During its thirty-five years, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) has been scarred by treaty violations, failed compliance negotiations, and ambiguous treaty language. Essentially a bruised paper tiger, the BWC adds no clarification to its distinction between biological activities for peaceful versus hostile purposes and has amplified—rather than lessened—mistrust in states' biological research and development potential. For the past two decades, these circumstances have generated multilateral annual discussions on BWC issues.
As leaders from about 50 countries arrive with their caravans in Tehran for what now seems to be settling into a triennial ritual, a question that has intrigued everyone for the past two decades is - what does NAM mean in a post-cold War context? Moreover, somewhat, if not equally, intriguing, a question that historians have struggled to find answers to is the origins of the term itself.