In an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper, Sergei Baranovsky, President of the Russian Green Cross and a member of the State Commission for Chemical Disarmament, explains why Russia is being so slow in destroying its chemical weaponry.
In the mid-1990s, when everyone wanted Russia to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, the West pledged generous funding for programs to destroy Russian chemical munitions. But after Russia ratified the Convention, Western donors cut their pledged contributions by half so that the rest had to be covered from its public purse, Mr Baranovsky says.
Next year, the Russian government plans to earmark for the purpose twice as much as it has in 2004-11.116 billion roubles (the dollar buys 28.76 roubles, on current rates). "Our partners, especially the United States, have also stepped up activity [in that area lately]," Vremya Novostei's interviewee says. "This is partly due to the aggravation of the international terrorism threat." In the year 2005, Russia expects to receive 2.2 billion dollars in foreign aid. But that sum may prove insufficient for the destruction of its chemical weapons arsenal. For the sake of comparison, the United States initially planned to spend 2 or 3 billion dollars for the program to eliminate its 32,000 tons of toxic combat substances, but recent estimates suggest that the program will take as much as $25-30 billion to implement, Mr Baranovsky says. He believes that in order to encourage outside contributions, Russia should fully exempt foreign financial aid from taxes and duties.
But underfunding is not the only reason for the delay in eliminating Russia' chemical arsenal, the expert notes. Originally, it was planned to build three facilities where chemical munitions from storages across the country would be destroyed. "But our laws ban the transportation of toxic combat substances," says Mr Baranovsky. "So it has been decided to build seven facilities instead, one for each of the storages." So far, only one such facility is operational.
Speaking of techniques used for the elimination of toxic combat substances, Mr Baranovsky said that Russian specialists first neutralize them by mixing with special chemical solutions and then go on to the processing stage. In the United States, chemical weapons are destroyed through burning, which is a bad idea as poisonous gases may evaporate into the atmosphere, he noted. According to him, the Americans, faced with strong public pressure, are now going to switch over to Russian methods.
Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, Russia shall have eliminated one-fifth of its chemical arsenal by April 29, 2007. If it fails to meet the deadline, the country will face severe sanctions, such as a ban on the export of many of its chemical industry products. According to experts, the ensuing financial losses may exceed manifold the cost of the chemical weapons elimination program.
