I've been told by fellow insurgents and progressive sympathizers that the failure of the National Strategy to Counter Biological Threats should not be blamed on the State or Defense staffers who actually do give a damn about this issue. The NSC does, in fact, have hold-overs from the previous administration who bulldozed this report through the system with little to no interagency input, with a very short suspense. Under Secretary of State Tauscher was not really interested in the details of the issue or in developing any nuances other than what was on the script. She is, at heart, a nuclear weapons advocate, not an arms control advocate.
The arms control and nonproliferation communities see this as just a check against the Graham-Talent WMD Commission's list of recommendations - nothing to be taken seriously. The same staffing process is about to happen to the Select Agent List, where the Senate Homeland Security Commission recommended a reshuffling/re-categorizing of the biological organisms - which amounts to busy work, again a check in the box, but no real change in day-to-day procedures.
At the convention itself, there are a few optimists who believe that the Obama administration would not block negotiations to create a verification regime for the BWC, that this language represents areas that could, in the future, be worked out. Others say that while the tone is different from the previous administration, the actual policy differences are not apparent. Prevailing opinion is that the Bush policy is unchanged.
"Our long-term goal is to develop mechanisms to verify compliance with this convention," said Swedish Ambassador Magnus Hellgren, who was representing the 27-nation European Union.
Hellgren, one of about 100 diplomats who saw Tauscher's presentation, said the U.S. was making a "welcome contribution." But he told The Associated Press that he would reserve his verdict on the Obama administration's commitment to the process until 2011, when the entire convention will be reviewed.
Comments from Dr. Amy Smithson:
Tauscher tabled a modest, constructive set of proposals, but given the $49 billion in U.S. biodefense spending since 2001, the international community will want more in terms of transparency from Washington than just posting the US confidence-building declarations-already available to all member governments-on the web and inviting one person to Ft. Detrick. New money earmarked for building international disease surveillance and reporting capacities would have more emphatically conveyed U.S. support for thorough implementation of the International Health Regulations. If the Obama administration hopes to claim the leadership mantle in the biological nonproliferation arena, they will have to bring something much bolder to the table. The sooner they do, the better.
Comments from Dr. Jonathan Tucker:
Although none of the elements of the U.S. strategy are new, taken together they provide a comprehensive and cooperative approach to the prevention of biological threats, both natural and deliberate. The main disappointment is the strategy’s lack of ambition with regard to strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention, both with respect to the treaty’s institutional deficit and the festering suspicions of non-compliance by a few member states. The measures proposed to address compliance concerns—increased transparency, confidence-building measures, and bilateral diplomacy—appear too weak to make much of a difference.
More as the situation develops.
UPDATE: From Dr. Marie Isabelle Chevrier, Chair of the Board of Directors, Biological Weapons Prevention Project:
Ellen Tauscher’s speech to the Meeting of the States Parties of the Biological Weapons Convention was much anticipated by delegations. Yet there was little excitement or enthusiasm by the delegation following her speech. Delegations and NGO observers welcomed the change in tone from earlier US interventions during the Bush administration, contrasting it, in particular, with the strident address by John Bolton to the 5th Review Conference in 2001. Nevertheless the lack of specificity of proposals in Tauscher’s address was notable. People wondered about the meaning of language in the statement such as “compliance diplomacy” and “robust bilateral compliance discussion.” Optimists greeted the statement with hope that the statement will be followed by real engagement absent the arrogance of the past while pessimists found little if anything in the statement that would lead to real policy changes from the Bush administration. The inclusion of CBMs on an open website was generally welcome, as a small measure of transparency but not something that would likely lead to real confidence in compliance. Many NGOs are looking forward to greater transparency among all stakeholders rather than mere “bilateral…discussions.”
Comments