| You are in: World: Americas | ||||||
| Wednesday, 25 July, 2001, 12:58 GMT 13:58 UK Analysis: US going against the flow ![]() The effects of a biological attack could be devastating By the BBC's Ed Butler For the last 30 years, countries have been bound by a United Nations convention that bans biological weapons but does not include any means of enforcement. When the convention was signed, no-one seriously thought anyone would ever try to use germ warfare, and during the Cold War it would have been politically impossible to police anyway.
By rejecting the draft agreement on enforcing the germ warfare treaty, the US seems to have effectively killed off a painstaking negotiating process that has taken 10 years to complete. US Senator Sam Nunn - a former head of the American Senate's Armed Forces Committee - has just been monitoring an exercise simulating a biological germ warfare attack on US soil. He says the potential threat from biological weapons is devastating. "Biological weapons would pose a serious national security threat that would be unique and one that we are not now organised for in government or prepared for," he said.
Mr Nunn, a Democrat, says he is uneasy about President Bush's rejection of the draft treaty without offering any clear alternatives. The administration's objections centre around the fear that inspections would compromise the necessary secrecy that surrounds legitimate pharmaceutical companies as they develop new commercial drugs. The BBC's Nick Childs says the proposed inspection procedure has proved controversial. "Essentially it is a protocol, for those signing up to it, declaring their main facilities that could prossibly be used for developing biological weapons and agreeing to an inspection process," he said. "The problem, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, is that they fear that this would be used to spy on their installations - but it wouldn't be able to stop genuine cheaters, because biological weapons are very easy to hide, so the detractors say you wouldn't find anything anyway." Scepticism The US is the only one of 56 countries engaged in the talks that has publicly refused to sign the treaty. Other participants acknowledge problems but insist that, given the trouble finding an agreement, this is at least a start. Nick Childs says it is significant that once again the Bush administration finds itself alone in its stance, following rows about the Kyoto treaty on climate change and the existing treaties on nuclear proliferation. The problem is that there is this growing perception that the Bush administration isn't really interested in, and has a great deal of scepticism about, a whole range of international accords on arms control and environment, and it is much more interested in pursuing a unilateralist foreign policy that puts the United States first. Officials in Washington deny this. But the evidence is piling up and the Bush administration has not been able to produce a coherent set of alternatives to a treaty which a lot of their allies remain very wedded to. | See also: Internet links: The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites Top Americas stories now: Links to more Americas stories are at the foot of the page. | |||||
Links to more Americas stories |
| ^^ Back to top News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII|News Sources|Privacy | ||