Keeping a Lid on Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons
Under United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540, states are obliged to take steps that number in the hundreds, and each is crucial to ensuring that weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery do not get into the wrong hands. The OSCE is playing a crucial role in helping participating States get the implementation of the resolution right. Adriana Volenikova, Associate Project Officer in the Forum for Security Co-operation Support Unit of the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre, explains:
What do states need to do to implement UNSCR 1540?
UNSCR 1540 contains three main obligations for states. Firstly, they must refrain from supporting, by any means, non-State actors from developing, acquiring, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, transferring or using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems. Secondly, they have to have the appropriate legislation in place. And thirdly, they must have strict domestic controls to make sure that any materials that could be used to create or deliver these weapons are well protected.
All in all, UNSCR 1540 contains some 300 obligations for states. To support them in their implementation, the UN Security Council established the 1540 Committee, which is supported by the UN Office on Disarmament Affairs (UNODA).
The key to implementing the resolution is addressing the weakest link. It is not enough that the large nuclear powers maintain strict control over their weapons, when a small state could be used as a country of transit, for instance. When it comes to controlling potential ingredients for chemical weapons, we are dealing with the chemical industry, which is huge. Biological substances are even more difficult to control, because they are used by regular laboratories and medical facilities, which need to make sure that all their samples, the different viruses and pathogens, are well protected.
How is the OSCE involved?
The OSCE participating States first agreed that supporting UNSCR 1540 was important when the United States and the United Kingdom brought this topic to the OSCE agenda in 2009. Since then the OSCE’s support has grown. In 2011 the UN Security Council passed UNSCR 1977 asking regional organizations to help in UNSCR 1540’s implementation and the OSCE signed an MOU with UNODA later the same year, committing themselves to work together.
The 1540 Committee has only a limited number of experts – currently nine – who are responsible for overseeing the implementation of UNSCR 1540 worldwide. At the OSCE, we are well placed to help. The 57 participating States meet weekly in the Forum for Security Co-operation (FSC) to discuss military aspects of security. Thanks to the day-to-day work that flows from this security dialogue, we are in frequent contact with the relevant ministries and have their trust. The participating States have appointed focal points in their ministries of foreign affairs and several of them participate in the informal “Group of Friends of UNSCR 1540”, chaired by Belarus and Spain. There has been a special capacity to support UNSCR 1540 implementation in the Conflict Prevention Centre’s FSC Support Section since 2010. In 2015 the FSC adopted a decision explicitly recognizing the OSCE’s role in facilitating the implementation of UNSCR 1540 and particularly the role of the Conflict Prevention Centre.
The OSCE’s support to UNSCR 1540 is an excellent example of how it operationalizes the UN Charter’s Chapter VIII on regional arrangements. On the one hand, it brings the Security Council resolution down to the regional and the country level. Not only does the FSC regularly have UNSCR 1540 on its agenda, but also, based on FSC decisions, the OSCE provides direct assistance to participating States in its implementation. On the other hand, our work circles back up to the global level. We are in regular contact with UNODA. Once a year, the UN 1540 Committee Chair comes to Vienna to address the FSC and to be briefed by the participating States.
How does the direct assistance to participating States work?
First, we sit down together and go through the so-called UNSCR 1540 matrix with them, which lists in detail all of their obligations. Due to the complexity of the obligations, we might have more than twenty different ministries around the table in this country-specific dialogue – the ministries of health, industry, economy, even veterinary services. We look at border controls, custom controls, the physical protection of materials – a large number of things – to make sure that any potentially dangerous material the state has, even in normal civilian use, like X-ray equipment in hospitals or laboratory samples, is protected. A big part of the work is also to make sure that the industries producing these materials are self-aware and responsible. For that one needs so-called internal compliance programmes. And we encourage governments to collect data on what industries they have in their country, and to inform them of the risks the products they are producing might entail with respect to terrorism.
This country-specific dialogue leads to the development of a national implementation action plan, normally around twenty measures that states want to adopt in the next three to five years. We always encourage states to make sure this is not just an artificial exercise, to prioritize, to be realistic. Also, to be specific about what kind of assistance they might need. Do they require someone to do a logistical review? Are they going to be able to incorporate activities into their state budget or are they going to need funds? Currently we have 15 UNSCR 1540 action plans in the OSCE region.
What unique service does the OSCE provide?
In order for UNSCR 1540 implementation to work, there needs to be a platform of co-operation. We bring people together. That is what we provide. We don’t try to reinvent the wheel. For instance, if I am working with a country on nuclear remnants and we find in our assessment with the different ministries that a nuclear component is an issue of concern, I will contact the International Atomic Energy Agency to see in how far they have been aware of this need and invite them to work with the country directly. Then I will inform the MFA so that they know this is covered and efforts are not duplicated. We do the same with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the World Health Organization and with the Biological Weapons Convention Support Unit. One would assume that these organizations, which are so large, wouldn’t need the OSCE as a platform and would be able to do this alone. But, maybe because they are so large, or don’t have the intimate contacts and focal points in the countries that we do, they do in fact rely on us.
Sometimes it’s the little things that make the big difference. If a country is not implementing this or that obligation, I am always on the look-out to see: where is the problem, where is the gap? Often it’s simply a lack of awareness of where they could get training or funds, or a lack of communication, a question of language. For example, Kyrgyzstan had received assistance with a control list for export control, but it wasn’t translated into the local language and they didn’t have money to do it. So we did that. A small thing, but because of it the government was able to go ahead and issue a governmental decree. And now Kyrgyzstan has a control list in place. Without the translation, they would not have.
Do you help with monitoring and review?
This year there was a global UNSCR 1540 Comprehensive Review and the OSCE participated in that. We put forward several proposals at the meeting in New York.
The OSCE also helps with peer reviews. They are a very useful way for states to learn from each other’s practices, especially as the resolution itself does not include instructions on how to go about its implementation. This year, we supported a trilateral peer review between Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Belarus. We had an initial meeting in Bishkek in 2014 and then one in Minsk in August of this year, where we took the Kyrgyz and Tajik officials to different institutions dealing with the identification of chemical, biological and nuclear materials. They also discussed the export control laws of Belarus and went to the airport to see how things are screened there. We are currently supporting both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan on export controls through a United States grant, so it was fitting that they could also learn from Belarus. A third meeting is planned for January 2017 in Dushanbe.
How do you see OSCE support for UNSCR 1540 developing?
One of the results that is foreseen to come out of the Comprehensive Review is a recommendation for regional organizations to not only play a co-ordinating role but also close the gaps with concrete activities and seek donors to fund them. We have been making that transition. Thanks to Switzerland and Italy, which provided a small grant for the purpose, and the United States which continuously supports our activities, we developed a number of projects, including a chemical assessment in Ukraine and export control assistance for Central Asia. These activities are now raising hundreds of thousands of Euros. Currently the OSCE’s UNSCR 1540 project has a budget of €1.6 million. The European Union intends to provide support for additional UNSCR 1540 activities at the OSCE, pending a European Council decision.
We are also beginning to do more training: the first training of the OSCE 1540 points of contact was hosted this year in June/July by the Russian Federation in Kaliningrad.
Until now, these OSCE activities have been extra-budgetary. We are hoping that the Conflict Prevention Centre’s UNSCR 1540 support will become part of the Unified Budget. This would allow for much better planning and also provide the recognition this work has earned as a vital activity of the OSCE.