By Ambassador Eric M. Javits, Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
The Second Special Conference to Review the Operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention posed real challenges for the Organisation. The Review Conference’s ability to overcome these challenges and adopt a substantive, detailed report by consensus demonstrates the continuing strength of this multilateral institution. I have stated often that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is a model of successful multilateralism. The recent Review Conference put that paradigm to the test, but its successful conclusion was a direct result of CWC States Parties’ willingness to engage in the hard work of painstaking, step-by-step negotiation to achieve a consensus outcome.
The final Report of the Review Conference (Report) was a compromise text that contains no dramatic new ideas. However, it does reaffirm the Chemical Weapons Convention in every respect and it reinforces the important work done in the first eleven years since its entry into force. The Report also lays the groundwork to ensure that the OPCW will continue to evolve in the years ahead. No State Party emerged from the Review Conference with everything it wanted, but the Report contains a number of important elements, including strong political statements and some useful practical measures.
The Report reinforces the importance of the universality of the Convention and the commitment by all States Parties to comply with its provisions, including the destruction of all chemical weapons, the importance of national implementation of the Convention, the continuation and refinement of the OPCW’s verification activities, and the promotion of peaceful trade in chemicals not prohibited by the Convention.
The Report acknowledges the impact of developments in science and technology on the work of the Organisation. It also emphasizes the risks posed by terrorist use of chemical weapons and encourages States Parties to cooperate in mitigating this threat.
While the United States and many other member states wanted stronger report language and commitment to action in the face of ever-changing technology and the rising threat of terrorism, the Report recognises the importance of these changes and paves the way for future action in response. It will be essential, beginning now and in the years ahead, to build on these elements.
Despite months of discussion in the Open Ended Working Group, the Conference began with very little agreement on the contents of the draft report, reflecting a troubling trend toward polarisation of views. Earlier selection and employment of skilled facilitators knowledgeable on the issues, both in the Open Ended Working Group’s discussions leading up to the Conference, and then in the Conference itself, could have helped.
The transparency and consultation elements of the review process could also have been better. For instance, more active involvement by the five official regional groups – meeting more regularly before and during the Conference, sharing information, and selecting representatives for smaller negotiating sessions to report back to the larger groups – would have made a difference.
Multilateral facilitation and the chairing of large, sometimes contentious, meetings are skills that not all diplomats possess intrinsically. More opportunities offered to delegates to strengthen their multilateral skills could expand the number of capable hands and willing volunteers to help craft future agreements.
The Review Conference was an important opportunity to look back at the remarkable progress we have accomplished over the last five years. More importantly, it enabled us to focus on where we — the States Parties, OPCW Governing Bodies and the Technical Secretariat–should be headed in the future. The Conference re-embraced the Convention’s provisions and produced a carefully balanced and full report. Now we need to pursue in earnest the course it set out.