the re- lated to chemical weapons destruction? view conference consider establishing a timeline for destruction 1 of these weapons. Tucker supports the view that the review conference should The CWC comprehensively prohibits the hostile use of all address the patchy compliance with the treaty’s provisions on chemical weapons, based on the “general purpose criterion.” As national implementation. More than 100 states-parties have Ralf Trapp contends, the complete ban on the development, pro- not yet notified the OPCW of the actions taken to implement duction, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and use of chemical Article VII. The review conference should renew the 2003 ac- weapons could be under threat if states “take advantage of the tion plan to improve the national implementation of obliga- new discoveries in science and technology to develop a novel tions under the CWC and expand it to ensure “that state-parties agent while asserting that they are technically complying with incorporate the general purpose criterion and the schedules of CWC obligations.” The review conference needs to address the chemicals into their subsidiary regulations and empower their impact of advances in science and technology on the prohibi- national authorities to collect all of the data needed to monitor tions contained in the convention by considering “how best to domestic implementation effectively,” Tucker suggests. reinforce the ‘general purpose criterion,’” Trapp argues. CWC states-parties can be proud of what has been achieved In this context, Kyle Ballard proposes that the CWC states- since the CWC entered into force 10 years ago. One-third of all parties consider an amendment or additional protocol in order chemical weapons stockpiles have been destroyed in the six de- to clarify the use of riot control agents (RCAs). The CWC does clared possessor states; 3,000 inspections have been conducted not prohibit the use of such chemical agents for law enforce- in 80 member states; and the treaty’s membership of 183 states ment purposes. Ballard maintains that the CWC states-parties is second only to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Most need to develop a clear and positive