October 26, 2001	Friday	Shaba'an 8, 1422

LONDON: While the US wrestles with the reality - and the imagined horror - of biological terror, Washington’s refusal to agree to a system to monitor compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is threatening the success of a vital conference intended to review the convention. “It’s deeply depressing,” said a Western official closely involved with the BWC. “At a time of anthrax attacks and panic in the US, it’s expected politically that something will have to be done. But because of the US’s attitude, it’s hard to generate a consensus on what can be usefully done.”

The Fifth Biological Weapons Review Conference takes place in Geneva from Nov 19-Dec 7. Such conferences are designed to review the operation of the convention, scientific and technical developments and progress in the fight against the proliferation of biological weapons.

A key element in this year’s conference was to take note of a so-called Compliance Protocol setting out measures - i- including surprise inspections of suspect facilities - to ensure that Convention signatories do not cheat. Since January 1995, the Protocol had been under negotiation in Geneva by a so-called Ad Hoc Group. At its 24th session, last July, however, the US declared its opposition to the draft Protocol - apparently mainly because of fears that it might be used to damage US bio-defence programmes and to undertake industrial espionage against US pharmaceuticals companies.

Addressing the UN General Assembly on Oct 10, Avis Bohlen, an assistant US Secretary of State for Arms Control, reaffirmed that Washington “could not support the protocol, because the measures that were proposed to enforce the ban against possession and development are neither effective nor equitable. This continues to be our view. We lead the way in assisting foreign governments to counter the proliferation of deadly technology.” She stressed the US view that “we must give ourselves the means to question and challenge in the event of suspected use” and that “the priority focus must be on use.”

European and other officials are dismayed by such claims. ”It’s obvious that prevention is better than cure,” said one. ”Surely it’s better to question and challenge before rather than after a biological attack.”—Dawn/The Observer News Service.