Counterterrorism Blog

The threat of terrorists using biological agents to inflict mass casualties received renewed attention at a United Nations conference this week and an Interpol workshop earlier this month.

In Geneva, the sixth review conference on the Convention on Biological Weapons (CBW) opened this week with the U.S. delegation warning that Iran and North Korea may have germ warfare weapons and Syrian is conducting research. Meanwhile U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called for a global forum to discuss with industry as well as governments ways of preventing terrorists from obtaining materials they could for biological weapons attacks.

In Kiev, the Ukraine, Interpol held a workshop earlier this month that emphasized the need for countries to develop stronger legislation to cope with possible misuse of biological agents that could be used in terrorist attacks.

The meetings are being held against the background of growing concern that al Qaeda and other terrorists groups that desire to cause large scale casualties are continuing to pursue efforts to use weapons of mass destruction including bio agents, radioactive materials and chemical agents as well as large conventional explosive devices.

Addressing the bio threat at yesterday’s opening of the three week Geneva conference, John C. Rood, the U.S delegation head, said that Iran probably already has an offensive, biological weapons program, and that North Korea has the capability and may have developed and produce weapons. He said there are serious concerns that Syria has conducted research and development for an offensive BW program, Reuters reported.
All three countries are formally designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

Opening the Biological Weapons Convention Secretary-General Annan called upon delegates to view the BWC “as part of an interlinked array of tools, designed to address terrorism and crime”.

Citing the need for a global framework to manage potential risks, he proposed a global forum to develop a coherent strategy for advancing biotechnology.

In a separate speech before the conference opened, Kofi Anan noted that while biotechnology has made great strides in countering human diseases, ‘’when used negligently or misused deliberately, biotechnology could inflict the most profound human suffering—ranging from the accidental release of disease agents into the environment or intentional disease outbreaks caused by State or non-State actors.”

“As biological research expands, and technologies become increasingly accessible, this potential for accidental or intentional harm grows exponential,” he said in a speech while accepting a peace prize in St. Gallen, Switzerland on Nov. 18.

He called for a global form to discuss the best ways of ensuring that biotechnology is used for the public good while managing the potential risks, He said the forum should include representatives from industry, science, public health, governments and “the public writ large.”

However Professor Barry Kellman of the DePaul University College of Law, who has been an active expert in raising the need to strengthen international measures against the bioterrorism threat said:
“While the Secretary-General precisely characterized the promises and threats of emerging biotechnology, his comments notably avoided any policy specifics about how future strategies can integrate these concerns. It might be hoped, but not expected, that those specific policies will emerge from the Review Conference. The conference is the only place where representatives of many nations, expert communities, and NGOs are gathered; it could be an enormous opportunity for progress.“

“Ultimately, whether the participants seize this opportunity will be the yardstick by which to measure the conference's success or failure.” Prof. Kellman, who I have been in contact for several years on the issue, made his comments in response to my request for his observations.

At the Interpol meeting in Kiev, Secretary General Ron Noble highlighted an issue he has been pressing several years: the need for countries to strengthen their legislation enforcement abilities to control the possession and shipment of potential bio agents.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1540, passed in April, 2004, requires “all nations to “establish domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of such weapons (of mass destruction) and means of delivery, in particular for terrorist purposes, including by establishing appropriate controls over related materials, and adopt legislative measures in that respect.”

In an Interpol release, Noble said “Effective legislation is needed to provide police with the tools to prevent and investigate bioterrorism threats. While many countries have recognized the need for specific laws to combat this threat, only a few so far have drafted or implemented the necessary legislation”

Professor Kellman, who is legal advisor to the Interpol bioterrorism prevention unit, also said in the release that “implementing the appropriate legislation needs to be done urgently, as without this, law enforcement often has no framework or authority to act.”

There are several major difficulties in addressing the legislation issue. Many countries do not have a significant biotech or pharmaceutical industry and not sensitized to the possibility that their territory might be used as a transit point or even the location for attacks aimed at Western targets. Or if they have a fledging industry, they do not want to hamper it with complicated legislations. And finally, the technical aspects of defining in law the best definitions of biological agents that need to be controlled is beyond the capacities of the legislative drafters in most countries.

U.S. law contains pretty good definitions, worked out with the scientific community and to help other countries, the State Department and Justice Department have drafted model legislation that could be utilized by other counties. The State Department began a program to help other countries starting mainly with former Soviet Republics but also several in Southeast Asia.

However, sustaining the effort will be key. And of course good laws without effective implementation are not enough. Like many aspects of countering terrorism overseas,
a judicious amount of nation building is needed to strength the legal systems in developing countries.