|
October 24, 2001
Lori
Allen
Life
in an Occupied Land
During Wartime
Peter
Swire
New
Anti-Terrorism Bill
Poses Old Risks
Irina
Malenko
A
Non-Western Voice
David
Vest
Welcome
to Web Hell
Patrick Cockburn
Battle
of Mazar Gets Nasty
October 23, 2001
Steve
Perry
Anthrax,
Cipro and the Bailout of Bayer
Carl
Estabrook
Just War
or
The Rule of Lawlessness?
Patrick
Cockburn
Errant
Bombs at Bagram
George
Monbiot
War
and Oil
Robert
Jensen
Crushing
Academic Dissent
October 22, 2001
Hamit
Dardagan
The
New Newspeak
Tom
Turnipseed
War
on the Poor
Patrick Cockburn
Killing
Mullah Omar's Child
David
Vest
The
War on Women
Shepherd
Bliss
Advice
from a Vietnam Vet
Hani
Shukrallah
Capital
Strikes Back
October 21, 2001
Donald
Rumsfeld
The
al-Jazeera Interview
Mark
Scaramella
Nuclear
Anxiety
October 19, 2001
Mohammed
Sid-Ahmed
Bush's
Palestinian State
Michael
Colby
A
Mailroom Manifesto
October 18, 2001
Mahajan
and Jensen
Avoiding
a New Cold War
Patrick
Cockburn
US
Planes Pound Taliban
Jamey Hecht
Gerald Ford
and the CIA
Mokhiber
and Weisman
3
Arguments
Against This War
October 17, 2001
Ballinger
and Marsh
Music
and War Resistance
Steve
Perry
The
Anthrax Chronicles
Chris
Kromm
Operation
Infinite Disaster
Susan
Block
Sex
Not Bombs
David Vest
Osama Speaks
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published Oct. 3, 2001
8-Page Special
Issue
Aftermath
Diary
Ashcroft's Onslaught
on
Civil Liberties
Ridge Long Groomed
for
Cheney's Job
Those CIA Killing
Bids
Never Stopped
The Not-So-Great
Mayor Giuliani
Crop Duster
Ban
Will Save Lives
Madeleine Albright's
Deadly Legacy
How the Bin
Laden Women
Fled Bel Air
Tom Ridge's
Vietnam
Same as Kerrey's?
A CounterPunch
Journey
to Ramallah
A Word About
God
Nostrodamus
Jam-maker
Search
CounterPunch
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James
Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas
Valentine
Al
Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
October 25,
2001
Two Fisted
Assault on Germ Weapons Control:
Will the Bio-Weapons Convention
Be Left Standing?
By The Sunshine Project
Even as its citizens suffer through the greatest
biological weapons scare of modern times, and perhaps ever,
the United States is promoting a plan to undermine international
controls on biological weapons. The proposals come four weeks
before a major UN meeting to review international efforts to
prevent biological weapons from being used.
The plan was announced on October 10th
and is currently being presented to the US's European allies.
It is a direct attack on the core article of the Biological
and Toxin Weapons Convention, proposing a shift in the focus
of arms control that will remove barriers on the development,
acquisition, and stockpiling of biological weapons. If governments,
including indecisive Europe, do not move to counter these proposals,
a green light will be given to potential developers of offensive
biological weapons.
Assault on the Bioweapons Convention:
The proposals were first unveiled on October 10th in a UN speech
by Under Secretary of State Avis Bohlen, the US arms control
chief. Other US officials are currently on a round of shuttle
diplomacy, trying to sell their ideas to allies. What the US
wants is to redesign Article I of the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention, a unique achievement of international law that prohibits
an entire class of weapons, all biological agents and toxins
used for hostile purposes. (For a copy of Bohlen's statement
and related links, please see the Sunshine
Project website.
The United States purpose in destroying
this valuable cornerstone is to permit a stratification of biological
weapons into "good" and "bad" ones. This
would permit the United States (and other countries) to continue
work on a number of biological weapons under development, including
anti-crop fungi ("Agent Green"), Pentagon work on
so-called "non-lethal weapons" to control (in the US
military's words) "potentially hostile civilians",
and the US Navy's genetically-modified superbugs that consume
materials, such as plastics, jet fuel, rubber, and asphalt.
Perversion of International Law: In addition
to the dismantling Article I of the BTWC, the US attack on bioweapons
control includes another dangerous proposal to shift the arms
control focus away from prevention of biological weapons development.
Instead of stopping development of these weapons in the first
place, the United States is promoting a perverted form of extraterritorial
jurisdiction that focuses international efforts on criminal
punishment of use of some kinds of biological weapons. The
result would be abrogation of domestic jurisprudence in favor
of application of America's law abroad, with attendant extradition
conflicts (or kidnapping), and possible show trials as the US
seeks to avenge terrorist attacks.
International criminalization of biological
weapons is a good idea that has been promoted by non-profits
for years; but it must be applied fairly and evenly, to all
persons, regardless of official position, who order, direct
or knowingly give substantial assistance to development or use
of biological weapons. In the US conception, however, penalties
only apply to "lethal intent", meaning only yo those
people that use (or threaten to use) biological weapons, and
only for weapons that kill humans. The proposal ignores many
other types of bioweapons that target plants, animals, materials,
and crops, such as Agent Green (or hoof and mouth disease),
which can result in human suffering and death through starvation
and poisoning of the environment. In the US conception, even
some bioweapons used against people wouldn't be punishable,
for example, the US "non-lethal" weapons under development.
A New Biological Arms Race and Old Pretexts:
Apart from relaxing controls on many kinds of biological weapons,
the US emphasis on use (as opposed to prevention) is a paradigm
shift in international efforts that paves the way for countries
to embark on massive programs to develop biological - and, especially,
biotechnological - weapons. Why? Because by focusing on use,
the teeth of international law will not apply until after biological
weapons are used, instead of while they are being developed
or stockpiled. Thus, countries with bad intentions will be given
a green light to proceed with bioweapons research because they
will have little to fear from the international community.
That situation amounts to a 75 year legal
setback to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibited use; but
not development of biological (and chemical) weapons. That
Protocol was augmented by the BTWC in large part because it
had only very limited success. Many countries made reservations
upon ratifying the Geneva Protocol. European powers ratified;
but several then prepared and used chemical weapons against
in their colonial possessions in Africa and Asia. Fascist Italy,
a Protocol party, invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and used more than
300 tons of chemical weapons against another sovereign state.
The League of Nations did nothing. Prohibitions on use, in
other words, have proven malleable and their enforcement depends
on who is the victim. This phenomena did not end with decolonization.
With a logic similar to that of European colonial powers, the
US is presently using the Drug War as a pretext to deploy biological
weapons in Latin America and Asia. (See the Sunshine Project
website for a list of examples of major power violation of use
restrictions on chemical and biological weapons.)
Is the BTWC Dying? The attack on Article
I has transformed the upcoming 5th Review Conference of the
BTWC (beginning Novemenr 19th) into a do or die situation for
biological arms control. If the world fails to emphatically
and unequivocally reaffirm the Article I prohibition on all
forms of biological weapons, the Convention's utility in preventing
biological weapons development will be severely reduced. Future
meetings, if any, would have to focus on arguments over which
kinds of biological weapons are "acceptable" and which
are not, a grave setback. The spirit of the convention would
be dead.
Europe, so far, has signaled that it
is happy to roll over and play dead, tucked in the poisonous
embrace of the Bush administration. Instead of criticizing the
recently revealed US projects "Clear Vision" and "Bacchus"
to develop biological weapons production facilities in Nevada,
to genetically-engineer anthrax, and to test biological bombs,
Germany has endorsed the efforts. According to the German Foreign
Ministry's chief Bioweapons Convention negotiator "With
regard to the research in the USA, the US government stated
through a spokesperson of the Department of Defense that the
projects aimed solely at the development of protection measures.
The German government does not have any hints to the contrary."
In other words, Germany has indicated agreement with the US
proposal to open the floodgates on biological weapons research
and development. With Europe so weak, the South may play the
critical role in stopping the US proposals.
Other Options: Stopping the US must
be the first priority for civil society and diplomats; but with
arms control agreements on the verge of failure to control biological
weapons - especially biotechnological weapons - alternative
means of prevention must be found. Among the options for civil
society and supporting governments is taking verification of
the BTWC into their own hands by developing a non-profit network
that uses open sources and information freedom laws to promote
transparency - and denounce violations of - the Biological and
Toxin Weapons Convention.
In government, it is often the case that
officials in agriculture, public health, and environment ministries
have a strong understanding of the dangers of biological weapons
and the authority to take steps to improve environmental and
health security. In fact, the political South has already promoted
addressing the dangers of hostile abuse of biotechnology in
the UN's Cartagena Protocol on genetically modified organisms.
Sadly, its efforts were beaten back by a short sighted and
commerce-obsessed North.
Efforts by agriculture, public health,
and environment ministries do reduce the biological weapons
threat. For example, led by environmental and agriculture officials
from over 30 countries, the African Union recently endorsed
a continent-wide Model Law on Safety in Biotechnology that criminalizes
all hostile use of genetic engineering. In the Philippines,
health and environment officials quashed a proposal to use biological
weapons to eradicate cannabis (marijuana). Even Colombia's
Environment Ministry, which was initially receptive, decided
to reject anti-coca biological weapons after protests from civil
society highlighted the environmental and human dangers.
Geneva Showdown: Governments should urgently
pursue non-arms control means to protect against the development
of biological weapons. But in the coming weeks, all eyes turn
to Geneva, where the BTWC will be tested as never before at
its 5th Review Conference, which begins on November 19th. It
is critical the Article I be upheld in its entirelty, and that
US proposals to create a system that is permissive of biological
weapons development be emphatically rejected; but will governments
have the will to stand up?
Donations to the Sunshine Project
are tax-deductible in the US and Germany. Contribute online
at our website. http://www.sunshine-project.org
|