Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity: 23-24 September 2002

About Maj. Gen. (Ret'd) Dipankar Banerjee

Major-General (Ret'd) Dipankar Banerjee is the Executive Director of the Reginial Centre for Strategic Studies, a South Asian think tank located at Colombo. He has held various operational and planning assignments as a combat officer of the Indian Army followed by research on national and international security issues as Deputy Director of the Institute for Defence and Analyses in New Delhi. On October 2002-2003 he will be a Senior Fellow at the United States Institute for Peace in Washington, DC.

Statement by Major-General (Ret'd) Dipankar Banerjee

It is a delight and an honour to address this important conference on Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity. At a time of great change and scientific inventions, weapons of war too undergo major changes affecting not merely the conduct of military operations, but raising major issues of humanity, security and the rule of law. These changes are often rapid and sudden, taking the world unawares. As a result their impact and the consequences of their use are seldom appreciated as comprehensively as they deserve. It is good to see such a distinguished gathering here. Quite appropriately the majority are from the community of diplomats, experts on international law and biotechnology. This is most appropriate, for your deliberations will help evolve policies for the security of humanity in the future, a threat that is much nearer than what might otherwise be expected.

A brief military perspective is necessary as well. For weapons are meant for use in war and discoveries in science rapidly find military utility. Today, there is an even more significant difference. Technology now makes it possible for new weapons to have quite dramatic capabilities and biological weapons have the potential, perhaps only a potential, to eradicate humanity. It is only prudent then that before these weapons enter the arsenals of the world, we ask how their effects will impact on humanity and the laws that govern war.

War has been defined as a brutish and violent act; but, it too has its laws. Remarkable but true, all civilisations throughout history have recognised and accepted this fact and have had rules governing the conduct of war. I can speak with some credibility on the Laws of War framed in ancient India and codified under the sage Manu. These apply equally to all other civilisations as well. These laws for example regulated the seasons when wars could be fought, laid down its timings, for example sunrise to sunset, weapons that could not be used, treatment of prisoners and those wounded in battle and a host of others. Military ethics around the world have strongly and consistently held against violence against women and non-combatants and particularly on non-use of illegal weapons. Like with all laws, there have been notable violations and many breaches to adherence. But, this has in no way undermined the very strong sentiments within the military around the world regarding both the necessity and acceptance of certain conduct as against all military ethics. The use of biological weapons in war in particular, has been among the leading taboos in military conduct.

Till about a half century ago, wars were also largely confined to combatants, and fought by armies trained, prepared and committed to follow orders of kings and republics. Damage inflicted and suffering caused were indeed severe. But, this was restricted mainly to soldiers and the pain and suffering was to be borne by them stoically as normal to their vocation. They were also trained to bear this loss, though I must admit through several decades of military service, I have not come across a single case where their suffering was any the less for this or where death or injury was any less traumatic for soldiers, their families and societies as a whole. But war, usually did not target civilians. Indeed, during the Napoleonic wars and even later, spectators often watched a battle much like today’s soccer matches, from a distance of course, but fairly secure in the knowledge that they will not be targeted.

In the First World War about ninety per cent casualties were within the military. By the Second World War it was about half, with of course deaths to civilians related to military causes exceeded this number substantially. Today’s wars, both inter-state and intra-state, target civilians both directly and specifically. This is a trend that does not seem likely to change any time soon.
Another current reality is the fact that the world today has entered an era of international terrorism. Where globalisation, advances in information technology and scientific discoveries rapidly disseminated, combine to present a formidable capability to these terrorist organisations to inflict enormous destruction. This trend again is likely to continue and grow even as global imbalances create expectations in large groups of people that cannot be fulfilled in a realistic time frame. Also it will last as long as doctrines of hate find ready acceptance among large sections of people around the world. This is a new type of war, to which the armies are only beginning to now address themselves.

How do these developments affect the future and particularly how possibly will these relate to the use of biological weapons, a subject that we are to consider here?
We know of course that biological weapons have been used in wars in the past. Some records are available from ancient wars, when inflicting disease on one’s opponent was considered an effective way to victory. When forts were the principal defensive positions to guard territory and protect people, there emerged opportunities to try and winkle the defenders out. Dead bodies were thrown inside forts to spread disease. Water supplies were poisoned to inflict illness. Attempts were made to smuggle in contaminated clothing, blankets and goods, contact with which would then replicate the disease. It is not possible to conclude today whether these methods proved decisive in battle.

As forts passed in to history and became objects mainly of tourist interest, effectiveness of biological weapons may be said to have reduced. A captive target within a closed locality was no longer available where diseases might have the greatest effect. There are examples of biological weapons use in the First and Second World Wars and the period in between. Attempts were to infect and kill live-stock as a nation’s resource or as instruments of war as pack animals. There are reports of biological agents use in Asia during this period as well, with attempts at deliberate spread of cholera, anthrax, plague and other diseases targeting the civil population.

The possible spread of biological weapons was tackled by the international community in several ways. Through improved research in preventive medicine and developing more effective counter measures. Better health care eliminated certain particularly widespread diseases like small pox and polio through international vaccination programmes. There were military reasons as well. With warfare becoming much more mobile and open in the Second World War, the concept of frontlines diminished. Diseases spread deliberately or otherwise would now affect both sides, thus reducing the advantages enormously. Then the high probability of retaliation by similar means again proved a deterrent. Finally, perhaps the 1925 Protocol and the 1972 Convention provided the international norm, the violation of which would not be readily acceptable to the world. The reality is and I would like to emphasise the point, the 20th Century witnessed far less use of biological weapons than might otherwise have been likely.

The question is, is this changing? Will there be a reversal of this trend and possible use of biotechnology for developing usable weapons in the future? The answer will probably lie with science. The first few decades of the new century is likely to be dominated by bio-technology, just as the last two decades of the last Century was driven by information technology. We have already witnessed dramatic developments in the breaking of the genomic code and other inventions that we discussed in the morning. It has helped usher in a new era, where remarkable progress in human health care, agricultural production and a host of other areas have moved from science fiction to the realm of possibility. These are likely to have enormous positive developments in the world and are to be welcomed. But, a few possible developments can also influence their use in war. Let me discuss some of them:
I. First, manipulating existing biological agents to multiply their effectiveness, so that they become much more potent and can inflict enormous damage, thus making them more usable.
II. Second, converting existing harmless widely available microbes to deadly pathogens, thus providing a wider range of agents that may be used.
III. Next, the ability to vaccinate own soldiers against specific agents. The equivalent perhaps of an impregnable shield defending against nuclear attack, opening up the possibility of hostile use without risk of retaliation.
IV. Fifth, The ability to produce custom made biological weapons from synthetic materials.
V. Next, designing bio-regulators to alter bodily functions, already in use in medicine, this may soon be capable of effective delivery through aerosols thus making these suitable for battlefield use.
VI. Finally, will we see the development of “genetic weapons” that are capable of targeting a specific population by ethnicity or such distinct characteristics?

When one considers these possible new capabilities along with the characteristics of the production of biological weapons, one can more readily comprehend the military implications. Biological weapons are still relatively cheap, can be illegally produced in small laboratories, precursors may be easily available, competent scientists from poor countries can be easily lured to participate in research or production programmes, weapons development can be merged in to commercial research and finally, scientific information may be both easily available or illegally acquired.
The combined effects of this is that biological weapons are likely in future to be many times more lethal, capable of specific targeting and easy to produce. A deadly combination if ever there is one. When one considers the possibility of these falling in to terrorist hands, the implications can be devastating.
Let me Mr Chairman, conclude with a hope and a prayer. The hope that we will now enter an era, for the first time in history, when scientific developments will focus entirely and exclusively on human welfare and not human destruction. My prayer is that let this begin with this conference in this beautiful city of Montreaux.

Thank you.