FINAL 31 October UK Statement for Eighth Biological and Toxin Weapons. Convention Review Conference

Transcription

1 UK Statement for Eighth Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Review Conference Mr Peter Jones, Director Defence and International Security, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 7 November 2016 At the outset, the United Kingdom wishes to align itself with the statement to be made by the European Union. I should like to thank Ambassador Dr. György Molnár for assuming the Presidency of our Conference and for his sterling efforts during the successful Preparatory Committee process that will hopefully have paved the way for a substantive outcome. We are most grateful too for the important contribution made by the Implementation Support Unit to our preparatory work. The Preparatory Committee meetings demonstrate conclusively that as States Parties we are capable of changing the way we work we should take that mindset into our deliberations over the next three weeks. I am delighted to be in Geneva today to address this Review Conference, which presents a vital opportunity to break out of the unproductive debates of the past. We must focus on making the Convention work for the future this isn t about procedure; it is about preventing the use of biological weapons and the horrific 1

2 consequences of any biological weapon attack. I will now set out how we can achieve real progress. Mr. President, We all agree how important this Convention is to national and international security. I am sure that everyone at this Conference will speak compellingly to that effect. In the view of the United Kingdom, however, it s now high time to move beyond good words and aspiration into practical action. We worked hard at the Seventh Review Conference to devise a new method of working intersessionally. However, despite some early modest achievements, overall the intersessional work programme was a disappointment. We must do better now. The solution is straightforward: we need improved decision making powers in a new and better structured intersessional programme. Such powers are essential if we wish to see effective action. We are not talking about taking away any powers; decisions would still be made by consensus. We have presented our ideas in more detail in our Working Papers and in the statements we gave at the Preparatory Committee meetings. In our opinion a re-run of the last intersessional programme would mean another four years of underachievement and would prolong 2

3 our collective failure to make the Convention more effective. In other words, a rerun of the intersessional programme would not be a satisfactory outcome for the UK or for anyone who wishes to see the Convention fulfilling its potential. We must take action at this Review Conference to ensure the Convention can deal effectively with new and emerging challenges. These include the incredible pace of development in this area of science and technology. They also include the threat of non-state actors gaining access to dangerous pathogens or toxins, and potentially using them to kill or incapacitate thousands of innocent people, or to attack livestock or crops, putting lives and livelihoods in danger. To address these challenges, we must set up interlinked meetings each year with experts to review and make recommendations on science and technology, and to assist in capacity building to combat infectious disease, particularly to improve our ability to respond to any actual use of a biological or toxin weapon. And we must meet as States Parties to take decisions on these issues, and to address universality, national implementation and other means for enhancing compliance with the Convention s obligations. Mr President, 3

4 Some assert that only Review Conferences are empowered to take decisions. There is no rule that states this, nor is there any agreement from any of the seven previous Review Conferences that codifies such a view. Throughout the history of the Convention, States Parties have frequently delegated decisionmaking authority to other gatherings, without the need to refer back for final approval to a Review Conference, including in 1987, 1994, And at last year s Meeting of States Parties we decided to create a new Preparatory Committee structure. We, as States Parties, can decide - by consensus - whatever we believe is the right forward path. It is just a matter of aspiration, will and courage. Indeed, as the Non-Aligned Movement and Other States argued at the reconvened Fifth Review Conference in November 2002: The States Parties are sovereign and as masters of their own fate they can together and at any time decide on further work that may be required. We agree. For anyone apprehensive about decision making in intersessional periods, we repeat no decisions will be taken without consensus. 4

5 So, at this Review Conference we have arrived at another fork in the road: the choice of the way ahead, as ever, lies with us. And that choice is between continued frustration or constructive engagement for pragmatic and effective action. I urge us all to take the latter choice. As the 19 th Century British philosopher and biologist, Herbert Spencer, once said: Organs, faculties, powers, capacities, or whatever else we call them; grow by use and diminish from disuse Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity. So let us choose progress. Thank you. 5