Chemical disarmament is a national problem

Alexander Kharichev, Vice-Chairman, State Commission on Chemical Disarmament, RIA Novosti, Moscow

In Russia they have started practically eliminating the stockpiles of chemical weapons amassed over many years. According to the available information, 40,000 tons of different ammunition stuffed with toxic warfare agents are kept in seven arsenals situated on the territory of six entities of the Russian Federation. Of this amount, sarin, soman and VX account for 32,200 tons, and mustard gas, lewisite and their mixtures -- for 7,800 tons. Toxic agents are being eliminated on the basis of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction adopted at the UN conference in Geneva in 1992. The list of this convention's signatories now includes more than 150 countries, including such major holders of chemical weapons as Russia and the USA.

By ratifying this document in November 1997 Russia assumed certain obligations on the elimination of chemical weapons. The establishment last year of the State Commission on Chemical Disarmament by a decree of president of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin was an important step in this direction. The Federal Program for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons was approved and is being implemented. In keeping with it, the weapons of the 2nd -category, among them the 122-millimeter artillery shells filled with phosgene, have been destroyed. The 3rd-category weapons, consisting of non-filled chemical ammunition, as well as bursting and powder charges, have also been fully eliminated.

A production complex for destroying 1st-category weapons, among them such toxic agents as sarin, soman, mustard gas and lewisite, has been built at Gorny settlement (Saratov Region). The enterprise must become operative at the end of this year.

At the same time, the State Commission believes that it is necessary to speed up the destruction of chemical weapons in Russia. This is dictated by a number of quite real threats. The first of them is linked with the expiry of the period of safe storage of ammunition in arsenals. Permanent monitoring shows that the number of emergency shells and air bombs, filled with toxic agents, has been growing. If Russia fails to destroy chemical weapons within the next 10-12 years this may result in catastrophic consequences, experts claim. This problem is acquiring a national character today, and the country's security depends on its resolution.

The second threat is linked with the growth of quite real danger of international terrorism. The tragic events in New York, Moscow on Bali island and in other regions are an emphatic proof of this. It is particularly alarming that today the world is faced with new methods of delivery of weapons. Today it is no longer a missile or an aircraft but an ideologically brain-washed individual who is ready to sacrifice his/her life for attaining the aim set to him or her. And from this point of view chemical weapons are even more dangerous than nuclear ones. In expert opinion, it is easier to deliver such weapons to any point of a planned act of sabotage. Furthermore, it is much more difficult to establish control over proliferation of chemical weapons. It is most unlikely that terrorists will not strive to get hold of them.

Precisely his fact makes the countries -- parties to the Convention -- duty bound to intensify the protection of their arsenals and to tighten control over the non-proliferation of chemical weaponry. For all that, it is clear to all that, no matter what stringent measures are taken to this end, full confidence that terrorists will not get hold of chemical weapons will never exist. Only complete destruction of such weapons can give such guarantees.

The Kananaskis agreement signed in Canada by the presidents of the G-8 countries gives rise to certain optimism in this connection. This document, named Global Partnership, moves the problem of the destruction of mass destruction weapons into the category of the high-priority questions which face mankind and require earliest decision. So, the starting-point for serious and constructive changes not only in the system of international relations but also in the sphere of world public processes has appeared.

We witness the shaping up of a new type of the perception of the world, a new vector of public activity. In other words, it is a world without arms. The role of public organizations is becoming ever more significant. For instance, the Civil Club, the Social Environmentalist Movement, the Clean Home and the Russian Green Cross proposed holding next June an international festival- forum named Farewell to Arms. In the view of its organizers, this event must be a public response to the beginning of the destruction of chemical weapons in Russia, and must help pass from public control to public participation in the process of the elimination of chemical weapons. Since the task of so large a scale cannot be accomplished only by a narrow group of specialists,correspondingly, concentration of efforts of society as a whole is necessary.

A propos, prominent Russian politicians backed the idea of holding such a festival-forum. For instance, chairman of the international affairs committee of the Federation Council Mikhail Margelov became the chairman of the organizing committee. It is beyond doubt that politicians and public figures from the USA and European countries, whom invitations have been sent to, will take part in this event.