SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 237 STC 04 E Original: English NAT O   Pa rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y SUMMARY of the meeting of the Science and Technology Committee Palazzo del Casinò, Lido, Venice, Italy Friday 12^th and Saturday 13^th November 2004 International Secretariat November 2004

237 STC 04 E i ATTENDANCE LIST Chairman and Acting General Rapporteur Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada) Rapporteur of the Sub-committee on the Proliferation of Military Technologies Lothar Ibrügger (Germany) President of the NATO PA Douglas Bereuter (United States) Secretary General Simon Lunn Member delegations Belgium Yolande Avontroodt Bulgaria Ralitsa Againe Canada Joseph A. Day Czech Republic Antonin Seda Milos Titz Vitezslav Vavrousek Estonia Toomas Tein France Pierre Goldberg Hélène Luc Jérôme Rivière Germany Helmut Rauber Kurt J. Rossmanith Greece Evangelos Papachristos Hungary Sándor Font Italy Guido Brignone Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri Antonio Mereu Latvia Andris Berzins Lithuania Gediminas Kirkilas Luxembourg Fred Sunnen Netherlands Bert Middel Norway Kjetil Bjoerklund Poland Marian Zenkiewicz Portugal Joaquim Ponte José Lello Romania Aureliu Leca Slovakia Diana Strofová Spain Ramon Aleu Gabriel Elorriaga Turkey Emin Bilgiç Ramazan Toprak United Kingdom Harry Cohen Michael Mates Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Peter Viggers United States Michael Bilirakis Vernon Ehlers Tom Udall

237 STC 04 E ii Associate delegations Austria Werner Amon Croatia Marin Jurjevic Velimir Plesa Russian Federation Rafael Gimalov Anatoly Semenchenko Bato-Zhargal Zhambalnimbuev Switzerland Theo Maissen European Parliament Vasco Graça Moura Holger Krahmer Parliamentary observer Japan Masataka Suzuki Interparliamentary assembly Western Europe Union Elsa Papadimitriou Parliamentary guest Algeria Mahdjoub Bedda Speakers Antonio Catalano di Melilli, Coordinator of Disarmament and International Security, General Directorate of Political Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Italy Decio Ripandelli, Director of Administration and External Relations, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Italy International Secretariat Andrea Cellino, Director of the Committee Valérie Geffroy, Coordinator of the Committee Helen Cadwallender, Coordinator Filippo Gamba, Research Assistant

237 STC 04 E 1 1. The meeting was chaired by Science and Technology Committee Chairman Pierre Claude Nolin (CA). Following the adoption of the draft agenda and the minutes of the Bratislava meeting, the meeting was opened by  Minister plenipotentiary  Antonio  Catalano di  Melilli, Coordinator of Disarmament and International Security in the General Directorate of Multilateral Political Affairs of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2. Mr Catalano di Melilli’s presentation focused on the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction and, in particular, on Italy’s commitment in that regard. The diplomat stressed the importance of this initiative, launched by the US and promptly joined by the other G-8 partners. The Global Partnership, that has to be formally and credibly endorsed by former USSR countries that aspire to be beneficiaries of the program, will be funded by $10 billion by the United States  plus  another  $10  billion  by  the  other  G-8  countries  over  a  period  of  10  years  (hence  the slogan  10  +  10  X  10).  Mr  Catalano  di  Melilli  indicated  that  the  four  priorities  of  the  Global Partnership were: dismantlement of decommissioned nuclear submarines; destruction of chemical weapons; disposition of fissile materials; re-employment of former weapon scientists. 3. Mr  Catalano  di  Melilli  then  emphasized  the  role  of  Italy  in  the  framework  of  the  Global Partnership.  Italy  pledged  the  sum  of   €1  billion  over  10  years.  The  speaker  stressed  the importance of the two agreements between Italy and the Russian Federation to allot the sum of €720   million   to   finance   the   dismantling   of   Russian   decommissioned   submarines   and   the construction  of  a  chemical  destruction  facility  in  Pochep,  Russia.    Mr  Catalano  di  Melilli  added, however,  that  given  the  nature  of  formal  Treaties  of  the  two  agreements,  the  legislative  and administrative procedure for ratification was still under way and none of the agreements had been formally ratified and executed.   4. Opening the floor to questions and comments following Mr Catalano di Melilli’s presentation, Mr  Nolin  recalled  the  summer  2004  visit  of  the  Committee  in  Spitzbergen  (Norway)  where  the issues  of  decommissioned  Soviet  nuclear  submarines  and  protection  for  nuclear  wastes  were discussed.  Kjetil Bjoerklund  (NO)  recognized  the  importance  of  the  issue  and  added  that  the Norwegian delegation was ready to provide more details on the presentations given in the context of  the  Spitzbergen  visit.    Mr  Nolin,  quoting  US  estimates  saying  that  only  1%  of  the  $7  billion pledged  to  secure  Russian  Chemical  Weapons  (CW)  sites  has  been  actually  spent,  invited  the Russian delegation to address this issue.  Rafael Gimalov (RU) declared that Russia, as noted in the   report,   has   been   paying   more   and   more   attention   to   the   issue   of   disarmament,   and representatives in the Duma have been regularly considering the issue.  Mr Gimalov pointed out that  in  the  last  three  years  the  Duma  has  constantly  increased  the  budget  for  disarmament programs.  He added that Russia is considering the construction of a new facility for the destruction of CW in the north and that by 2005 the problem should be solved.  Mr Nolin insisted that, while the United States had pledged $7 billion to reduce the threat of Russian CW, it was still not clear how much has been actually spent.  Mr Nolin stressed also the need of better information sharing with Russian authorities in this respect.   5. Mr Nolin briefly presented his report on Nuclear Weapons Proliferation [168 STC 04 E] and the   resolution   on   Confronting   Nuclear   Proliferation   [194   STC   04   E  rev.   1].  The   Chairman recognized the validity and usefulness of the comments from the delegations of the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom that contributed to improve the report, he then opened the floor to  discussion.  Vernon  Ehlers  (US)  suggested  including  in  the  report  the  recent  agreement between Iran and the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. He also stressed the need to fight the nuclear black market by the use of preventive measures. Mr Elhers also proposed the inclusion in  the  report  of  the  Resolution  passed  by  the  US  Congress  asking  Russia  to  halt  nuclear cooperation  with  Iran.  Mr  Nolin  replied  that  the  nature  of  the  agreement  between  Iran  and  the United Kingdom, France and Germany was yet to be disclosed and it was therefore too soon to mention it in the report.

237 STC 04 E 2 6. Lothar Ibrügger   (DE) pointed out that by secretly producing small quantities of uranium and plutonium South Korean scientists violated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations. He added that the most worrying aspect was that the violation seemed to have been committed by South Korean scientists without government’s knowledge.  Mr Nolin recognised the importance of the issue, reminded that the report mentioned the South Korean violation but affirmed that there was  no  confirmed  evidence  that  the  enrichment  program  had  been  developed  without  South Korean governmental authorization.  José Lello (PT) suggested that the report should have been more specific in putting forward proposals to reform and empower the IAEA to avoid a repetition of what happened in Iraq.  Mr Nolin, reminding Dr. ElBaradei’s presentation in Bratislava, agreed that the international legal framework should be adapted to the new post-cold war reality.  HélèneLuc (FR)  claimed that  Iran’s refusal to  comply  with  IAEA  resolutions  was  an  example  of  the  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) and IAEA’s ineffectiveness.  She added that the fact that cases of non-compliance were not automatically brought before the UN Security Council allowed countries with secret nuclear programs to buy time.  In replying to these comments, Mr Nolin recognized the need to reform and strengthen the IAEA and emphasized the importance of keeping the door open to  a  diplomatic  solution  to  the  Iranian  question.    Jérôme  Rivière  (FR)  remarked  that  excessive flexibility and tolerance in dealing with any country’s secret nuclear programs risked bringing about a fait accompli.   7. Emin   Bilgiç    (TR)   reminded   that   countries   in   the   Middle   East   were   proliferating   and threatening  stability.    He  added  that  Turkey  lacked  appropriate  defensive  capabilities.    He suggested  including  in  the  report  a  paragraph  about  the  protection  of  Turkey  from  this  kind  of threats.  Mr Nolin replied that Turkey’s best protection guarantee was being a member of NATO and that it did not need to develop defensive or offensive capabilities outside NATO.  He added that NATO would react promptly and effectively should Turkey come under threat. The Committee adopted Mr Nolin's report [168 STC 04 E] with some changes. 8. Mr  Ibrügger  noticed  that  the  Conference  on  Disarmament  in  Geneva  shared  some  of  the concerns presented in the report.  He also highlighted that the conference focused especially on the  United  Nations  General  Assembly  Resolution  58/35  dealing  with  effective  measures  against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  Mr Ibrügger finally invited the members of the Committee to follow and to include in next year’s discussions the work of the Conference on Disarmament. 9. Mr    Ibrügger    presented    his    report    on     Missile    Defences    and    Weapons    in    Space [169  STCMT  04  E].  In  responding  to  Mr  Bilgiç  who  advocated  for  Turkey  the  development  of missile  defence  capabilities,  he  then  acknowledged  the  delicate  strategic  position  of  Turkey  but claimed  that  the  defence  of  Turkey  is  an  issue  that  must  be  addressed  in  a  multilateral  and alliance-wide framework.  The Rapporteur then replied to Mr Lello who emphasized the need for a credible  and  effective  mechanism  to  penalize  countries,  companies  and  individuals  involved  in proliferation activities, by recognizing the urgency of these threats, the need for new binding legal agreements and the necessity to enforce existing ones like the NPT.  Mr Ibrügger responded to Mr Rivière’s remarks on the risk coming from dual use technology by stressing the need to develop systems able to trace missiles and smaller flying objects back to the producers.  Pierre Goldberg (FR),  after  expressing  his  concerns  about  the  development  of  more  and  more  sophisticated weapons, asked whether the war on terrorism was going in the right direction or perhaps the West should adopt a different approach aimed primarily at improving living standards in poor countries.   Mr Ibrügger  acknowledged  the  importance  of  a broader  approach  to  security  issues,  but  pointed out that his report was precisely looking at the sensible use of technologies to improve our security.   Mr Gimalov  praised  the  validity  of  the  ideas  contained  in  the  report  and  stressed  that  the development of missile defence systems was not an appropriate solution.  He auspicated that the international community worked through negotiations and international organizations to strengthen collective  security.    Mr Ibrügger  agreed  on  the  need  for  enhanced  international  cooperation  to address the danger coming from missile technology proliferation.

237 STC 04 E 3 10. Mr  Ibrügger,  in  responding  to   Baroness  Ramsey  of  Cartvale  (UK)  remarks  inviting  the Rapporteur to modify the report stressing that the US plans to deploy only sensors and not actual weapons in space, stated that several scientists and think tanks in the United States believe the deployment of weapons in space to be an indispensable element of the missile defence system.   Mr Ibrügger quoted the National Defence Authorization Act for 2005 passed by the US Congress in which  the  Congress  asked  the  Department  of  Defence  to  provide  more  information  about  the military  use  of  space.    Mr Ehlers  agreed  on  the  need  to  prevent  the  deployment  of  weapons  in space  and  expressed  some  personal  disagreements  on the  US  missile  defence  programme. He added  however  that  he  was  not  aware  of  any  plan  to  deploy  weapons  in  space.    Mr  Ibrügger agreed  and  added  that  the  report  had  already  been  modified  in  order  to  highlight  the  difference between research programs and actual deployment of weapons.   Finally,  Mr  Nolin  declared  Mr  Ibrügger's    report    [169  STCMT  04  E] adopted  with  minor changes suggested by the delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom. 11. The   meeting   continued   with   a   presentation   on   the   Global   Co-operation   for   the   safe development   of   biotechnology,   by   Decio  Ripandelli,  Director  of  Administration  and  External Relations,  International  Centre  for  Genetic  Engineering  and  Biotechnology  (ICGEB)  in  Trieste, Italy. 12. According to Mr Ripandelli, today’s main challenge in the field of biotechnology is to share scientific and technical knowledge on a global basis while taking into account concerns for possible misuse of biotechnology by state and non-state actors.  Mr Ripandelli singled out four major issues that   must   be   faced:   the   existing   intellectual   property   rights   regimes   and   their   potential disadvantages for developing countries; the implementation of article X of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the consequent advantages for developing countries; the role of scientists to  avoid  misuse  of  biotechnology  and  the  establishment  of  codes  of  conduct.    Mr Ripandelli presented the instruments of action of the ICGEB (research projects, short and long term training, collaborative  research  programmes  etc…).    The  speaker  devoted  part  of  his  presentation  to  the characteristics  of  biological  weapons,  to  the  anthrax  attacks  in  the  United  States,  and  to  the development  of  nanotechnology  and  its  potential  military  uses.    Mr Ripandelli  also  stressed  the danger coming from non-state actors in possess of biological weapons.  In addition, the speaker discussed the content of the BWC, the first international treaty banning the use, the production and the  stockpiling  of  an  entire  class  of  weapons  of  mass  destruction.  He  stressed  in  particular  the importance  of  article  X  of  the  Convention  to  avoid  hampering  the  economic  or  technological development of developing countries through the exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and  technological  information.    In  conclusion,  Mr Ripandelli  mentioned  the  Report  of  the  United Nations  Policy  Working  Group  on  the  UN  and  Terrorism  that  was  endorsed  by  the  General Assembly  and  the  Security  Council  in  2002.    The  Report,  Mr Ripandelli  concluded,  supported, among  other  things,  the  establishment  of  codes  of  conduct  for  scientists  to  avoid  the  misuse  of BW-related knowledge, materials or technology. 13. Following  the  presentation,  Mr  Ripandelli,  responding  to  Mr  Ehlers’  question  on  ICGEB’s work on biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMO), said that ICGEB was dealing mainly  with  bio-safety.    Mr Ripandelli,  in  addressing  Harry  Cohen’s  (UK)  comment  on  the  2001 anthrax attack in the United States, reminded the domestic nature of the attacks and said that the perpetrators  were  people  working  within  the  US  system.    He  added  that,  despite  the  attacks, anthrax was not an easy weapon to handle and weaponise.  Mr Bilgiç questioned the morality of the discrimination between countries that are allowed and countries that are not allowed to develop biotechnology,  especially  since  it  is  difficult  to  differentiate  between  military  and  civil  use.    In replying to Mr Bilgiç, MrNolin pointed out that morality is not a universal concept.  In this respect, Mr Ripandelli   added   that   one   of   the   main   focuses   of   its   organization   was   the   export   of biotechnology to developing countries to improve their living standards.  Mr Ripandelli, addressing

237 STC 04 E 4 Mr  Rivière  question  on  the  effectiveness  of  defensive  rather  than  offensive  strategy  against biological  terrorism,  claimed  that  the  danger  of  another  9/11  was  higher  than  the  danger  of  a biological attack, and called for the creation of mechanisms by which governments could control the work of scientists involved in BW-related activities. 14. The Chairman spoke about the activities in 2005. He announced that the Committee agreed on  drafting  a  report  on  the  assistance  programmes  dealing  with  former  Soviet  WMD-related materials,  proposed  a  visit  to  Russia  and  to  Kourou  (French  Guyana),  and  announced  Mr Ibrügger’s intention to write a report on nanotechnology.  Mr Gimalov welcomed the idea of a visit to    Russia    and    offered    to    present    a    report    on    Russia’s    improvement    in    submarines decommissioning.    Mr Nolin  suggested  instead  that  Mr  Gimalov  submit  such  information  to  the Committee  Director  in  order  to  incorporate  it  in  the  General  Report.    In  addition,  Mr  Gimalov expressed his willingness to draft a report on how to improve the legal framework disciplining the use  of  space.    Mr  Nolin  replied  by  saying  that the  Committee  had  already  decided  the  topics  of 2005  reports,  and  invited  Mr  Gimalov  to  draft  a  brief  outline  and  to  submit  it,  together  with  any relevant information, to the Rapporteurs. 15. After discussion, the draft resolution on Confronting Nuclear Proliferation [194 STC 04 E Rev 2] was adopted with amendments. 16. The Chairman then proceeded with the elections of new Committee officers. Michael  Mates  (UK)  was  elected  as  new  Chairman  and  Pierre  Claude  Nolin  as  General Rapporteur  of  the  Science  and  Technology  Committee. Diana  Strofová (SK)  was  elected Committee Vice-Chairperson. Jerôme Rivière was elected Chairman   and Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Vice Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the Proliferation of Military Technology. All the re-eligible Committee and Sub-Committee Officers were re-elected for one year.   _____________