Thread by @davidmanheim

Fantastic opening statement from US Undersecretary @Jenkinsbd of @USAmbCD this morning about the need to support the inexpensive but critical work of the #1972BWC at the #BWCRevCon today, and need to see its work expanded.

(I unfortunately missed the first statement of the day, by the UK delegation. I understand that they mentioned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but no point of order was raised.)

One noteworthy point across many, many speakers at the #BWCRevCon
and related #1972BWC events is an emphasis on balancing need to restrict dual-use and bioweapons work with the promise of future biotechnology.

As a personal view, I think this is deeply mistaken.
Very little tradeoff exists here - restrictions that create tradeoffs are usually minimal. No one (other than @kesvelt, I guess,) suggests a meaningful restriction on bio research outside of a narrow range of dangerous DURC.

https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1597523371440365573

@kesvelt In a narrow range, yes, we need restrictions - but these minimally impact positive applications.

The vast majority of beneficial research needs only reasonable review of potential dangers, but should be no more burdensome than ethical standards which scientists already embrace.

Now, Argentina's delegation is making an opening statement opposing significant and expensive expansion, and pushes for narrower and more modest changes.

They note that verification seems implausible, due to fundamental difficulties, but still welcome ideas to that end.

The did favorably mention BWC/CONF.IX/WP.2, by Canada and the Netherlands, proposing replacing the meeting of experts with a expert working group.

( In English, here: documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/… )

On a more important, nay, critical note about the substantive problems of the #BWCRevCon, the volume of the headset translation changes between delegates and translators.

It's giving me a headache. Clearly, this means we need to abandon multilateralism completely.

cc: @BWCISU

The UAE's delegation is now pushing for more regional work, and mentioning it's key role as a regional hub. They are also saying they are interested in technical cooperation and collaboration.

On the whole, I'm unclear what they are substantively requesting.

Cuba coming out strong in favor of strengthening the #1972BWC, and putting in place a verification regime, and says that the complaints that the current geopolitical situation makes that impossible are wrong - that the opposite is true, the situation requires action.
#BWCRevCon

Inter alia, Cuba's delegate mentions both the fact that the US blew up the previous verification regime in mid-2001, and the ongoing "fragrantly illegal" blockade by the US.

#BWCRevCon #1972BWC

Now, Iran is speaking. To start, they applaud the work and progress, but say it needs strengthening to prevent future threats. They are asking for a new legal instrument with a legally binding protocol for verification - and like Cuba, blaming the US.

#BWCRevCon #1972BWC

Iran ended, a bit after they officially ran out of time while complaining about the United States, by mentioning Israel's non-participation in the BWC, and attacking their "malign activities," but unlike previous years, they did not specifically tie this to any other CBRN issues.

I now have a tweet to quote, below, which can replace my earlier lack of making it upstairs in time to hear the UK delegation.

https://twitter.com/AustraliaUN_GVA/status/1597540011519246336

Ireland's statement puts it on the long and growing list of countries condemning Russia's abuse of Article 5... which is a great lead-in to Ukraine, whose delegate is speaking now.

Ukraine is now discussing "Russia's genocidal war," and their attack on the fundamental norm against invasion, and the various unacceptable implications.

...of course, Russia raises a point of order, saying that the Ukrainian delegation must think it is in the General Assembly.

The chair responds to the Russian point of order, again referencing the below.

Ukraine continues, saying that the UN Charter is the basis of the BWC, so violation of that charter, and attacking civilians, is relevant...

And now, another Russian point of order.

https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1597245890783481860

Russia again says that everyone agreed to the rules that everything must remain on the topic of the BWC, and says that they will continue to raise points of order to interrupt Ukraine if the remarks continue.

The chair again says everyone can finish their statement.

Ukraine continues, tying in Russian attacks to the point that people cannot use biological weapons... now, another point of order.

Russia raises the additional complaint: Ukraine is defaming them "ignoring diplomatic standards," disrespecting the president and all delegations.

The chair's responses to Russian points of order is now being replaced by a recording of the same response, over, and over, and over again.

Ukraine now attacks Russia, saying that their now-rebutted claims about others violating the convention seems to point to their own guilt.

Ukraine demands that Russia provide proof that it actually ended its previous bioweapons program... and goes back to talking about the war, and the impacts on hospitals and how Russian attacks raise the risk of outbreaks.

Ukraine has run out of time and seems nearly done, but Russia has another point of order.

Russia is upset that Ukraine's statement is "full of emotion," and should "not abuse the patience of the chair and the state parties... and must treat each other with mutual respect."

Following the point of order, Ukraine does not continue, and the next speaker begins.

To clarify, I'm only tweeting about a portion of the statements - there is a lot more being said.

Also, I want to clarify how serious my commentary is, and how people should interpret it, by repeating my call for a new legal mechanism for the convention.

https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1597550991070609408

As the third(?) statement of the afternoon at the #1972BWC #BWCRevCon, Slovakia says it will condemn the aggression against Ukraine, but "to avoid procedural issues, does so without mentioning the aggressor" (switching language, translated:) "because we all know who it is."

Palestine is now talking about the middle east as a WMD-free zone, and thanks the EU for assistance with its implementation of the BWC. But they say they cannot fulfill its obligations because there may be biological weapons in their territory, in illegal settlements.

They are also mentioning recent revelations by Israeli historians documenting that Israel used biological weapons poisoning wells in 1948. [Obviously, this was before the BWC existed. Which I felt compelled to point out, just in case anyone thought I was being objective here.]

There is a back-and-forth between the US and Russia, using right of reply, about the allegations, which were dismissed in the earlier investigation, and Russia is defending their earlier claims.

Honestly, this is the discussion we were expecting. Nothing particularly noteworthy.

One key point, which may make the below withdrawal matter, was brought up by the Americans - the rotation of the chairmanship, which could be affected, but presumably won't actually be.

https://twitter.com/FilippaLentzos/status/1597162699435040768

As Russia replies again, they note that they allege that US was doing biological research "near the border of Russia" - is that an admission that those parts of Ukraine aren't part of Russia?

And Israel just replied to Palestine and Iran, asking Iran to use Israel's actual name, and both not to make false claims about Israel.

Palestine is now responding, saying that there's no way to know what the settlers are doing, and they are probably making biological weapons.

There is a (bizarre) claim in the Palestinian response that the settlers who they accuse of making bioweapons are part of the current government, which is the same as the government during the war of independence in 1948, when there was usage of biological weapons.

And now that the Palestinians have pointed out the bioweapon usage in 1948, I get to find out that the person who decided to use bioweapons was a professor at "Technion (Israel's MIT)"

Where I am currently a visiting researcher.

So, yeah.

tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Oh, and for those of you following along with the #BWCRevCon at home, the general discussion has ended, and international organizations are now speaking.

I thought this would be boring, but NATO's delegate was speaking, and Russia brought up a point of order.

Russia says they are confused, because the organizations are abusing their privilege to speak, they don't have a right to speak under the rules, so the chair should end it.

The president is responding that they agreed to let them attend, and allowing them to speak is past practice, so they can continue.

Russia again objects, says that the rules don't give NATO a right to speak, and they should only observe, unless someone wants to change the rules.

The chair says that this in normal practice, and no-one objected to earlier international organizations.

After quietly conferring with Daniel Feakes, head of the ISU, he says they can speak, per precedent.

Now, Russia has a point of order, as does someone else.

Russia reiterates its position - and notes that this is regular practice, but that's only when they aren't being mean to anyone, and they "expected elementary diplomatic ethics" from these organization. They say someone can amend the rule, if they want.

#BWCRevCon #1972BWC

...and the second point of order is Ukraine!

They say Russia is abusing their use of points of order - and Russia tries to interrupt with a point of order. But points of order can't interrupt other points of order.

#BWCRevCon #1972BWC

The chair says it is late, and they will suspend further points of order until tomorrow, so we'll end with a cliffhanger!

#BWCRevCon #1972BWC

(Yes, this is what international relations wonks think of as high drama.)

One of the few things I'm pretty confident about here is that the #BWCRevCon will, in fact, endorse the #TianjinGuidelines. I'd give it 90%.

(And the failure cases are mostly where the #1972BWC can do nothing at all due to exponentially increasing stacks of points of order.)

https://twitter.com/Amb_LiSong/status/1597657381051453440

By the way, if you don't want to follow my riveting blow-by-blow tweeting of the #1972BWC #BWCRevCon, the daily @CBWEvents summary is really great - cbw-events.org.uk/bwc-rep.html - though it is sorely lacking in snarky comments, mic-drop quotes, sarcasm, and semi-informed speculation.

@CBWEvents Before we get back to yesterday's cliffhanger in about an hour and a half, there is a side-event with the youth recommendations to strengthen the BWC, starting in 15 minutes: ungeneva-vc.webex.com/ungeneva-vc/j.…

https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1597637129626177536

@CBWEvents The youth recommendations side event is a joint effort between @BiosafetyIFBA, @iGEM, @JHSPH_CHS, @NTI_WMD, and @open_phil. Each has a group of delegates who have been working on and debating these recommendations to the #1972BWC #BWCRevCon, and will be presenting them now.

@CBWEvents @BiosafetyIFBA @iGEM @JHSPH_CHS @NTI_WMD @open_phil Youth recommendations will be on the @ODA_Geneva site, likely later today. meetings.unoda.org/bwc-revcon/bio… (But if you come in person, you get a printout.)

Per UN norms, the event will start 10 minutes late because everyone is getting the free side event coffee.

#1972BWC #BWCRevCon

The recommendations were drafted in groups - but some credit is due to individuals. The Article X recommendations were facilitated by Stephanie Norlock of @BiosafetyIFBA, & @baoyuhan95, the review of science and tech was @tessafyi, @amandak028, & Malika Vassilova...

Strengthening national implementation was @EssixGabrielle and @ianthementor. Assistance response and preparedness was @bhemmerle1, @nilsjusten,
Lizeka Tandwa, and @g_dhaliwal1. Institutional strengthening was @teojcryan, Nicholas Cropper, Shresthra Rath, and @KyabarongoA.

Currently, for each area of the recommendation, the Rapporteur (who is the last person I listed under each topic earlier in the thread,) is briefly explaining their recommendations.

I'm very impressed by both their substantive work, and their presentations.

#1972BWC #BWCRevCon

Oh no - I neglected to mention one of the co-organizers!
(Particularly egregious since I'm a country lead for Israel.)

https://twitter.com/nextgenghs/status/1597872019957510146

Now there are questions; @FilippaLentzos now asks about the process for creating the recommendations, and the rapporteurs mention how much they have learned about the BWC and complexity of the process.

Next, I asked about how country delegations can work on these proposals.

There is now a journalist with a very pessimistic take on the future and inevitability of bioweapons usage - but the side event is (hopefully) close to ending, and I'll be getting back to the drama upstairs, starting soon.

...and we're starting day 3, albeit somewhat delayed!

Iran starts by attacking Israel's claims about their behavior, and saying that Israel has been pursuing WMDs. (Pot, meet Kettle?)

#1972BWC #BWCRevCon

...and now they are skipping straight to civil society orgs!

This is a big deal - Russia's attempt and points of order to not allow NATO to finish speaking was evidently successful. (I'm guessing that this was part of the delay getting started.)

#1972BWC #BWCRevCon

It's kind of anti-climactic, though. We ended the scene yesterday with the big confrontation about to start, and the next episode cuts to everyone sitting at a restaurant, no mention of the big fight - what happened in the meantime?

(@dfeakes, of course, isn't going to tell me.)

Anyways, @FilippaLentzos is giving the consensus statement for the civil society organizations, and I've been tweeting instead of listening closely, though her full statement will be on the UNODA site.

Other NGOs are going to be delivering their comments, starting with @Biosec_re, which is doing great work, and giving an impassioned speech.

Next, @DrMariamElgabry of @Bronic_co is talking about their work, and pushing specifically for monitoring domestic misuse, and on S&T.

Now, @FuturistYB is speaking for @CSRisks, speaking about the global choice between cooperation and fracturing of the international order, and talking about pathways forward. (I'm excited about his second point, about high-level biosecurity labs.)
cc: @AndyWeberNCB

Now, @UniofBradford's Michael Crowley has a pre-recorded message, largely talking about need for an S&T mechanism.

And @rshouser of @GeorgeMasonU and @KingsCollegeLon also has a pre-recorded message, mostly about high-level biosecurity lab oversight and safety.
cc: @gregkoblentz

A number of other organizations have also been making statements - including @MaatForPeace, @JHSPH_CHS, @KingsCollegeLon, and @vertic_org.

They finished with NGOs, and ended early for the morning session.

However! I was informed that I was probably wrong about the below - the showdown around NATO and international orgs was delayed, not cancelled.

Perhaps we'll get back to it this afternoon? Stay tuned!

https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1597890478480973824

Kicking off the afternoon session, the UNODA is speaking - implying (non-NATO?) international orgs are able to speak, maybe?

But after that, they ask previous meeting presidents to reflect on the #1972BWC. @Diplomat_Light starts, and notes that there has been lots of progress.

@Diplomat_Light He points out that there are large areas of agreement, then there are minor details that derail agreements. Interestingly, he suggests the #BWCRevCon needs to delineate what the annual review conferences are allowed to decide - instead of insisting only a RevCon can do anything.

Next, @gioasempre is talking about a number of mistakes which he feels occurred. He highlights that the #BWCMX (meeting of experts) and the annual #BWCMSP failed to work well together, with the experts' recommendations often being relitigated and modified.

#1972BWC #BWCRevCon

@gioasempre He has mentioned a number of other points, but one that seems worth pointing out is that he thinks they need to try for "gender parity for the c̷h̷a̷i̷r̷m̷a̷n̷ chairperson" - and there is a notable lack on the podium, even though the diplomats in the room seem more balanced.

They asked if any state parties wanted to speak, and we almost got away with no-one speaking, but just before we moved on...

Iran, talking about the 2019 & 2020 MSPs, said "a specific country from a specific regional group" objected to substantive proposals.

#BWCRevCon

I'm sure that many of the people in the room know which of the previous chairpersons is being referenced, but I don't. (Diplomatic norms are frustrating.)

Now, Spain says it concludes from previous chairpeople's remarks that we should make progress and cooperate.

#BWCRevCon

With that deeply insightful note (or did I miss something subtle?) the chair allowed @Diplomat_Light to respond, and he says he agrees about Iran's second point. And with that we adjourn to figure something out, before reconvene as the meeting of the whole... in a few minutes???

They have now re-opened, with the chair of the "committee of the whole" (yes, until now, the first 2.75 days were just introductory remarks.)

First, they will have general comments, then will be going through the #1972BWC treaty, article by article.

#BWCRevCon

The chair, @Tatiana_Molcean (informally) notes that she will initially be giving precedence to certain countries' delegates, since their countries will be playing World Cup matches starting soon.

Good to know everyone's priorities are straight! ;)

#BWCRevCon

Canada spoke first, with several ideas they have submitted.

Next, Russia points out that they have been submitting proposals for years, and have updated their proposal, with some technical changes. The proposal is for a legally binding document with rules about implementation.

I'm certainly not going to say that the Russian delegation's proposals are aimed to undermine other countries' positions, since I haven't read through them. But they are (not-so-subtly) blaming the US for suspending the 1990's work on verification.

#BWCRevCon

Brazil is talking about their working paper 19, with Argentina, about livestock and agricultural issues, and the threat of biological agents to human, animal, and plants.

Now, Cuba says the chair has its support, and Cuba has a proposal for a binding protocol with verification.

Note that "binding protocol" means everyone would need to agree - any substantive new rules are likely a nonstarter.

If a country wanted to waste everyone's time, they might propose spending lots of time developing new binding protocols they knew other states wouldn't agree to.

Cuba also pointed out, correctly, that the US didn't allow the adoption of verification following work in the 1990s.

But how this played out is, to say the least, disputed.

The US, Japan, and Kazakhstan also just spoke.

Notably, to quote (from memory,) the US delegate, who will remain untagged here, said; "I know it is traditional to congratulate the chair, but I would instead like to offer my gratitude... it won't be easy."

#BWCRevCon #1972BWC

The chair notes, "...as long as they are not condolences, I will accept them."

Now that they are done with the cross-cutting proposals, they will start the article-specific proposals, starting with article 1.

I don't know them by heart, so: front.un-arm.org/wp-content/upl…
#BWCRevCon

Russia is again speaking. Instead of repeating or summarizing their claims, I'll let GPT-3 make stuff up about what they said - it can't possible be less accurate than what was actually said.

#BWCRevCon

The US delegation did, in fact, speak next, but mostly talked about substantive proposals, concluding that they feel the Russian allegations were addressed and are resolved.

Ukraine responds next, gets into the allegation, and starts talking about the invasion.

Point of order!

Russia demands that Ukraine respect the rules and other delegates, etc.

The chair follows up saying she will follow the precedent so far, and let delegations finish, but notes that if it's just responding to another country, it needs to use the right of reply.

Ukraine finishes, and Russia raises another point of order. The chair says Ukraine is done speaking, but Russia still wants to raise the point of order. They complain and ask the chair to call Ukraine to order for breaking the rules.

The Czech Republic raises a point of order...

They note that Russia has been abusing its ability to raise points of order to interrupt other delegations, as was suggested yesterday.

In any case, the meeting moves on, and we're back to substantive discussion.

From earlier today, but I did want to note, for those not in the room, that @KingsCollegeLon has had the pictured small homemade sign next to their placard for a couple days.

I'm a bit surprised that the Russians haven't complained - maybe they didn't notice it?

#BWCRevCon

https://twitter.com/FilippaLentzos/status/1597985231965163520

Iran is speaking, and once again makes the claim that it's unfortunate that the #1972BWC doesn't ban use of biological weapons, just development and possession.

I'm unclear how it's logically possible to use something you didn't develop or possess, but Iran doesn't like it.

Russia is asking to speak again, not as a point of order, and the chair says it should be a substantive proposal, since they already spoke they can have only 2 minutes, and it should not be a reply.

...so Russia proceeds to respond to the Czech Republic.

Their response was, as the chair explained immediately following, an "extensive discussion of the rules of procedure as interpreted by one country."

The chair then asked Czechia to waive its point of order so we can move on - and the UK asks to speak, then Iran is up.

The UK states that, as it has pointed out in previous meetings, contra Iran, use of biological weapons is effectively banned.

Nigeria speaks briefly; they support a legally binding protocol banning biological weapons.

Iran evidently decided not to speak, so - Article II time.

The US speaks first, followed by Cuba.

The US points out it did this decades ago, and the 1997 CBM details this.

Cuba says they not only don't they have, and filed CBM all but one year, but they even have a legal requirement for agency reporting.

Also, from earlier today:

https://twitter.com/NamibiaPMGeneva/status/1597591616172482563

Iran now wants to speak about article II, before they switch to article III - they have an article II proposal they want to present tomorrow, and the chair allows it.

Article III, the Philippines starts, followed by the US. Both state that not proliferating bioweapons is good!

There is a lot more, but it's fairly technical, and I don't have much to say about the substantive proposals - thankfully, there are experts who are, in fact, involved.

We're ending for today, and I'm unfortunately not going to be in Geneva for all of tomorrow or Friday.