REPRESENTATIVES of the world’s major chemicals companies last week declared
full support for their governments’ efforts to rid the world of chemical
weapons. At the end of a five-day meeting in Canberra, they issued an unprecedented
declaration describing their ‘unequivocal abhorrence of chemical warfare’
and urging speedy resolution of a convention banning the use of chemical
weapons that has been under negotiation in Geneva for the past 20 years.
The conclusions of the meeting are regarded as representing a significant
step towards the successful completion of such a convention. The industry
has expressed concerns in the past that proposed verification requirements
could lead to breaches of commercial confidentiality. These concerns have
been quoted by conservative groups as evidence that a global ban would be
unacceptable to the industry.
The industry’s willingness to have its activities monitored is also
considered necessary to limit the proliferation of chemical weapons to developing
countries. West German officials admitted in Canberra that Libya had been
supplied through a clandestine operation based in Hong Kong with West German
technology to build a chemical weapons plant in Rabta.
Given concerns about confidentiality of scientific data, and the potential
dangers raised by chemical production technologies that can be used either
for civilian or military purposes, said Australia’s foreign minister, Senator
Gareth Evans, eliminating chemical weapons from the world required ‘the
hands-on cooperation of the world’s chemical industry’. The declaration,
he said, was proof that this cooperation now existed.
Advertisement
The industry’s declaration against chemical weapons was made at a unique
gathering attended by top representatives of 95 per cent of the world’s
chemicals industry, and government officials from about 70 countries. In
the past, the industry has been represented at conferences by technical
experts from these companies, but this time the conference was attended
by people at decision-making level, including chief executive officers.
Monsanto, Bayer, ICI and Du Pont were among the companies represented.
Parties to the statement included Iran and Iraq, two countries accused
of using chemical weapons against each other during the eight-year war in
the Persian Gulf. However, Libya and Syria, two countries among the many
that are believed to possess chemical weapons, were the most notable absentees
from the conference.
‘This is the first time the world chemical industry has ever made a
statement on anything,’ said Tom Reynolds, president of the Chemical Confederation
of Australia.
For the past few months, Reynolds has been working behind the scenes
to achieve agreement on the statement. Australia, which has no chemical
weapons of its own but fears their introduction in the Pacific region, has
emerged as a leading mediator in negotiations to ban chemical weapons.
Other delegates wanted the statement to put greater pressure on the
negotiators in Geneva – the 40-nation Conference on Disarmament – to bring
about an agreement by a set date. But the US vehemently opposes a deadline
for the negotiations.
‘Setting a deadline makes for sloppy negotiations,’ said Ambassador
Max Friedersdorf, the US’s representative at Geneva. The US claimed that
the Biological Warfare Convention has no effective means of verification
because it was rushed.
In the end, Evans – the host of the Canberra conference – was able to
craft a carefully worded statement that conveyed a sense of urgency about
the Geneva negotiations without setting a deadline. Both the US and the
Soviet Union, the only two countries to acknowledge that they have chemical
weapons, accepted the wording.
Evans said that 1990 would be a ‘critical year’ and that the major outstanding
issues should be resolved by the end of next year. But ratification of the
treaty would not be completed until at least the end of 1992. It is generally
felt that unless an agreement is reached soon, the spread of chemical weapons
may go unchecked. The Middle East is regarded as the most volatile area.
One stumbling block has been confidentiality – the protection of commercial
information – if chemical plants are subject to inspections under treaty
arrangements. ‘These days, the industry is far more open than the negotiators
seem to think,’ Reynolds told New Scientist. ‘We are already heavily regulated.’
In some cases, said Reynolds, the negotiators were 20 years out of date.
‘People forget that we in the industry know each other very well. We know
when there are suspicious orders.’ Reynolds said that computer databases
that were continually updated would help the industry to cope with the regulations
of the convention.
But, according to Francesco Snichelotto from the European Chemicals
Industry Federation (CEFIC), manufacturers and negotiators are a ‘long way’
from reaching agreement on the number of chemicalsallK that should be regulated
by the convention. Some of the chemicals that the diplomats wanted to include
were ‘absurd’ and included ‘whole families’ of substances.
Other members of the CEFIC said later that Snichelotto had ‘overstated
the case in the heat of a press conference’. However, many obstacles to
a successful treaty still exist. China, for one, is not happy with the idea
of challenge inspections – where one signatory to the convention demands
the right, with little warning, to inspect the installations of another.
According to Friedersdorf, there are at least five or six ‘major players’
who are not ‘fully committed to challenge inspection’.
About 20 trial inspections of chemicals plants have been carried out
in Europe, the Soviet Union, Australia and the US. Following the incident
at Rabta, the West Germans have made it a criminal offence for any German
to be involved with the production of chemical weapons either in Germany
or overseas. Exports of chemicals have been tightened in the Soviet Union,
Japan, Germany, the US and other countries. The Chemical Manufacturers Association
in the US this month introduced a series of voluntary measures to police
chemicals.
Representatives of the industry said the cost of chemical products was
likely to rise as a result of the need to comply with regulations under
the convention. An international inspectorate will be established, much
along the lines of the International Atomic Energy Agency that monitors
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
‘It will be bigger because the chemicals industry is bigger, and it
will be expensive,’ said Michael Costello, the leader of the Australian
delegation. Chemicals companies will not supply their products to countries
that do not sign the convention, Reynolds said.
