Presentation to the Fourth Special Session of the Conference of States Parties Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, The Netherlands, 26 June 2018
Mr. Chairman, Director-General, Distinguished Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Since 1997, the Chemical Weapons Convention has performed a vital role in the control and destruction of chemical weapons. Its strength lies in its global reach and ambitious vision: a world free from chemical weapons. Its success is based on its multilateral approach to tackling the challenges that the proliferation of chemical weapons present to the world. This has been achieved in no small part because of the contributions of civil society. The involvement of academia, industry, and other stakeholders through outreach programmes, training, seminars and workshops internationally has not only increased collective understanding of the importance of the OPCW, but has provided a mechanism for informed policy making decisions. It is this aspect, the issue of “global partnership”, that I wish to talk about today.
Mr Chairman,
Rather than looking for simple answers, we should embrace complexity and context. It is here where civil society—especially academia—can make a difference. Most would agree that we should aim to push for a global response to issues like Syria. Our focus needs to be a “rules-based approach” but that is “global”—driven by the many, not the few. We should no longer look for the lowest common denominator but one that embraces a new vision for our fractured world; not unlike those who after the World Wars dreamed of a more united, safer, healthier future for all.
Mr Chairman,
The OPCW undoubtedly needs to be strengthened. Despite the success of the CWC, the world is changing as unconventional uses of toxic chemicals and the increased use of “hybrid information warfare” have become a major concern. These novel issues need to be addressed as a worldwide community. Something does indeed need to be done, but it must be well informed and based on the application of globally accepted rules. We should be willing to engage with the complexity of the problem, have the courage to look at the CWC and consider its strengths and possible weaknesses. Should CW “research”, for example, be declared? Should the definition of CW “use” be more precise? How should we respond to the unconventional use of toxic chemicals as recently seen in Britain?
Mr Chairman,
In order to strengthen the OPCW’s capabilities the issue of “hybrid information warfare” must be tackled. To support the OPCW in its engagement with civil society, strategies should be developed to counter disinformation. By utilising the experience of academia, we can help ensure a balanced,
informed approach to policy making that will create greater public and professional awareness of the issues the CWC faces. Challenges can be given context, complexity can be explored and further credibility can be added to the discourse. History tells us that knowledge—rather than dividing—can bring communities and nations together.
Mr Chairman,
The OPCW can utilise the skills of a neutral and unbiased network of scholars to ensure that knowledge is not lost between generations. New ideas can be tested in safe environments. As the OPCW faces the challenge of the conflict in Syria, and considers how it can more effectively manage the situations of tomorrow, context is vital. Historical studies can provide this, and the universities of the world are the ideal place to construct a global network of academics and professionals for a concerted response to current and emerging challenges. Much has been achieved, but now is the time to ensure that going forward the OPCW strengthens its engagement with the societies of the world to combat the problems of unconventional toxic chemicals, hybrid information warfare and disinformation, that if left unchecked, may have serious consequences.
Mr Chairman,
Something needs to be done and I call for the establishment of a “Global Partnership Programme” under the aegis of the OPCW to strengthen engagement with Civil Society so that together we can meet the evolving challenges presented by current and future chemical weapons development.
Thank you for your attention.
Presentation to the Fourth Review Conference (RC-4), Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, The Netherlands, 23 November 2018
Mr. Chairman, Director-General, Distinguished Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Conceived in the 1990s, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the OPCW have performed a vital role in the control and destruction of chemical weapons. This has been achieved in no small part because of the contributions of civil society. Today, though, the OPCW and our contemporary arms control framework stands at a crossroad: The challenges facing the global community from chemical weapons and their impact on communities and the environment have never been greater.
Mr Chairman,
In light of the prolonged events in Syria, and following the nerve agent attack in Salisbury in the UK in March this year, it is undeniable that the pressures on the OPCW, its system of verification, and public information management have been considerable. I wish to focus on one of these issues: how do we communicate information as accurately as possible?
Mr Chairman,
In the weeks following the Skripal incident one state-controlled media outlet distributed more than 20 different narratives of explanation to the world community. The veracity of these claims was rather debatable. But more than that. Often these narratives look and sound like the kind of online news millennials consume. Sometimes the public is systematically targeted with “alternative truths”. These narratives aim to create uncertainty about the effectiveness of our arms control and verification system. They achieve this by sowing doubt without verifiable facts, by attacking experts—their integrity and capabilities—and by closing down reasoned debate. To be clear, a whole host of state actors has been involved in concerted efforts to shape the global conversation about this and other incidents involving chemical weapons.
Mr Chairman,
What we are seeing here is the development and execution of a novel form of hybrid information warfare and propaganda. It requires not only close examination and greater understanding but close collaboration between the OPCW, academia and civil society. In an
1
increasingly inter-connected world, the role of civil society and by extension academia is becoming ever more vital. The conversation is no longer exclusively owned by nation states and international organisations, but by the global population as well. But we must ensure that this discussion is reasoned and driven by accurate, verifiable information.
Mr Chairman,
So how can academia help in fostering reasoned debate, especially when issues of secrecy and national security are at stake? State and non-state actors may be trying to muddy the waters. Our role as experts and mediators should be to cut through the noise of misinformation, misattribution, misunderstanding and intentional manipulation being generated by groups trained in techniques of hybrid information warfare.
Mr Chairman,
In response, the OPCW and its international partners should embrace both complexity and context. We should consider how information is presented and disseminated to the global population in order to counter misinformation and the malign intent of those who wish to undermine and fragment the effectiveness of our rules-based international system.
Mr Chairman,
Academia can play a crucial role in achieving this aim. In universities and other places of learning across the globe, experts stand ready to help analyze the significant challenges that the OPCW is facing. These specialists can help to ensure that knowledge is not lost between generations, that new ideas can be tested in safe environments. They can mediate between scientists, policy makers and the public. Most importantly, they can offer an ideal place for reasoned debate within a global network of professionals for a concerted response to current and emerging challenges in the field of chemical warfare. In short, I invite those present here today to engage more actively and collaboratively within the public sphere to achieve our collective vision: a world free from chemical weapons.
Thank you for your time. I kindly ask that this statement be made part of the official RC4 on-line proceedings.
Centre for the Study of Health, Ethics, and Society 