#10
Moscow News
March 22-26, 2002
U.S. Goes Back on Its Word
By Sergei Putilov, Vremya MN

The United States has backed away from its commitment to help Russia get rid of its chemical weapons - the world's largest stocks consisting of some 40,000 tonnes of lethal substances

The second elimination stage - designed to destroy at least one-fifth (8,000 tonnes) of Russia's chemical poison stocks by 2007 - will have to be suspended for lack of funding to build a plant for this purpose in the city of Shchuchye (Kurgan region, west-central Russia), the general director of the Russian Ammunition Agency, Zinovy Pak, has announced. Funding was supposed to have been resumed by the United States under accords previously reached, but it failed to pull off its side of the deal. The Americans had promised to complete the facility's industrial section by a specified deadline. Under the arrangements between Russia and the United States, construction of the plant should have started last year, but that did not happen. It will therefore be impossible to put the plant into operation by 2004 as planned. Consequently, we cannot start slashing our chemical-weapon arsenal within the stated time, Pak noted.

Characteristically, Washington suspended funding just when Moscow had met all the preconditions imposed by U.S. Congress for the disbursement of further aid. The Americans had demanded, among other things, that Russia allocate from its state budget no less than $25 million a year toward the facility's construction. That was their toughest stipulation, Pak said.

On top of that, the Americans wanted Russia to accept 32,000 tonnes of organophosphorous war gas and destroy it at the Shchuchye facility.

Russia agreed to those two stringent terms, yet no progress whatever has been achieved. It is most unfortunate that U.S. aid has lately taken on a hard political edge, Pak said.

One problem is that the elimination of chemical weapons involves formidable technological and financial challenges. It would cost $15 billion to $20 billion to destroy the U.S. arsenals, and only $6 billion to $7 billion to get rid of Russia's, experts say.

As your correspondent was told at the Central Analytical Laboratory, such huge costs are due to the mind-boggling complexity of recycling chemical weapons. For comparison, take, for example, a missile that has been removed from military service. Once removed, it can be used to launch a satellite into orbit, while its solid fuel can be converted into ordinary explosives. But chemical weapons are tougher nuts to crack. It will take extremely complex technologies to render harmless for humans and the environment the substances from which these weapons are made. These technologies cost a fortune, and Russia cannot afford more than 4.5 billion rubles a year for these purposes. So naturally, cash-strapped Russia cannot cope with the elimination program single-handed, without Western aid.

Under a previous program of its own, the United States was to pour a total of $800 million or so into the elimination of our chemical weapons. But it has been increasingly close-fisted, overburdened by its war in Afghanistan, its increased defense spending, and its plans to develop an anti-missile defense system. In fact, the House Armed Forces Committee is seeking cancellation of all aid to Russia. Beginning 1992, U.S. aid to Russia, plus outlays on dismantling and safekeeping some of its nuclear missiles, has cost American taxpayers $2.5 billion.

If the United States has reneged on its commitments to Russia for good, Russia will have no alternative but to turn to Europe, which is already helping us build two plants to destroy our lethal chemicals.

BACK TO THE TOP    #198 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION