#4
Dallas Morning News
October 10, 2002
Editorial
Destroying Stockpiles: There's work still to be done in
Russia
Sometimes what seemed like a good idea at the time breeds unintended
consequences and requires some nimble footwork to set things right.
One such instance is a funding impasse that threatens U.S. involvement in an
international effort to destroy Soviet-era chemical weapons stockpiles. What was
intended to make the Russians come clean on chemical weapons now is getting in
the way of a program intended to eradicate these weapons.
Warehouses in the Russian town of Shchuch'ye house about 14 percent of the
former Soviet Union's vast arsenal of chemical weapons. Sarin, VX gas and other
particularly lethal chemicals are loaded into about 2 million artillery shells
and missile warheads. The site is a veritable mother lode of silent, deadly,
ghastly and portable chemical weapons that easily could be hidden and dispersed.
Under international agreements, the United States has spent about $230
million to prepare a site and design a plant to destroy the weapons at
Shchuch'ye. The problem is that Congress imposed conditions that now prevent the
Pentagon from spending more money on the project, which some estimate could cost
$1 billion just at Shchuch'ye.
That is not a modest price until you consider that it would help eradicate a
witch's brew of dangerous chemicals that Russia couldn't eliminate alone. And
while U.S. assistance is hardly an ironclad guarantee that chemical weapons
won't fall into the wrong hands, "it's absolutely a step in the right
direction," says Amy Smithson, a chemical weapons expert at the Henry L.
Stimson Center in Washington.
While it is imperative that lawmakers obtain a full accounting of chemical
stockpiles and know that dollars are well spent, this program must not wither
away from funding inaction. The known Russian chemical stockpile is 40,000 tons,
a staggering amount that is at least 10,000 tons greater than the U.S. chemical
weapons storehouse.
Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee,
says he would favor congressional action giving the president the flexibility to
waive funding restrictions. He says funding would continue and the president
would retain leverage to press for a full accounting. We think this is a
reasonable approach.
The United States must not minimize the danger these weapons pose and
squander an opportunity to eradicate them.
BACK TO THE TOP  #226 CONTENTS NEXT ARTICLE
|
