Russia vs. the U.S.A. in the United Nations
Russia filed a complaint against the US for violations of the Biological Weapons Convention in a special Art. 5 process
The U.S. State Department issued a press release that Russia was escalating claims that the U.S. had biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine, March 9, 2022.1
June 13, 2022, Russia bilaterally requested the U.S. answer a set of questions about the Ukraine laboratories. Without waiting for a response from the U.S., Russia filed a complaint July 2022, with the administrative offices of the Biological Weapons Convention in the United Nations, alleging that the U.S. has violated the treaty by establishing bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine,2 formally invoking the Formal Consultative Process (FCP) of Article V.
Article V of the Biological Weapons Convention provides for this consultation process using the United Nations as a forum to resolve any conflicts:
Article V, Biological Weapons Convention
The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to cooperate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objective of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and cooperation pursuant to this Article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter.
Article VI of the Biological Weapons Convention provides for a process to file a complaint about an alleged violation of the treaty.
Article VI, Biological Weapons Convention
(1) Any State Party to this Convention which finds that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all possible evidence confirming its validity, as well as a request for its consideration by the Security Council.
(2) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties to the Convention of the results of the investigation.
The Article V process has been used only once before this filing, and the Russians took part in the panel that considered the case. The case was a series of allegations by Cuba that the United States had used biological weapons in destroying their crops and livestock. The first time the Article V process was used, there were no rules and the parties agreed to this form of formal mediation. This involved a complaint from Cuba.
In 1997 when Cuba brought this complaint there was no procedure for a consultation. The only direction was from the the first RevCon (meeting of all the parties every five years) in 1980 where the interpretation of the Art. V process was that it should be “convened at the expert level”.
Cuba and the US were represented by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maria Florez, Cuba; and Ambassador Mahley for the U.S.. These Members were appointed to the consultative meeting “bureau”: Chair, Ambassador Soutar of the UK; and Six Vice-Chairs, Brazil, Canada, Iran, Netherlands, Nigeria and Russia.
The parties gave formal presentations from both sides and documents were distributed by both sides. Other States Parties were invited to submit “observations” which would be considered by the Bureau by Sept 27, 1997. For the particular claim that the U.S. had flown over Cuba and dispersed a thrips infection that killed crops, the following diagram of the flight was used in evidence.3
The conclusion was that no causal link between the US overflight and the thrips infection.
Despite the conclusion from the evidence China and Vietnam said it was impossible to determine; North Korea concluded that US had caused the infection and distributed via the plane.
In the final report, this lack of consensus was stated as follows: “due inter alia to the technical complexity of the subject and the passage of time, it has not proved possible to reach a definitive conclusion with regard to the concerns raised by the overnment of Cuba.”4
This process was not used with the Iraq biological weapons investigation, but rather a series of United Nations Security Council Resolutions were used to institute an inspection process. Later, the Resolution 1540 process for inspections would become a more permanent unit in the United Nations.
The Russia Complaint
In 2018, there was an allegation from Russia that the U.S. was installing biological weapons facilities in Georgia.5 In a prepared statement on October 30, Elene Agladze, the deputy permanent representative of Georgia to the United Nations, said:
“Our empirical experience has shown that although absurd, Russian allegations have been not just a propaganda tool, but lately even part of hybrid warfare in terms of laying a political groundwork for future aggressive actions.”6
The Article V process has begun with the current complaint from Russia against the U.S. with substantial documentation that purports to support its claims that the U.S. and Ukraine are violating the Biological Weapons Convention. The United States is currently preparing a response. The United States has taken the position that this is a Russia disinformation campaign and that the U.S. is in full compliance with the BWC. However, the U.S. has noted that it will fully participate in the formal consultative meeting.
Many of the documents provided by Russia were the same they presented to the United Nations Security Council.
This Art. V process is different from the Cuba process in that the allegations are current, not old. And while the global politics are still the same, the outcome cannot be similar to the finding in the first Art. V process — “has not proved possible to reach a definitive conclusion with regard to the concerns raised by ____.” There is ample documentation of the work of the Ukranian laboratories and there should be clarity with this finding.
It is likely this process will conclude in the next two months, and if there is doubt left that the U.S. is not in compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention, then the unintended consequences will likely be escalating the controversy; whereas this process was intended to address exactly these kinds of accusations before they escalate into kinetic confrontations.
Watch: Cuba vs. US at the UN - Biological Weapons Convention
https://www.state.gov/the-kremlins-allegations-of-chemical-and-biological-weapons-laboratories-in-ukraine/
https://thebulletin.org/2022/07/russia-finds-another-stage-for-the-ukraine-biolabs-disinformation-show/
Zilinskas, Raymong, “Cuban Allegations of U.S. Biological Warfare, False Allegations and Their Impact on Attribution,” Chap. Seven in Clunan, Lavoy and Martin, Terrorism, War, or Disease? (2008).
Ian Souter, Report to All State Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, para. 7.
https://thebulletin.org/2018/11/the-russian-disinformation-attack-that-poses-a-biological-danger/
https://thebulletin.org/2018/11/the-russian-disinformation-attack-that-poses-a-biological-danger/