IUPAC and OPCW—from reluctant support to active collaboration

The first initiative

The first serious initiative to try to involve IUPAC somehow in chemical-weapon issues came from The Association of Greek Chemists, which in a letter from early 1989 to IUPAC President Yves P. Jeannin (Figure 1) requested that in “one of the coming IUPAC general assemblies you include for discussion, and possible action, the subject on the ban of chemical weapons” [2]. In a reply from 10 March, IUPAC Secretary General (SG) Thomas S. West reported that the letter would be on the agenda for the EC meeting about a month later. He also made it clear that he was “doubtful if our [IUPAC] Statutes will allow us as a Union to do very much and it is certainly true that neither the Executive Committee nor the Bureau can make any public announcement on such a matter” [3]. This was probably not regarded as a positive feedback, and it did not help when West continued by stating that “it would be much better for you to approach the matter of action by the scientific community through the International Council of Scientific Unions, ICSU, which has the role of the social conscience of science and scientists on the international scene” [3]. Based on this correspondence, the EC recommended to add the Greek proposal to the agenda for the next IUPAC Council meeting in August 1989, where it was decided to inform the ICSU Executive Board about the Greek NAO’s appeal to initiate a discussion of this subject in the framework of the family of the ICSU scientific unions. Two months later West presented the decision and suggested that ICSU examine the question of abolition of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction. ICSU apparently instructed its Committee on the Ethical Problems of Science to take charge and work with the issue, but that appeared to be a dead end; more than one year later the Executive Secretary (ES) of ICSU reluctantly had to report that “our Committee on the Ethical Problems of Science ended up being largely inactive, which is a risk that one runs from time to time when working with an organization of volunteers. Thus, although the recommendation about the study of weapons of mass destruction was passed on to the Committee by the Executive Board, nothing was done about this” [4]. In spite of this, IUPAC kept the contact with ICSU and remained engaged in discussions of a number of actions, including preparation of a special publication on chemical weapons and organizing symposia in collaboration with a number of international organization [5], and even set aside up to USD 10 000 to support [6]. But little materialized and the IUPAC ES was “not happy with the way ICSU is proposing to proceed” [7].

Figure 1. The top of the letter to IUPAC from the Greek NAO to the Union. It is interesting it was not sent to the President, but to Vice President Prof. Jeannin who lived in France and not in Denmark where the Treasurer resided

The Bunnett initiative

This lack of tangible outcomes conceivably triggered the IUPAC Organic Division to consider organizing a body to study methods of destruction of chemical-warfare agents and other hazardous chemicals [5]. Professor Joseph F. Bunnett, (USA) (Figure 2) responded quickly to the idea, and before May 1991, he had written four discussion papers with the aim of formalizing the formation of a task force on detoxification of chemical warfare agents at the General Assembly (GA) in Hamburg in August 1991 [8]. The proposal was said to be favourably regarded by the IUPAC officers [9], and when discussed formally at the GA, the Organic Division approved establishing a Subcommittee on the Destruction of Chemical Warfare Agents with Bunnett as chair [5].

With the formation of the subcommittee, IUPAC should be ready to address pure chemical issues related to chemical weapons, but that did not happen immediately. The reason was that the subcommittee was approved without any funding, and this apparently led to controversy that lasted for several years. In a summary of the situation in a memorandum to Valentin A. Koptyug (Past President 1989-91) in January 1992, ES Maurice (Mo) Williams stated that since “Hamburg, it has been clarified that the Bunnett Task Force will conduct its business solely within the Organic Chemistry Division. It will have no access to the USD 5 000 budgeted by IUPAC in each of 1992 and 1993 for the work with ICSU” [7]. Furthermore, “I must stress to you that the initiative of Professor J. F. Bunnett […..] is independent of the considerations on chemical weapons by the IUPAC Executive Committee/Bureau” [7]. This delayed the planning of the project considerably, and a project proposal was filed just in time for consideration at the GA in Lisbon in August 1993. The proposal, now entitled “Destruction of Chemical Warfare Agents” and planned to last for two years from August 1993, was approved, but again there was no financial support from the Union, despite the fact that the president of the Organic Division, President Nelson J. Leonard, commented that it “will be a shame for IUPAC not to support this subcommittee (task force)” [10]. The tension this generated is reflected in the minutes from the Division meeting, which show that Leonard was requested to raise two questions with the IUPAC leadership: “a) why is there no IUPAC funding for the subcommittee of the organic division on the Scientific Aspects of the Destruction of chemical warfare; b) why is there an hesitation on the part of IUPAC to remove this chemical hazard from the world?” [10].

Figure 2. Joseph F. Bunnett, professor in physical organic chemistry at the University of California Santa Cruz, USA, paid particular attention to the destruction of chemical weapons toward the end of his career and served nationally on several committees devoted to such issues. In IUPAC, he worked hard to convince the Executive to establish a committee working with chemical aspects related to chemical weapons years before the CWC entered into force.

While Bunnett and others were working hard to convince IUPAC to focus and fund work on chemical-weapons issues, these issues were brought to centre stage in world politics when the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, usually called the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), was finalized 3 September 1992 after decades of negotiations [11]. It is not known if this played a role when Leonard approached the IUPAC leadership to discuss the two questions mentioned above, but in any case, on October 28, 1993 it was reported that “IUPAC has now agreed to fund that project to the extent of $ 2000,00” [10].

This financial support, albeit small, and the international focus on chemical weapons when the CWC was opened for signature in Paris and New York (13 January 1993) must have encouraged Bunnett and the 13 other members of the task force when they started the work at the end of 1993. The aim was to 1) “evaluate critically and compile existing methods and relevant research findings, and make them available in condensed form” and 2) “identify additional research that needs to be done in order to facilitate rapid, safe and economical destruction of chemical munitions and chemical warfare agents” [10]. Considering the progress they made, reported to the IUPAC Executive on a regular basis, this project is in my opinion one of the most outstanding projects ever carried out in IUPAC. In less than one year, the outcome had been such that a workshop could be held to flesh out and adopt recommendations and write a progress report [12] that would form the basis for what ultimately became a technical report in Pure and Applied Chemistry [13]. Also, a news story about the work was published in Chemistry International in March 1995 [14], and well before the stipulated project period ended (August 1995), chairman Bunnett and task-force member Mirian Mikolajczyk succeeded in getting a NATO grant for a NATO Advanced Research Workshop on “Chemical Problems Associated with Old Arsenical and Mustard Munitions,” to be held in Lodz, Poland, 18-20 March 1996 with the applicants as co-chairs [15]. The workshop became a major success, and in 1998 a book based on the conference lectures was published with the co-chairs as editors (Figure 3) [16]. Two days before the two-year project period ended, a Statement of the Current Situation with a summary of tangible outcomes, put forward ideas for three new projects, a proposal to form “an ad hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons Destruction, reporting to the Bureau,” and a suggestion to organize additional workshops, was “respectfully submitted, J. F. Bunnett, Chairman” [17].

Figure 3. Professors Joseph F. Bunnett and Marian Mikolajczyk received financial support from NATO to organize an Advanced Research Workshop based on the outcome of the work carried out by the task force on Destruction of Chemical Warfare Agents. The lectures presented were published in the pictured book edited by the organizers.

The future of chemical-weapon issues in IUPAC

Several months before the project ended, Bunnett wrote to President Kirill I. Zamaraev to discuss the “future of the IUPAC Task Force on Scientific Aspects of the Destruction of Chemical Warfare Agents: (1) Should it be continued, in either its original or reorganized form? (2) What problems concerning destruction or chemical weapons should benefit from the attention of an international group of chemists? (3) If the “body” is continued, how should it be organized?” [18]. He was certainly pushing for a continuation by establishing a standing committee attached to the Bureau, but that was rejected by the EC, which instead recommended him to run “projects outside the jurisdiction of the existing Commissions of the Union. If you are interested to pursue this possibility. I [ES Williams] will send you further information” [19, 20]. This idea did not appear very attractive to Bunnett, and I am sure he was discouraged when he was told that there “is no obvious financial mechanism for IUPAC to fund such an ad hoc committee” [21]. However, in spite of this, at the Council meeting during the GA in Guildford (August 1995), it was agreed to convert the task force to “an ad hoc Committee of the Bureau for a period, subject to review, of two years with some financial support from the Union. A report of the ad hoc Committee was received by the Executive Committee” [22], but the matter was not followed up and the committee ceased to exist as ongoing projects were completed during the following biennium [22].

Request from OPCW and the tension generated

As the Bunnett committee finished their work and IUPAC seemed to remain rather reluctant to focus on issues related to chemical weapons, the CWC gained increasing international support and entered into force 29 April 1997 with OPCW as the implementing body (Figure 4). The same day, the count-down for the first review of the operation of the CWC (First Review Conference) started, which was a consequence of Article VIII in the CWC: “The Conference shall not later than one year after the expiry of the fifth and the tenth year after the entry into force of this Convention, and at such other times within that time period as may be decided upon, convene in special sessions to undertake reviews of the operation of this Convention. Such reviews shall take into account any relevant scientific and technological developments. At intervals of five years thereafter, unless otherwise decided upon, further sessions of the Conference shall be convened with the same objective” [23]. In accordance with this, the First Review Conference was scheduled to convene 28 April 2003, and around the turn of the millennium, the preparation started to shape up. Minutes from several more or less formal meetings show that several organizations, including IUPAC and the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and a number of individuals became engaged and tried to contribute in the planning [24, 25]. For IUPAC, Bunnett turned out to be a valuable resource because he had made several contacts in OPCW when he chaired the Task Force on Scientific Aspects of the Destruction of Chemical Warfare Agents, and this network brought IUPAC SG Edwin (Ted) D. Becker “in touch with Dr. Claude Eon, chairman of the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) regarding ways by which IUPAC might provide expertise and advice to OPCW. […..] The SAB is concerned about providing the best scientific advice to the diplomats in considering revisions to the CWC. In January [2001], Alan Hayes and I met with Dr. Eon and Tom Inch, former executive director of the Royal Society of Chemistry and member of the SAB, to explore possible future interactions. We found a number of potential areas of cooperation and agreed to maintain further contacts” [26]. Becker then attended several additional meetings at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC in February and early March [25], so when the IUPAC EC met in the middle of March 2001, the CWC Review was on the agenda. “Dr. Becker reviewed the background of the series of meetings in which he had participated on the review of the Chemical Weapons Convention that will occur in 2003. IUPAC has been approached to provide scientific advice to the Office for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” [27]. After Becker’s introduction, a discussion followed, which was not minuted. That is unfortunate because it started with a major surprise, almost a blow, when President Alan Hayes stated that IUPAC should not become involved in any events that were planned to produce a report evaluating the scientific and technological advances that had taken place in the chemical sciences since the Convention entered into force! To say that this generated an intense debate is no exaggeration, and it went on for some time because the President appeared very determined. But when a committee member asked how it would look if any more or less arbitrarily handpicked group of chemists wrote the report instead of IUPAC which is the global custodian of chemical knowledge and terminology, the attitude gradually changed. After a while, Hayes yielded and “endorsed the participation of IUPAC in this worldwide effort”, which became the unanimous decision [27]. As a consequence, “Dr. Hayes will meet with the Director-General of OPCW [Ambassador José M. Bustani] in April to formalize the relationship” [27].

Figure 4. OPCW’s logo symbolizes the organization’s aim, to destroy all chemical weapons in a sustainable manner.

^{Figure 5. (a) The conference booklet for the IUPAC workshop held in Bergen, Norway. (b) The conference papers were published in the last issue of PAC in 2002.}

The meeting with Bustani and his staff took place 19 April 2001 at the OPCW Headquarters in The Hague, The Netherlands, with the purpose of discussing “the proposal by IUPAC to assist in the preparations of the 2003 CWC Review Conference, following previous contacts between SAB members and IUPAC’s president as well as executive secretary, and then US NAS [National Academy of Sciences]” [28]. Hayes reported the same day to Becker about a successful meeting [29], which is not surprising since it “was stressed that IUPAC appears particularly well-placed to undertake a study on the scientific foundations of the Convention given its scientific standing, its relations to chemical industry, and its independent and international character” [28, 30]. During the meeting, the framework for the review process was discussed and settled; it was agreed to run a symposium “mid 2002, followed by a published report that would be available to OPCW and State Parties. To prepare for this symposium, a planning meeting is scheduled for July 23-24, 2001 in The Hague” [30, 31]. This meeting was held as scheduled and marked the start of a hectic planning period leading up to the IUPAC Workshop Impact of Scientific Developments on the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was held in Bergen, Norway, 30 June – 3 July 2002 with the author in charge of all local arrangements and staff from US NAS taking care of the rest (Figure 5). The report [32] and the resulting scientific publications (Figure 5) were published and made available to OPCW and the State Parties as requested and promised, and there was a sense of pride when the material was presented in the Peace Palace in The Hague 1 May 2003, during the First Review Conference.

Successful collaboration and more tension

IUPAC received considerable credit for its delivery, and it was indeed rewarding when the new OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter expressed appreciation and added “I very much look forward to the continuation of this fruitful and cooperative relationship” [33]. This wish did indeed come true because the following years, OPCW and IUPAC organized several joint meetings including an international workshop on Education, outreach, and codes of conduct to further the norms and obligations of the Chemical Weapons Convention at Oxford University in July 2005 [34], a symposium devoted to Ethical Codes of Conduct for Chemists in the Bologna Academy in September 2006 [35], and the Second Symposium on the Impact of Advances in Science and Technology on the Chemical Weapons Convention, which took place at University of Zagreb in April 2007 [36, 37]. As revealed in an article in Chemistry International years back [38], the 2005 and 2006 events generated some tension in the Union [39], but even more so did the 2007 meeting in Croatia. Whereas the first meeting in Bergen five years earlier closed with a healthy surplus, the second meeting ended with a moderate deficit because the financial contribution from OPCW unexpectedly shrank somewhat due to cancellations from some of the invited participants. This indeed made the IUPAC President Brian Henry very upset, and from the blue, he argued strongly for and was about to table a motion calling for immediate termination of all collaboration with OPCW. After a heated debate where the turning argument was that the surplus from the Bergen meeting more than covered the deficit from the conference in Zagreb, I volunteered to arrange a meeting with DG Pfirter to discuss the issue when he came to Turin, Italy, to give an address at the opening of the IUPAC GA in August 2007, and that was accepted by the IUPAC President, who withdrew the motion.

The meeting with the ambassador indeed materialized, and after a short and frank discussion, a satisfactory solution was found. This paved the way for the continuous and fruitful collaboration that has taken place between the two organizations ever since. Among the highlights are the CHEMRAWN XVIII: Ethics, Science, and Development conference in August 2009, [40] the Workshop on Developments in Science and Technology Relevant to the Chemical Weapons Convention in February 2012 [41, 42], and the development of The Hague Ethical Guidelines, finalized at the OPCW Headquarters in September 2015 [43, 44], so when OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu and IUPAC President Natalia Tarasova signed the OPCW-IUPAC Memorandum of Understanding on 1 December 2016 [45], it was a natural consequence of past achievements driven by a strong desire to expand the joint activity and take the partnership to a new level [46, 47].

Epilogue

Everybody should recall that OPCW was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 “for its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons” (Figure 6) [48]. I was invited to attend the solemn ceremony, and I have to admit I felt that the outcome of IUPAC’s collaboration with OPCW for more than 10 years was also acknowledged and celebrated when Ambassador Uzumcu received the gold medal and the diploma. And as the event came to a close, I was reminded about the two occasions when IUPAC was close to turning its back to OPCW, and I felt a deep satisfaction it did not happen.

Figure 6. (a) The Nobel Peace Prize to OPCW was announced at the Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway, 11 October 2013 at 11:00. (b) The diploma, handed over during the ceremony 10 December 2013 in Oslo City Hall, is on display in the lobby at the OPCW Headquarters in The Hague, The Netherlands.

Acknowledgements

A travel grant from the Science History Institute, Philadelphia, USA for a one-week residency in February 2024 is highly appreciated. I am most grateful for the excellent working conditions offered and the great support given during my stay. Furthermore, I am indebted to the staff at the IUPAC Secretariat, Research Triangle Park, USA for valuable assistance during my work with the IUPAC archives.