Thread by @Omega_RF

⏰Starting soon! @cwccoalition - @ArmsControlNow webinar on central nervous system-acting chemicals, feat. @Omega_RF, @UniofBradford, & @MelbLawSchool

The panel will address the path forward on use & regulation of central nervous system (CNS)-acting chemicals: tinyurl.com/4mmuep5u. Speakers include Dr. Michael Crowley (@Omega_RF & @UniofBradford) & Dr. Malcolm Dando (@UniofBradford)

(Dr. Robert Mathews (@MelbLawSchool) is unable to present today). The discussion will be moderated by Leanne Quinn & @PaulWalkerGG, both of the @cwccoalition

Intro remarks today are being provided by Dr @PaulWalkerGG, who notes that the issue of CNS-acting chemicals is not new, but has been discussed for many years in a range of international & regional fora. Despite this, there is no clarity as to CNS-acting agents under the CWC.

The first panellist, Dr. Michael Crowley, is a staff member here at @Omega_RF & an honorary visiting senior research fellow at @UniofBradford. He’s discussing activities of “potential concern” wrt CNS-acting agents.

Central nervous system-acting chemicals are sometimes referred to as calmatives, incapacitating biochemical weapons, immobilizing agents, and knockout gas. The discussion today is using ‘central nervous system-acting chemicals’. (I'll be using the acronym CNS today)

As Michael notes, there is no formal definition of these agents or indicative list of them within the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). There have been differing interpretations as to their use in #LawEnforcement. CNS-acting chemicals are not the same as 'riot control agents'

Michael notes that the safety margin for CNSAC weapon use may be very small & cites a 2007 @TheBMA report that states it can be “almost impossible to deliver the right agent to the right people in the right dose without exposing the wrong people, or delivering the wrong dose”

In addition to health concerns, there are other dangers arising from the use of CNS-acting agents in a #LawEnforcement setting, states Michael. These include: the risk of proliferation to, & misuse by, non-State actors, for example.

These weapons could also be used to facilitate #Torture & other #HumanRights violations, as well as potentially acting as a lethal force “multiplier”.

Michael is now discussing a case of the only confirmed large-scale aerosolised use of a CNS-acting weapon: use during the Moscow Theatre Siege in Oct 2002. Authorities have never provided details of the specific weapon used, but analysis showed 2 anaesthetics in the aerosol

In an April 2021 report on compliance w the CWC, the United States noted its concerns that Russia may be “exploiting the CWC Article VI provision of purposes not prohibited, which includes law enforcement, for purposes inconsistent with the Convention”

The next case is that of two Chinese companies manufacturing & promoting CNS-acting weapons variously described as “BBQ-901 narcosis gun” and “BBQ-901 tranquiliser gun”.

In the 2021 report, the US again noted concerns, stating: the US “cannot certify that China has met its obligations under the Convention due to concerns regarding China’s research of pharmaceutical based agents (PBAs) and toxins with potential dual-use applications.”

Michael is now discussing potentially relevant research in Czechia until 2012, of which the Czech authorities, in 2014, said, "There was no connection [between] the research [&] creation of any sort of weapons or devices which could be used for military or police purposes”

In the case of India, in 2014, the Chair of Indian CWC National Authority, issued "Categorical and unambiguous clarifications” that India has no stockpile of CNSACs & is not involved in weaponisation of CNSACs

Michael’s analysis of the case of potentially relevant Iranian research again notes the April 2021 report from the US, which is available here: tinyurl.com/yrxsvy68

Now discussing the US itself, Michael cites a 2015 statement from Mallory Stewart, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, ““I can firmly state once again that the United States of America is not developing, producing, stockpiling, or using CNS-acting chemicals”

Michael ends with some recommendations (below), and useful references for further reading (& I'll be linking to others as the event continues):

Next up, Dr. Malcolm Dando, is a Professor Emeritus at @UniofBradford. Prof Dando’s work is on strengthening the chemical and biological disarmament regime.

Prof Dando argues that the advantages & disadvantages of weapons systems should be examined from various angles - including in the case of CNS-acting chemicals

he cites a 1996 paper, in which Russia noted that many other States were developing a range of different chemicals for #LawEnforcement purposes & that law enforcement officials require a range of methods & means.

In contrast, others have pointed out the risks of such use, including in a 2014 paper from Australia. Some of these risks were outlined by Michael earlier.

In 2017, the US raised concerns that some States might be developing such chemicals for military purposes, but using the guise of law enforcement research to avoid further scrutiny under the CWC.

Such chemicals, Prof Dando states, can cause widespread effects

Moving to discuss emerging issues, Prof Dando raises neuroscience research, State investment in such research, & concerns with regards to how/if this might be weaponised in military, security, politica, & intelligence domains

Chemical & biological weapons are defined, by Robinson, as "uniquely menacing". This is why, Prof Dando states, this discussion is of vital importance & any ongoing developments must be carefully monitored.

Michael & Prof Dando’s co-written article for the @BulletinAtomic on the CWC loophole around incapacitating chemical agents is available here (from 2014): thebulletin.org/2014/10/the-in….

The research underpinning this article was published by @UniofBradford @BDPeaceAndDev @BradfordUniSIS as part of a series of policy briefings: files.ethz.ch/isn/185586/Dow…

In 2018, Michael, Prof Dando, & Dr Lijun Shang noted: Article II.9(d) of the CWC designates #LawEnforcement, inc domestic riot control, as a potentially acceptable purpose for use of certain toxic chemicals.

This is only if the types & quantities used are consistent with a law enforcement purpose. But, as the range of potentially permissible chemicals has not been fully established, there is a possible loophole for States to use CNS-acting chemicals in law enforcement settings.

Indeed, they wrote, the use & development of increasingly sophisticated agents for LE purposes would work against the prohibition of chemical weapons in the CWC. See: tinyurl.com/3dp7jah2

Interested in riot control agents? See our report on ongoing development of “remote control” RCA means of delivery, including external area clearing or area denial devices, automatic grenade launchers, and delivery mechanisms on UGVs and UAVs: tinyurl.com/cfy7usm4

You can also read our earlier paper w @UniofBradford on systems that can disperse significant amounts of RCA over wide areas and/or over extended distances. Inadequate control of “wide area” means of delivery has potentially grave consequences: tinyurl.com/3ay47vvv

As Michael notes in the Q&A session, there is a risk that some of these types of RCA-dispersal systems could be misused to disperse CNS-acting agents

As Dr @PaulWalkerGG noted in intro remarks, yesterday (28 June) was the 34th anniversary of the 1987 chemical weapons attack on Sardasht, Iran. The pain and ongoing suffering of the victims reaffirms the importance of discussions such as the one today tinyurl.com/9h59jnsw

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion, thought-provoking presentations from both Dr. Michael Crowley (@Omega_RF & @UniofBradford), & Dr. Malcolm Dando (@UniofBradford), & excellent moderation from Dr @PaulWalkerGG (@cwccoalition) & Leanne Quinn (@ArmsControlNow)