EVERYONE agrees that getting rid of weapons of mass destruction is a great
idea. With so many of the tensions that created vast arsenals of nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons now gone or much diminished, the argument for
cutting back weapons stockpiles is incontestable. That鈥檚 been recognised over
the past decade with what looked like rapid progress towards agreements over
disarmament.
Now the picture is less rosy. Governments are getting nervous. At the meeting
of the 187 signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York last
month, the five original nuclear powers paid lip service to ideas of disarmament
with a commitment to the 鈥渦nequivocal鈥� elimination of nuclear weapons, but no
one said when or how newer nuclear powers such as India, Pakistan and Israel
might be brought into line. The world came close to an agreement to ban nuclear
weapons tests last year, but then the US pulled out. And the US鈥檚 love of
anti-missile defences is threatening to ramp up the arms race again: such
systems would be relatively easy to foil, so their development just increases
the pressure on nations like China to build multi-warhead weapons. Then there is
the ban on biological weapons, which while very welcome still lacks the teeth to
make it enforceable.
Amidst all this half-heartedness, the treaty banning chemical weapons stands
out. It is working. It is the only treaty under which anyone, any time, can
be鈥攁nd is being鈥� inspected. And it is the only one with a final
deadline: chemical weapons must be destroyed by 29 April 2007.
Advertisement
Now even this treaty鈥檚 goals are under threat. The chemicals won鈥檛 be gone on
time, most notably Russia鈥檚. Russia cannot afford the $6 billion required
to safely destroy its stockpile, the world鈥檚 largest: 40 000 tonnes of
concentrated death. When Russia joined the treaty, the world promised to help.
The US pledged $300 million to build chemical destruction plants but last
year a peeved Congress stopped the funding. Russia, mired in bureaucratic
confusion, hasn鈥檛 yet paid its share of the programme. Europe has given only 15
per cent as much as the Americans.
In the face of these setbacks, the temptation is simply to leave Russia to
get on with it. That would be a dreadful mistake. If those chemical weapons
aren鈥檛 destroyed, they will sit there, a catastrophe waiting to happen, and an
invitation to any terrorist, rogue state or hawkish new ruler in Moscow. Worse,
if the world鈥檚 most promising disarmament agreement fails, others may wonder why
they should destroy old weapons or renounce new ones鈥攃hemical or
otherwise. Disarmament itself could be at stake.
This month, Congress will decide whether to carry on funding Russia鈥檚
chemical disarmament鈥攕ubject to better management. We fervently hope it
does. But this isn鈥檛 just an American responsibility. This week in Moscow, the
European Union pledged a bit more money. That鈥檚 good, as far as it goes, but the
continent that perpetrated the horrors of Ypres and the Somme must do more.
There鈥檚 still danger lurking behind Russia鈥檚 borders鈥攁nd it could blow
your way.
