Understanding Biological Disarmament: The Historical Context of the Origins of the Biological Weapons Convention

Outlawing an entire class of weapons is a major step towards creating a safer world. Forty years ago, on 10 April 1972, the first ever such step was taken as the nations of the world were invited to sign up to the new Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). This treaty, which had been several years in the making, sought to ban biological weapons, or more colloquially germ warfare. As such, it was remarkable for attempting not simply biological arms limitation but full disarmament. Three years later the treaty entered into force, in other words its provisions now had full legal effect. Currently, and despite all kinds of set-backs, 165 nations are states parties to the BWC.

Despite its significance, and close to the fortieth anniversary of its entry into force, there is surprisingly little scholarly research on the origins of the BWC, still less on how this treaty was shaped by its broader political and social context. Perhaps more remarkably, most scholarship on the Cold War ignores the BWC. This research aims to draw on a wide range of archival and oral sources to go beyond a blow-by-blow account of the technicalities of arms treaty negotiation, and instead provide a deep historical account of the birth of the treaty.

The historical roots of the BWC are intimately bound up with the Cold War and other wider concerns, particularly: Anglo-American relationships; nuclear and chemical weapons policy; varying attitudes to US chemical agent use in Vietnam; the different obligations and interpretations of the 1925 Geneva Protocol; and the complex roles of experts, both scientific and social scientific, individual and collective, civil and military, in shaping events. In this respect:

1. Existing accounts give an adequate overview, but there remain crucial gaps in description and analysis. We have but a scant account of the foundations of discussion about the BWC, the negotiation period, or the period until the BWC's 1975 entry into force.

2. Many potentially important direct and indirect influences on the BWC have not been explored. For example, the negotiators of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty were the same as for the BWC; the full influence on treaty negotiations of uses of tear gas in Vietnam and poison gas in Yemen 1967 remains unexplored.

3. Existing accounts of the BWC are only suggestive about: the influence of non-governmental groups such as Pugwash and the Bernal Peace Library; the thinking of individuals such as Hedley Bull, the international relations scholar, turned director of the Arms Control Disarmament Research Unit of the Foreign Office; and the actions of scientist-advisers such as Sir Solly Zuckermann.

By addressing the gaps and research problems outlined above, we suggest that a more thorough historical account based primarily on UK and US sources will contribute far more than added layers of description to existing analysis. In short, our study will seek to write the BWC into the historical writing about the Cold War and, in particular, the period of detente.

The research will be of value to academic historians, political scientists and sociologists. This project will make a significant contribution to the mission of the AHRC/RCUK Global Uncertainties Programme by setting approaches to removing conflict (including weapons of mass destruction) in a richer historical context.

Through a series of public events, we intend to demonstrate how this research will be relevant to users outside the academic community, particularly those concerned with the development of effective policy approaches to the threat posed by biological weapons such as civil servants, the security community, policy-makers, NGO workers and campaigners.

The impact plan builds on the team's outstanding track record of impact across a range of audiences. The PI and Co-I have been involved in a range of communication and engagement activities and have built an extensive range of contacts with stakeholders directly interested in biological arms control (see Pathways to Impact). The proposed research is of significant relevance to users outside the academic community, particularly those concerned with the development of effective policy approaches to the threat posed by biological weapons such as civil servants, the security community, policy-makers, NGO workers and campaigners and is planned to be disseminated accordingly.

The Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology (POST) describes various ways in which sound historical research can inform the policy process. It can provide, for example: background and context for policy debates; identify lessons that can be applied to the present and dispel myths and misconceptions ensuring that current policy is based on informed understanding of events (POST 2009). In addition, historical analysis can open up past decision-making processes, which in retrospect often appear inevitable, by identifying factors that led to specific policy choices and exploring what alternatives were available at the time. History can also help identify the differences as well as similarities between historical and contemporary cases helping avoid superficial analogies.

As outlined in the project proposal and pathways to impact, we envisage that our historical research will likewise feed into the contemporary BW control policy arena. As such this proposed project will be of significant relevance to non-academic users such as policy makers and policy shapers and other members of civil society concerned with the development of effective policy approaches to counter the threat posed by biological weapons. Initial research outputs will be ready for dissemination to mark the 40th anniversary of the entry into force of the BWC in 2015 and at the annual meetings of States Parties to the BWC in Geneva (2012-2015). These outputs will also feed into and complement work being done in the US to mark the anniversary of President Nixon's decision to renounce its offensive biological weapons programme.

Both the PI and Co-I are deeply committed to communicating their research in an accessible manner to non-academic communities such as policy makers and other stakeholders directly interested in biological arms control (see Pathways to Impact). As well as pursuing academically excellent research, published in peer reviewed journals and books, the research team will also produce Briefing Notes targeted at non-academic audiences including those engaged during the research. A project website will also be designed to showcase the research.

The research team also intends to host a witness seminar, an anniversary workshop on 'The BWC at 40', and a stakeholder symposium. The witness seminar will function as both a means of gathering data and for dissemination, so a small stakeholder audience apart from the witnesses will be invited. The 'BWC at 40' workshop will bring academics and stakeholders together to produce an edited publication of proceedings in time for the BWC's fortieth anniversary of entry into force in 2015. The cross-sectoral symposium (in 2015, again to mark the BWC entry into force) will be convened to promote awareness of the research and communicate emerging outputs. Input will be sought about how the research and its outputs might be tailored to be of maximum use to stakeholders. In organizing these events we will also exploit our links to the academic community and particularly younger scholars. This is an increasingly important activity because the community of academics engaged in this area is suffering from demographic problems with many of the leaders nearing retirement.

Ref: POST (2009), "Lessons from History," Postnote No. 323