Year of transition for the OPCW

Interview with Ahmet Uzumcu, Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, on its work and goals.

January 17, 2011 10:59 pm | Updated 10:59 pm IST

AHMET UZUMCU: "I've seen how competent and professional Indian colleagues are in the implementation of the Convention. We appreciate their commitment and competence.". Photo: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar

AHMET UZUMCU: "I've seen how competent and professional Indian colleagues are in the implementation of the Convention. We appreciate their commitment and competence.". Photo: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar

Ahmet Uzumcu, who took over as Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about six months ago, was recently in India on a familiarisation visit, even as talk of giving a new direction to the OPCW was on. Some countries see an attempt by the West to intrude unnecessarily in its work. Also, the U.S. and Russia, which possess an overwhelming share of the world's stockpile of chemical weapons, have lagged behind in destroying them.Sandeep Dikshitspoke to him in New Delhi.

How do you rate the Chemicals Weapons Convention (CWC) regime, and how would you describe it?

It's a successful organisation. It's non-discriminatory and treats all as equals. It has been able to make progress in the field of disarmament. Though seven states are missing, the CWC regime has seen significant successes. It has also developed its own culture of cooperation among state parties [countries]. Non-state actors have not been taken into account, but this is in a crucial phase.

While making progress in disarmament, we've to think of future priorities. These are being discussed by an advisory panel that consists of retired ambassadors, [representatives of] the chemical industry and scientists. It's going to prepare a report for me. Hopefully this document will constitute a basis for extensive debate to identify future priorities. So far the main focus has been on disarmament and destruction. We've also been verifying. But the question is whether with the decline in some activities, do we use the resources for other purposes? I hope there'll be some decision at the Conference of State Parties (COSPs) by the year-end. It's going to be a hectic year. I see this visit as a timely one. There've been lots of exchanges with senior officials and experts.

The U.S. and Russia had 90 per cent of the chemical stockpiles and they're nowhere near meeting the April 2012 deadline. Only 62 per cent of the world's chemical weapons arsenal has been destroyed so far. Also, 188 countries have ratified the CWC but countries are still wary. What are your views on these issues?

I had the opportunity to visit two industrial destruction factories each in the U.S. and Russia. I'm going to visit one more in the U.S. in February and then in Russia. I believe the [process of] destruction in both countries has been really transparent. They've provided regular reports on the progress of destruction. By February 2012 we expect the U.S. to reach 90 per cent and Russia 75 per cent. For the rest, state parties obviously want them to do it as early as possible. The deadline for the remaining destruction is being discussed in an informal setting at the moment. I hope there will be a satisfactory solution at an early stage so that it doesn't become a political issue.

We also have other issues to focus on. There is the time pressure as we've to prepare the budget for the next year by June and new priorities will have to be reflected. This is going to be the year of transition.

In 2013, I expect a new, adapted Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Chemical Weapons Convention regime. I don't think the CWC is being changed. We've to operate within parameters, but the changes could help us address different concerns and parameters.

The deadline issue is on our agenda. The issue of universal extension is also there and we're trying to contact the seven states. Myanmar and Israel among them have signed but haven't ratified. We'll continue to engage them. I believe the use of chemical weapons is morally unacceptable and strategically meaningless.

How do you see India's role in the past and in the future?

India has been extremely important. India is sitting in all the bodies. These committees are not open to all, but India is the best-represented with 30, all of whom are very qualified. I've seen how competent and professional Indian colleagues are in the implementation of the Convention. We appreciate their commitment and competence.

India should be seen as taking credit for the implementation of the CWC regime. Other shareholders, such as the Indian chemical industry, have grown to be very cooperative. The Indian role has been very constructive, for example with regard to the Declaration. We were able to develop it further due to Indian influence. Some countries are lagging behind in legislating, and India can help in that. Also, some [countries] can't respond in case of an emergency, and India proved its expertise during an exercise in Tunisia. There was a 40-member Indian delegation, and in terms of equipment and action they were very professional.

Some countries, including perhaps India, do not share the perception of the Western countries on the need to expand the OPCW's range of activities. How're you dealing with this?

I don't mean expanding the area of activity. The question is whether we [all the countries] agree on certain activities in [terms of] scope and frequency while some activities such as inspection of chemical weapons would decrease. I don't suggest that we review the mandate or create new tasks. The only question is whether the state parties would agree to refocus our activities in certain areas.

What would you mean by refocussing activities?

By that I mean developing, increasing respect internationally for the Convention, assisting in protecting chemicals and implementing national legislations. We've to build the capacities of some state parties. Then there are export controls and the training of customs officers.

Are you in favour of extending the scope of activities?

Actually there were views expressed in the past to expand or merge the biological aspect with the CWC. But this was not supported by several states. Therefore, it seems unlikely that such a [merged] convention will happen. On the other hand, there are some synergies between different regimes. For instance, while trying to help increase the capacity in export controls to check misuse of toxic chemicals, those doing so in the CWC can help prevent export misuse of dual-use biological and nuclear technologies. Therefore these controls have a certain bearing on other regimes. There's also close cooperation with the U.N. on Resolution 1540.

What will happen if Russia and the U.S. don't manage to eliminate their stockpiles?

For me this is a priority. I don't underestimate the seriousness of the problem in order to preserve the credibility and integrity of the CWC regime. Both [countries] took some time to convince local communities before setting up destruction factories.

The economic crises also affected the flow of necessary resources in Russia, but they assured us that resources would be allocated. In view of their firm commitment, delays will be addressed from a technical point of view and transparency would be fully assured.

Complete destruction of all chemical weapons stockpiles by the possessor-states is a primary objective of the Convention.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.