Ukraine’s supposed biological weapons: David’s response to Goliath?

As the war clouds darken over Ukrainian skies and two million desperate Ukrainians seek refuge in neighbouring countries, the world is once again confronted with a troubling question. In an asymmetrical military conflict waged by a nuclear-armed Goliath, is David tempted to use the ‘poor man’s nuclear weapon’? This troubling prospect is a daunting challenge, inadequately addressed by the Security Council on 11 March 2022. Weapons of Mass Destruction, termed WMDs, are not confined to nuclear weapons. They include biological and chemical weapons. Their development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use is prohibited by two landmark Conventions. Biological weapons disseminate disease-causing organisms or toxins which spread across frontiers. They are deadly and highly contagious. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) entered into force on 26 March 1975 and has 183 States Parties including all P5 countries and Ukraine. It supplements and strengthens the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The BTWC has some shortcomings. Unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which came into force on 29 April 1997, it lacks a permanent Secretariat, a Secretary-General or independent verification mechanisms by international inspectors who are empowered to conduct ‘challenge inspections’. Under pressure from States Parties, an ‘Implementation Support Unit’ (ISU) was established within the Geneva Branch of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs after the Sixth Review Conference in 2006.

***

Also Read **How Ukraine is the biggest loser in the new Cold War and it can’t just blame Russia for that** **India’s Russia policy has been spot on so far, but going ahead it needs to break free of the dependence for truer strategic autonomy** **Big lesson for India from Ukraine war: There’s nothing bigger for a country than its national interests** **As Putin plays Russian roulette in Ukraine, Indian diplomacy treads a fine line** **Putin’s Ukraine war: Early military lessons for India from the Russian invasion** **How Russia-Ukraine conflict has complicated the already complex geopolitics** **Ghosespot | How Opposition slamming Modi government’s handling of crisis doesn’t hold water** **Russia’s war in Ukraine: How India’s UN Security Council vote was pragmatic** **Russia-Ukraine crisis: Here's what will get more expensive in India if two countries go to war** **The meta-narrative about India’s non-involvement in the Ukraine imbroglio** **India’s abstinence from UN Security Council vote on Ukraine was the right decision**

***

The CWC is an arms control treaty administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), with a permanent Secretariat and a Secretary General at The Hague, The Netherlands. It has to date 193 States Parties including all P5 countries. It has been very effective in preventing the development and use of chemical weapons. During the conflict in Libya and Syria, as Chairperson of its Executive Council, I recall the efficient and non-polemical manner in which the OPCW investigated and destroyed these chemical weapons stockpiles. The use of the term ‘poor man’s nuclear weapon’ is symptomatic of a larger issue. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ensured that only a select few States, similar to the veto of the P5, could have the security of nuclear weapons as an effective deterrent to invasion and conquest. It was repeatedly insinuated that nuclear weapons were only safe with ‘responsible states’. Until India went nuclear, to ensure an effective deterrent in its hostile neighbourhood, India was subjected to the same self-serving homilies. Ukraine had destroyed its nuclear weapons after the breakup of the USSR. Ukraine has no effective deterrence against Russian invasion of its territory and sovereignty, even though it is a clear violation of the UN Charter. Does Ukraine possess biological weapons? Could they be used deliberately? Could they leak accidentally? This is a conundrum. After all, there has been no satisfactory response on whether COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan lab which also had significant US funding. The allegations by the Russians of the US and Ukraine working with “pathogens of dangerous infections” in 30 laboratories across Ukraine are particularly troubling. Russia claims that biological weapons are being developed in these laboratories with support from the United States. Russian experts say evidence is now being destroyed to conceal the country’s weapons programme. Would the Russians have convened an immediate meeting of the Security Council without incontrovertible evidence? What was the background? Russian General Igor Kirillov has stated that on 24 February 2022, the Russian military discovered important documentary evidence that “the Ministry of Health of Ukraine has set the task of completely destroying bio-agents in laboratories”. Gen Kirillov added that the “excess number of bio-pathogens” stored at Ukraine’s bio labs would confirm the “highly militarised nature” of the work. If proven correct, Ukraine would be in violation of the BTWC. More troubling, BBC news was informed by WHO that Ukraine had been advised to immediately destroy high-threat pathogens stored at Ukraine’s bio labs to prevent “any potential spills” that would have catastrophic consequences. As expected, Russia’s allegations were supported by China. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian alleged that the US was using these facilities to “conduct bio-military plans”. The debate at the Security Council was on expected lines. The Russian PR to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, alleged during Friday’s UN Security Council meeting that Moscow had discovered a network of 30 biological weapons labs in Ukraine. The US PR to the UN in New York, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, denied the allegations stating categorically: “Ukraine does not have a biological weapons programme. There are no Ukrainian biological weapons laboratories supported by the United States, not near Russia’s border or anywhere.” Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield accused Russia of “attempting to use the Security Council to legitimise disinformation and deceive people to justify President [Vladimir] Putin’s war of choice against the Ukrainian people”. The Economist, in its latest issue of 12 March 2022, has accused India of being “abstemious to a fault”. On the contrary, India’s PR TS Tirumurthy’s carefully worded statement focussed on the key issue. India underlined the importance it attached to the BTWC as “a key global and non-discriminatory disarmament convention, prohibiting an entire category of weapons of mass destruction”. He added: “We also believe that any matter relating to obligations under the BTWC should be addressed as per the provisions of the Convention, and through consultations and cooperation between the parties concerned.” This wise counsel, unfortunately, will go unheeded as will India’s exhortation to Member States (read Russian Federation) to adhere to the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Given the unsatisfactory absence of any independent verification mechanism under the BTWC, unlike the CWC, the international community will be left uneasily wondering whether to weigh in on one or the other side. How will positions taken for or against resolve the issue of whether Ukraine possesses or not the poor man’s nuclear weapon? As TS Eliot said, “In my beginning is my end”. International peace and security depend on an independent and verifiable response. The author is a former Ambassador of India to the Netherlands. Views expressed are personal. Read all the Latest News , Trending News ,  Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.