By David Ruppe, UN Wire

THE HAGUE -- The first review conference of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention will probably avoid seriously addressing emerging international concerns about the development and use of incapacitating chemicals and riot control agents, delegates said.

"It's being discussed, but it's not being actively pursued," said a Western diplomat today, on the second day of public statements from the treaty parties.

Publicly and privately, some governments here have voiced concerns regarding the treaty's legal boundaries for the development and military use of chemical incapacitants and riot control agents, together known as "nonlethal" or "less-than-lethal" weapons.

The treaty allows using such toxic chemical agents for law enforcement purposes, but explicitly bans using them as a "method of warfare," because such use effectively makes them chemical weapons, experts say.  The United States has asserted that riot control agents can be used in military theaters of operation for certain purposes such as controlling rioting prisoners and hostage rescue.

Nongovernmental experts have argued the Russian use of an incapacitating agent to rescue hostages last October demonstrates that such weapons can be lethal.  Some critics have also raised concerns about the purposes and implications of U.S. military-sponsored research on incapacitants, which is considered legal by experts.

The International Committee of the Red Cross in a statement circulated here criticized parties for paying insufficient attention to the issue.  It expressed "alarm at the increasing interest among police, security and armed forces in the use of incapacitating chemicals and the lack of expressions of concern about the implications of such developments by states parties to this convention."

The Red Cross asserted that when the treaty was negotiated, states intended to "only permit use of domestic riot control agents and the use of lethal chemicals for executions, where permitted by national law."

It warned that developing chemical incapacitants for law enforcement could lead to their proliferation, and an "'arms race' of measures and countermeasures among security forces, criminals and those who commit acts of terror."

At least two treaty parties so far, Switzerland and New Zealand, separately voiced concern about the issue in statements yesterday.

"I would ask that we pay some attention to … where is the line, if any, between chemical weapons and nonlethal law enforcement tools.  I believe there needs to be some clarification," said the head of New Zealand's delegation.

The head of the Swiss delegation said, "In light of recent experiences, it is appropriate to reiterate that chemical weapons are totally prohibited whether they are lethal or nonlethal and whether their precursors or components are listed in the schedules of the convention or not."

The Swiss delegate proposed requiring treaty parties to "declare not only chemical products they hold for riot control purposes but for law enforcement purposes in general."

"Certain chemical agents prohibited in war may be justified for domestic use, but that being the case, it is all the more important to assure other states parties that the production of these products poses no threat to their security," she said.

Despite these concerns, diplomats and experts here said they do not expect any significant action on the issue here in part because of U.S. resistance.

There is a concern that raising the issue could antagonize the U.S. delegation and risk the success of the conference, according to one Western delegate who said the issue would better be addressed in consultations between experts from among a smaller number of states.

"It's not really the right forum.  It's too big," the Western delegate said.

A senior U.S. official here said the United States does not believe the issue needs to be discussed by the conference.

"We do not think that there is much ambiguity in the convention" regarding nonlethal chemicals, the official said.  "The issue is not ripe for multilateral discussions," the official added.

Trevor Findlay, executive director of the Verification Research, Training and Information Center, agreed that the conference should not take up the subject, saying many delegations were not aware of the issue and it would be better dealt with by a body of technical experts.

The Red Cross urged the conference to begin to involve treaty parties and specialist bodies in discussions to clarify the treaty's restrictions on nonlethal chemicals.