1st March 2001
My colleague, Professor Vivienne Nathanson of the British Medical Association Science Division, has been one of those insisting that doctors make our ethical objections to the use of biological weapons known.
Biological weapons have been used sporadically throughout time. In the last century anthrax was used either to kill humans or animals. In contrast to the fabrication of nuclear weapons the production of biological weapons requires only a small quantity of equipment. But 100 kgs of anthrax spores dropped over a city from an unmanned plane could kill 1 to 3 million people. Massive casualties can be caused by small amounts of a biological agent. With the advent of genetic engineering bacteria, which are now controllable by modern medical methods, can be changed by gene splicing so that they are resistant to the antibiotic or other agent with which they were once eradicated.
In a report by Lara Marlow in the Irish Times of Saturday, February 24, 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking in Paris, said that Iraq must comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1284 which demands the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons before sanctions can be lifted. It is, of course, essential that Iraq comply. The state of Iraq has certainly used chemical weapons against its own citizens and possibly biological weapons, too. But Iraq is not the only country to hold chemical and biological weapons nor to engage in research in this area. Many states do. Indeed we may be the only state on the Security Council who does not have such weapons or had them in the recent past. Unfortunately terrorist groups such as the Aum Shinrikyo in Japan have such weapons as well.
We know Iraq has anthrax, (which was, astonishingly, given to them by George Bush, Senior when he was President), botulism toxin which causes paralysis, clostridium perfringens which causes gas gangrene and, perhaps, other modified bacteria . We know other countries have much the same. Concentrating on Iraq will not solve the world situation.
Not only humans and animals may be targeted. During the Vietnam war the United States of America military used herbicides for defoliation and crop destruction. Defoliation was caused by using a herbicide to mimic certain hormones in plants which cause leaf fall. A herbicide to destroy food sources was used, the primary effect of this programme being to deny local food supply to enemy manpower and oblige them to use their time on the transportation of food. But it also denied the civilian population their food and frequently meant they had to move to the cities where they were more easily controlled. Agent Orange, as it was called, caused huge damage to the environment of Vietnam. Half the tropical forests were destroyed and the water there seriously polluted. The military gain was questionable especially in view of the fact that many American soldiers were affected by Agent Orange from aerial spraying and by occupying the contaminated area. Eventually the U.S. Government admitted that service personnel who had been exposed to Agent Orange had a higher rate of soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkins Lymphona, Hodgkins disease and skin conditions such as chloroacne and porphyria cutanea tarda. Multiple myelona, cancers of the lung, larynx and trachea were also more common.
Soviet planes dropped a Mycotoxin in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan in 1979. These mycotoxins, produced by fungi, have an affect on higher organisms. They are very stable and can be stored for years at room temperature.
The then Director of the CIA, George J Tenet, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence on 2/2/2000 said that the proliferators of biological weapons are showing and I quote "greater proficiency in the use of denial and deception."
About a dozen countries, he said, had Biological Weapons and some terrorist organisations as well. Some countries see them as a means of overcoming the overwhelming conventional military superiority of countries such as the United States. Biological Weapons programmes are becoming more sophisticated and slow and fast acting agents are being mixed.
Signatories to the Biological Weapons Convention are required to submit to the U.N. information on the following:-
- Facilities where biological defence research is being conducted,
- Scientific conferences that are held at specific facilities,
- Exchanges of scientists and information,
- and Disease Outbreaks.
Some countries plead their bacteria and toxins are for defensive reasons, but the interpretation of 'defensive' is a problem.
The Security Council reserve the right to veto any request for an investigation should any allegations of infraction be lodged with the United Nations. To stop the proliferation and use of biological weapons we should now use our increased profile on the Security Council to have a verification protocol added to the convention.
Our seat on the Security Council of the U.N. gives us additional authority and responsibility. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention 1975 has been signed by 140 countries. The Convention prohibits the development, production, stockpiling or acquisition of biological weapons. It is reviewed on a five yearly basis and is up for such re-examination this autumn. It is essential that a verification protocol is added to the Convention at this review.
Offensive biological weapons programmes are being left unregulated by international arms control agreements at precisely the time when there is a revolution in modern biotechnology.
Superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering can be caused to huge members of civilians by these weapons with little military advantage. Weapons could even be developed which target particularly racial or ethnic groups, for example those with black skin. These weapons must go. I argued this case in the Seanad recently. If you agree with me please write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I would value your support.
Senator Mary Henry, MD
