Newsletter17

Mr. Bush is at it again. GOD HELP US!
..........................................................
United States rejects anti-germ warfare enforcement accord.
By Alexander G. Higgins, Associated Press, 7/25/2001 09:28
GENEVA (AP) The United States already facing European
criticism for rejecting a climate change accord and backing
a watered down agreement on small arms said Wednesday it was abandoning a U.N. draft accord designed to give teeth to an anti-germ warfare treaty.
Nations have been negotiating since 1995 to develop an accord
on how to enforce the germ warfare treaty, painstakingly
working through disagreements over the 210-page document. The draft is intended to create a way to inspect sites suspected
of developing biological weapons without interfering with
legitimate industries and facilities.
"In our assessment, the draft protocol would put national
security and confidential business information at risk," said
U.S. chief negotiator Donald A. Mahley, effectively killing
nearly seven years of negotiations. The U.S. announcement as the sole country rejecting it went farther than many experts had expected and appeared to discourage other key countries, including those friendly to the United States.
"Even though I understand some of the rationale, I was rather surprised by the U.S. argument at this stage," said Ambassador Seiichiro Noboru, head of the Japanese delegation at the
56-nation meeting. Noboru said the rejection of the whole approach meant that efforts to strengthen the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention would have to start all over.
"It does close the chapter on 6� years of negotiation,"
Indian Ambassador Rakesh Sood said. "Whether it closes the
book or not we don't know."
The administration has been criticized domestically and internationally for similar stands on climate change and
small arms trade. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a
Democrat, has scolded President Bush as an isolationist who
has been "minimizing" the United States' standing in the
world.
Mahley said Washington still supported the U.N. treaty
banning the use of biological weapons, and would come up
with new proposals on how to enforce it. But he said the
United States had concluded that it could not support the
draft accord even if changes were made.
"The draft protocol will not improve our ability to verify
Biological Weapons Convention compliance. It will not enhance
our confidence in compliance and will do little to deter those countries seeking to develop biological weapons," he said.
He said the United States believes it can strengthen the
convention through multilateral arrangements and "new,
affirmative ideas."
"There is no basis for a claim that the United States does
not support multilateral instruments for dealing with weapons
of mass destruction and missile threats," he said. "To be
valuable, however, we believe any approach must focus on
effective, innovative measures."
When the treaty was created during the Cold War, negotiators
left out enforcement details because no one seriously thought
anyone would ever try to use germ warfare.
The United States has taken a leading role in the push for
such provisions since Iraqi armaments discovered after the
Gulf War showed the treaty had been useless in stopping
countries from developing biological weapons.
Mahley said that, among the U.S. concerns, was that the draft
accord did not protect commercially sensitive information.
Countries or competitors could raise unfounded concerns about
the creation of biological weapons, which would result in
damage to national security and expense for private companies.
"We simply cannot agree to make ourselves and other countries
subject to such risks when we can find no corresponding
benefit in impeding proliferation efforts around the globe."
The nations that have ratified the treaty have set a November
target to complete the enforcement provisions.
Tibor Toth, the Hungarian diplomat who chairs the
negotiations, said he would not comment on the U.S. position
until he had read Mahley's speech more closely.
Professor Graham Pearson of Britain's Bradford University,
a retired British government biological weapons expert who
has been following the negotiations, said he feared the
United States was making a big mistake and would eventually
have to reconsider.
****************************************************************************
What American companies are working on biological weapons?
What Military group is working on biological weapons?
There SHOULD BE NONE. So if there are none, how would this
treaty be a threat to National Security? If there are none,
how would this treaty give unfair information to a company's
competitors?

The United States has been pushing for bans on chemical and biological weapons for decades. Now Mr. Bush reverses our
role. It sounds like we are secretly developing weapons of
that type.

JBS