Great #CSP26 report. Ensuring effective CWC implementation requires active participatory stakeholder networks/communities. A requirement for that is #OPCW transparency, and this @cwccoalition reporting re-establishes much needed civil society entry points to information [1/4]
This complements the great on-the-ground #OPCW CSP coverage provided by @CBWEvents, and is a small light in the dark hole left by the cessation of the publication of @SPRU Harvard Sussex Program CBW Conventions Bulletin [back issues found here sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp…] 2/4
This effort by @cwccoalition and others to inform/ structure civil society engagement with CWC/ #OPCW issues is a fundamental step in community building and bringing old and new voices in. It is now important for States Parties to add structure from their side too. 3/4
Indeed, as many academic &policy NGOs have CWC #OPCW technical focus, & while CivSoc is revitalising engagement on policy+science relevant to the Convention, OPCW would benefit from re-developing connexions to facilitate info sharing, structured dialogues, knowledge exchange. 4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/4: Voting on #OPCW Programme & Budget has become common practice, representing difference of opinion on legitimacy of the IIT and - for the some in the 'no' camp - their denial that the Syrian government has used #chemicalweapons. But who votes no and how often? #CSP26
Here we see that P&B was, at least at CSP level, relatively uncontentious, until #OPCW#IIT was established by vote in June '18. In the old days, P&B bartering could be ironed out thru consultations with TS and at EC level. From 2018, voting no is one way to protest. #CSP26
3/4 - So, we have had 4 years of P&B voting: but who has been voting no consistently? The gaudy table below shows there have been 8 SPs consistently voting no: we can assume Syria would be here if they could vote, as would Venezuela, and a handful of others. #OPCW#CSP26