SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 254 STC 05 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 S-090, Folketinget, Copenhagen, Denmark Sunday 13 November 2005 International Secretariat November 2005

254 STC 05 E i ATTENDANCE LIST Chairman Michael Mates (United Kingdom) Vice-Chairperson Diana Strofová  (Slovakia) General Rapporteur Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada) Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Proliferation of Military Technology Jérôme Riviere (France) Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on the Proliferation of Military Technology Lothar Ibrü gger (Germany) President of the NATO PA Pierre Lellouche (France) Secretary General of the NATO PA Simon Lunn Member Delegations Bulgaria Mario Tagarinski Canada Jane Cordy Elizabeth Hubley Czech Republic Milos Titz Germany Monika Heubaum Robert Hochbaum Kurt J. Rossmanith Iceland Ossur Skarphedinsson Italy Guido Brignone Furio Gubetti Antonio Mereu Paolo Ricciotti Lithuania Andrius Baranauskas Luxembourg Fred Sunnen Netherlands Theo Brinkel Norway Jan Arild Ellingsen Heikki Holmas Poland Tadeusz Mackala Portugal Luiz Fagundes Duarte Joaquim Vasconcelos Da Ponte Romania Cristian Valeriu Buzea Spain Ramon Aleu Hilario Caballero Gabriel Elorriaga Rafael Estrella Turkey Emin Bilgic Ramazan Toprak Ahmet Faruk Ü  nsal United Kingdom Bruce George Jimmy Hood Lord Jopling Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Lord Sewel of Gilcomstoun Peter Viggers

254 STC 05 E ii United States Dennis Moore Mike Ross Tom Udall Associate Delegations Croatia Marin Jurjevic Velimir Plesa Russian Federation Rafael Gimalov Vasily Tarasyuk Oleg Tolkachev Victor Zavarzin Switzerland Edi Engelberger Barbara Haering Theo Maissen Mediterranean Associate Delegation Algeria Mostefa Chelloufi Mostefa Khiar European Parliament Pawel Piskorski Teresa Riera Madurell Parliamentary Observers Japan Masataka Suzuki Speakers William    C.    Potter,    Director,    Centre    for         Non-proliferation   Studies   and   Centre   for Russian  and  Eurasian  Studies,  Monterey Institute of International Studies Martin     Parry,     Co-Chair    Working    Group on Impacts and Adaptation, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UK Meteorological Office Jürgen Al tmann, Physicist and peace researcher, Department of Physics, Dortmund University Committee Secretary Eliane Janssen (Netherlands) International Secretariat Andrius Avizius, Director Helen Cadwallender, Co-ordinator Anna Kolesnichenko, Research Assistant

254 STC 05 E 1 A. Presentation of the Draft General Report on The Security of WMD Related Material in Russia by Pierre Claude Nolin (CA) 1. Mr Nolin started by underscoring that a terrorist attack with use of WMD is the major threat that the world is facing today. Russian WMD arsenal is of special concern in this regard, as there are  doubts  about  its  security.  Yet,  cooperation  on  reduction  of  threats  stemming  from  Russian WMD  is  inhibited  by  Cold-War  mentality.  While  in  the  early  90s,  the  US  cooperative  Threat Reduction  Program  was  quite  successful  in  facilitation  of  withdrawal  of  all  Soviet  nuclear  assets from   Ukraine,   Belarus,   Kazakhstan   to   Russia,   by   late   1990s,   the   US-Russian   cooperation somewhat stalled. After the 9/11 attacks, however, the cooperation received a new  impetus with the G8 Global Partnership programmes. 2. Then Mr Nolin listed problems that initiatives on Russian WMD face: 1) Russia's  reluctance  to  provide  access  for  foreign  inspections  to  nuclear  and  biological facilities that require security upgrades; 2) Another  problem  (partially  resolved  by  the  time  of  the  report  presentation)  was  liability protection of US contractors working on WMD related projects in Russia; 3) Other  problems  include  insufficient  coordination  of  projects,  bureaucratic  obstacles  and inertia. 3. Biological  sector  is  the  most  complicated  and  the  least  transparent  area.  While  Russia denies  having  offensive  biological  weapons,  the  international  community  does  not  have  the opportunity to settle its doubts. A related issue is the redirection of bioweapons scientists who lost their jobs after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Several international projects have been launched to tackle the issue, yet more effort is needed. 4. Among other problematic areas, Mr Nolin noted absence of any international mechanism to monitor  the  security  of  Russian  tactical  nuclear  weapons,  slow  pace  of  chemical  weapons destruction,  and  security  as  well  as  environmental  threats  posed  by  the  nuclear  and  radioactive material in Russian submarines. Discussion 5. Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (UK) congratulated the Rapporteur on the good report, yet suggested that paragraph 4 should be more upbeat. 6. Oleg Tolkachev (RU) said that the Russian Parliament keeps the situation with WMD under control.  Moreover,  with  economic  situation  in  Russia  improving,  more  budget  funding  is  being allocated   to   the   threat   reduction   programmes.   Russia   is   also   preparing   highly   qualified professionals to work with WMD. Overall, for the whole history of its existence over 50 years, the WMD sector has not had any major accident. By contrast, there was a temporary loss of control over some WMD facilities in the United States at the time of hurricane Katrina this September. The Russian  delegation  had  an  impression  that  the  draft  Resolution  on  the  report  suggested  that Russia  can  become  a  source  of  WMD  threat,  which  the  delegation  considered  not  to  be corresponding to the reality. The Russian delegation was prepared to discuss the Resolution, yet it believed that it was more reasonable to discuss the issue at the level of experts. 7. Mr  Nolin  replied  he  does  not  think  that  parliamentarians  have  to  withstand  from  the discussion of the WMD issues, even though they are not experts in the area. It is crucial to have a parliamentary control of the WMD sector.

254 STC 05 E 2 8. Theo Brinkel (NL) asked why the report concentrated on bilateral co-operation with Russia, and not on the multilateral dimension, i.e., focusing on strengthening international conventions that regulate WMD. Mr Nolin's response was that NATO PA addressed this issue in a previous report. 9. Victor  Zavarzin (RU) supported the criticism MrTolkachev made to the report. He claimed that  the  report  was  all  about  criticising  Russia  and  that  it  would  be  better  to  take  a  more constructive approach. 10. Mr  Nolin  replied  by  saying  that  the  focus  on  Russia  stems  from  it  being  the  owner  of  the largest WMD arsenal. He also said that the report is positive on the issues where there is progress, like for example, submarines issue. He added that NATO cannot rely only on Russian good will, but needs some confirmation that progress is being made. 11. Teresa  Riera  Madurell  (European  Parliament)  said  that  she  did  not  see  the  report  being negative  in  tone,  quite  the  reverse,  she  found  it  as  seeking  to  establish  cooperation.  She  also noted the success of the program to help scientists from the WMD sector. 12. Heikki Holmas (NO) noted that the report does not give much attention to the environmental problems caused by WMD. Mr Nolin replied that two years ago there was a report dealing with this issue. The draft General Report is adopted unanimously.   B. Presentation  on  The  2005  NPT  Review  Conference:  Implications  for  the  International Non-proliferation Regime by William C. Potter, 13. According  to  Mr  Potter,  the  2005  NPT  Review  Conference  was  a  failure  because  its  final declaration   did   not   contain   much   substance.   Lack   of   expertise   on   the   part   of   delegates, unconstructive position of some parties (notably, Egypt), lack of cooperation on the part of US and Russia are the major factors that caused the failure. The failure of the Conference may undermine the whole NPT review process and make it irrelevant. Yet, some states for different reasons seem to  be  content  with  such  a  situation,  in  particular,  Korea,  Iran,  Egypt  and  the  United  States.  Dr Potter also criticized the United States decision to sign a nuclear agreement with India on July 18, 2005,  recognising  India  as  a  "responsible"  nuclear  weapons-state  (NWS),  and  resuming  civilian nuclear  commerce  with  it.  Thereby  the  United  States  authorities  establish  a  precedent  of  "good proliferators",  as  opposed  to  "bad  proliferators".  Dr  Potter  also  stressed  that  the  international community should focus more on non-state actors seeking to acquire and use nuclear weapons. Discussion 14. Michael  Mates (UK), Chairman of the Committee, did not agree with condemnation of the United  States  policy  on  India  and  said  that  nuclear  energy  may  become  the  major  solution  of energy needs of  many countries in the years to come. 15. Lothar  Ibrügger    (DE)  asked  why,  in  Mr  Potter’s  opinion,  the  members  of  the  Security Council did not arrive at a joint declaration. In his second question he asked Mr Potter to evaluate the  situation  regarding  North  Korea  and  prospects  for  preventing  it  from  building  more  nuclear warheads.   16. Regarding the NPT failure Mr Potter responded that the major factor that saved the previous Conference  (the  one  of  2000)  was  the  decision  of  the  five  permanent  members  of  the  Security Council,  including  Russia  and  China,  to  remove  consideration  of  the  ABM  Treaty  from  the discussion. At the time the United States was considering withdrawing from the ABM, which would doom the NPT Review Conference. After the ABM issue was removed from the agenda, the United States  was  able  to  agree  to  many  of  the  Conference  suggestions.  By  contrast,  no  such  political reconciliation  happened  before  the  2005  Conference.  In  particular,  the  parties  were  not  able  to

254 STC 05 E 3 reach any agreement on CTBT. On the issue of North Korea, Mr Potter replied that the success of negotiations will depend on the intentions of North Korea regarding its nuclear weapons, which is difficult to judge. If North Korea made a strategic decision that it is in its security interest to have nuclear weapons, then negotiations are not going to change its stance, but will only buy time. On the  other  hand,  if  North  Korea  uses  its  nuclear  program  as  a  bargaining  chip,  then  negotiations may  change  the  situation  significantly.  According to  Mr  Potter,  it  is  not the fact  of  North  Korea’s having  nuclear  weapons  that  is  the  most  troubling,  but  the  possibility  that  it  can  provide  other states or non-state actors with its nuclear technology, materials or weapons. He also noted that it was unfortunate that the parties at the Conference did not discuss how to deal with North Korea’s leaving the Treaty. 17. Rafael  Gimalov  (RU)  asked  what  the  prospects  are  for  Pakistan  and  Israel  accession  to NPT.  Mr  Potter  replied  that  there  was  no  "silver  bullet"  response.  Accession  of  these  states  is complicated by the definition of a nuclear-weapon state; moreover, it is difficult for those states to part with their nuclear weapons. Their non-participation in the NPT may make other countries (like Brazil) reluctant to join the NPT, and those that already joined may reconsider their participation (for  example,  Japan).  The  fact  that  India  was  allowed  to  continue  its  nuclear  program  only exacerbated the situation. 18. Jérôme Rivière (FR) said that it is not only participants that should be blamed for the failure of the NPT Conference, but the Treaty itself, as it has many imperfections. Moreover, the failure of the   NPT   Conference   should   not   be   considered   as   something  tragic.   Attainment   of   a   joint declaration on the lowest common denominator could be worse in that it would have concealed the fact that there are serious problems.   19. Mr Potter replied that the blame can be put on many things. He agreed that the Treaty itself is  not  perfect;  in  particular,  it  is  inflexible  and  does  not  reflect  the  new  situation.  Yet,  it  is  the Conference participants that bear the major blame. They spent too much time on the discussion of procedural issues, so that they did not have time to deal with the substance. C. Presentation on Assessing the risk from climate change by Martin Parry 20. At the beginning of his presentation  Mr  Parry stressed that he is not going to address the reasons for climate change, but instead the risk stemming from climate change. He distinguished four kinds of effects: short-term effects, more extreme weather in the future, future effects on global resource  base  and  changes  in  regional  competitiveness.  As  an  example  of  short-term  effect  he mentioned  growing  exposure  of  insurance  companies.  The  major  effects  on  weather  include increase  in  intensity  of  tropical  cyclones  and  hurricanes,  more  intense  rainfall  and  flooding,  and heat waves (of the kind Europe had in 2003). Dry areas will become drier, and rainy areas will get more rain, which means that the regions already disadvantaged (Africa and the Middle East) will suffer  the  most.  As  a  result,  some  regions  can  become  more  competitive,  and  others  less.  In Europe, climate change will benefit Northern countries and will harm the South, as climate there will  become  dry  and  hot.  Mr  Parry  suggested  three  types  of  policy  response  to  the  challenge:   adaptation  (for  example,  building  of  sea  defences),  mitigation  (adopting  much  more  ambitious Kyoto targets) and sustainable development. Discussion 21. Lord John Sewel of Gilcomstoun (UK) asked how climate change will affect sea currents. Mr  Parry  explained  how  the  Gulfstream  may  weaken,  which  would  result  in  European  climate becoming colder. 22. Mr  Rivière  expressed  doubt  about  the  reliability  of  the  data  used  in  the  report,  giving  an example of a meteo-station in Nice. He also was sceptical about the validity of judging about the

254 STC 05 E 4 warming effects based on the exposure of insurance companies, as there are different reasons for their  exposure  to  grow,  beyond  climate  change.  He  also  questioned  the  validity  of  long-term weather forecasts, as currently even short-term forecasts are imprecise. 23. Mr Parry responded that researchers do account for differences in meteo-stations locations, so that the data used is quite reliable. Regarding reliability of the long-term forecasts about climate change, he said that there is quite compelling evidence that they are reliable. 24. Mr  Brinkel  expressed  concern  about  the  rise  of  the  sea  level.  Given  that  2/3  of  the Netherlands are below the sea level, this issue is of high importance for the Netherlands' security. He asked about projections about the rise of the sea level. Mr Parry said that due to warming of the sea water, the sea level may rise about 10-30 cm over 100 years. Moreover, storms may become more frequent. 25. Ms.  Riera  Madurell  asked  to  what  extent  climate  change  comes  from  a  natural  trend.  Mr Parry replied that there is, indeed, a historic trend in climate change, caused mainly by variations in solar radiation. However, recently, anthropogenic factors have become more important. D. Presentation of the Draft Special Report on Climate Changes in the Arctic: Challenges for the North Atlantic Community by Pierre Claude Nolin, Special Rapporteur 26. Mr Nolin outlined some major additions made since the previous presentation of the report. In  particular,  he  said  that  it  is  clear  now  that  Kyoto  targets  will  not  be  achieved  by  2012,  and instead,  countries  should  target  25%  reduction  in  their  carbon  emissions.  He  also  said  he incorporated recommendations he received before, but has not elaborated on them. He noted that the report does not give any revolutionary recommendations, the major of them being adaptation. He  also  suggested  that  the  issue  of  climate  change  should  be  elevated  to  the  status  of  state security matter. Discussion 27. Mr Brinkel suggested putting explicitly in the report that climate change is a security matter. He also suggested removing from conclusions the speculation about Russia's membership in the EU. Mr Nolin agreed with the comments. 28. Tom Udall (US) noted that the report addressed the problem very well and underscored the two major causes of the climate change – fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Mr Nolin mentioned a recent US Department of Defence report on climate change that was recently declassified. 29. Emin Bilgic (TR) expressed his concern that there is much talk about climate change, but not much action. He suggested that the Committee should develop follow up activities and that it should  share  its  findings  with  other  committees  so  that  they  could  see  what  the  implications  for their spheres are. 30. Guido  Brignone  (IT)  said  that  climate  change may  lead  to  increased  migration  of  people, which will require changes to the Schengen Treaty. E. Presentation  of  the  draft  report  on  The  Security  Implications  of  Nanotechnology  by Lothar Ibrügger 31. In his presentation, Mr Ibrügger described current stage of nanotechnology development, as well  as  its  future  potential,  noting  that  this  technology  is  likely  to  become  the  next  fundamental technological  revolution  that  can  change  all  aspects  of  life.  In  the  course  of  the  next  several decades, nanotechnology may contribute to solving the world's most pressing energy problems (for

254 STC 05 E 5 instance, by allowing effective use of sun energy), it may also help eliminate poverty (by facilitating cheap production of goods). It can also help cope with environmental pollution, etc. 32. Yet, availability of this technology bears certain risks. For example, nanoparticles can easily penetrate human body and, thus, are very toxic. Nanotechology can also have serious implications for  security.  For  example,  nanotechnology  based  weapons  can  be  produced  circumventing  the existing  weapons  treaties  but  not  actually  violating  them.  At  the  same  time,  nanotechnology  can help strengthen security policies by providing it with superior tools. 33. Mr Ibrügger urged the participants to raise the issue in their respective parliaments to ensure peaceful  development  of  nanotechnology  He  noted  some  initiatives  in  the  United  States,  Great Britain and Germany that are already being undertaken. He also suggested that the international community should address the issue, and that NATO PA should have it on its political agenda. Documentary 34. The  Committee  members  watched  a  half-an-hour  documentary  film  on  nanotechnology, prepared by the German scientists. F. Presentation by  Jürgen Altmann on   Nanotechnology –  Potential Military Applications and Preventive Arms Control 35. Dr Altmann started by shortly explaining what nanotechnology is about and that it can go as far  as  production  of  self-replicating  nanorobots.  In  the  nearest  future,  the  technology  will  find  its most   important   use   in   computers   (as   nanoparticles   are   very   small,   their   use   in   computer components will allow constructing small but very powerful machines), microscopes and medicine. 36. However,  Mr  Altmann  stressed,  there  could  be  risks  associated  with  the  use  of  this technology. In the military sphere, the potential risks stem mainly for the small size of the devices that  can  be  produced  based  on  this  technology.  Another  potential  threat  stems  from  potential malevolent  uses  of  nanoparticles  towards  humans.  Finally,  nanotechnology  may  endanger  arms control agreements as it may give possibilities for circumventing them. 37. Mr  Altmann  noted  that  it  is  the  military  sector  that  orders  the  major  part  of  the  current research   in   the   United   States   on   nanotechnology.   Other   countries   are   far   behind   in nanotechnology development, so that the United States appears in a unilateral arms race. 38. In conclusion, he said that development of nanotechnology will lead to the necessity of more control and intrusion in the process of nanoproducts production and use so as to ensure security. Discussion 39. Mr Mates, asked about the timeframe when nanoproducts will become available. Mr Altmann said  that  tangible  results  of  the  nanotechnology  development  are  expected  in  a  course  of  a decade. 40. Vasily Tarasyuk (RU) expressed a concern that nanotechnology can bring more harm than good. Ramon Aleu  (ES) asked how close the prospect of construction of self-replicating robots is. 41. Mr  Altmann  replied  that  such  a  prospect  is  quite  remote.  Yet,  what  can  become  possible soon  is  modification  of  the  existing  dangerous  agents,  like  viruses,  so  that  they  become  able  to self-replicate faster.

254 STC 05 E 6 G. Discussion  and  adoption  of  the  draft  Resolution  on  The  Security  of  WMD  Related Material in Russia 42. Mr  Nolin  presented  the  draft  Resolution.  The  Russian  delegation  suggested  a  number  of amendments,  and  some  of  them  were  accepted  by  the  Rapporteur.  The  draft  Resolution,  thus amended, was adopted unanimously H. Presentation on Improvements to the International Legal Rules on Military Activity in Space by Rafael Gimalov 43. Mr Gimalov's main claim was that the existing space agreements are outdated and need to be changed. In particular, there is a need to develop international mechanisms to deal with space garbage. Nuclear tests and peaceful activities in space have led to accumulation of thousands of pieces of space garbage. Further accumulation of garbage may lead to accident or catastrophes. For  example,  if  a  piece  of  garbage  damages  a  geostationary  satellite,  major  disruption  in communication system may occur. 44. Another  major  problem  is  emergence  of  new  players  in  the  space.  Mr  Gimalov  expressed great concern about participation of private military companies in space exploitation (he mentioned the case when such a company was contracted for military tasks in Serbian Craina). According to Mr   Gimalov,   participation   of   private   companies   in   military   activities   in   space   can   lead   to technological drain and weapons proliferation and, therefore, should be prohibited. 45. Mr Gimalov concluded with a list of propositions that include measures to limit the blasting of spacecrafts in orbit, to improve space monitoring, to prevent space debris formation, and to prohibit private companies from full-scale tests of space weapons.    46. The  Chairman  of  the  Committee  thanked  Mr  Gimalov  and  assured  him  that  this  issue  will remain a high priority for the Science and Technology Committee. 47. The Chairman presented the Committee activities in 2006. He announced that the General Rapporteur  would  continue  working  on  the  issue  of  the  climate  change,  focusing  more  on  new developments and approaches in this area beyond Kyoto.  The Sub-Committee will draft a report on  the  highly  important  issue  of  Iran's  nuclear  programme  and  its  implications  to  the  nuclear           non-proliferation  regimes.  The  General  Rapporteur  also  considers  preparing  a  special  report  on technological cohesion within the Alliance. 48. Mr Brinkel suggested that Committee should address the issue of the airplane noise; many people in certain areas get hindered by it. The problem comes from use of old aircrafts and could possibly  be  resolved  by  upgrading  of  their  engines.  The  Chairman  promised  to  consider  the proposal and to give a response to Mr Brinkel at the spring session. 49. As far as the Committee and Sub-Committee visits are concerned, the Chairman announced the plans to visit 1) the United States, 2) Russia and 3) Vienna and/or Geneva. Speaking about the mission to the United States, Mr Ibrügger suggested to visit UN institutions in New York, instead of going to Washington D.C. 50. The  Chairman  then  proceeded  with  the  elections  of  new  Committee  officers.  Mr  Ibrügger (Germany) was elected Vice Chairman of the Committee. Diana Strofová (Slovakia) was elected Sub-Committee Rapporteur. Mario Tagarinski (Bulgaria) was elected Vice Chairman of the Sub- Committee.  All  the  re-eligible  Committee  and  Sub-Committee  Officers  were  re-elected  for  one year. _____________