| The recent G8 summit in the Canadian town of
Kananaskis decided to allocate
substantial funds to the programme for eliminating Russian stockpiles
of weapons
of mass destruction. Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee
of the State Duma
Alexei Arbatov talks with Salavat Suleimanov about eliminating
weapons and
appropriating the money.
Question: The G8 summit in Canada agreed in principle to the
allocation by world
powers' of $20 billion to Russia within 10 years to eliminate
weapons of mass
destruction. How do you assess these agreements?
Answer: The details have not been disclosed, but the sum itself
- $20 billion -
is quite impressive. If the money is used sensibly and purposefully,
we will
certainly manage to resolve most of our problems in eliminating
weapons of mass
destruction.
Question: In your opinion what kinds of weapons should be destroyed:
biological
(bacteriological), chemical or nuclear?
Answer: I don't think biological weapons are an issue here. We
are supposed to
have eliminated them a long time ago. A corresponding convention
was signed as
early as the beginning of the 1970s. Russia definitely has some
materials for
producing vaccines, including materials to counteract biological
weapons.
However, this information is top secret, as in any other country.
And it is
absolutely clear that we do not have many of these weapons and
consequently do
not need foreign help to destroy them.
We face a totally different situation with chemical weapons.
Russia has already
applied for a five-year extension for fulfilling the convention
to eliminate
chemical weapons. According to the convention, countries may request
such an
extension, provided they have objective reasons for doing so.
Although the West
is interested in our eliminating chemical weapons without environmental
disasters
and consequences, we are even more interested. Our chemical ammunition
and tanks
have rusted.
Consequently, the elimination of chemical weapons of mass destruction
is above
all related to this country's environmental safety. And we should
be grateful to
the West for its help and use the means efficiently and purposefully.
We face a slightly different situation with nuclear weapons.
These weapons, even
if scrapped, do not pose a direct threat to the environment. However,
they
require substantial funds for permanent protection and storage.
Their
transportation to places of utilization will also be expensive,
as there are a
significant number of big weapons and we do not have
enough high-tech safe
containers and special carriages.
Consequently most of the financial help from the West will be
used to eliminate
chemical weapons, where the situation is bordering on a crisis,
and the rest will
be spent on utilizing nuclear weapons.
Regarding tactical nuclear weapons, there are no serious agreements
that are
binding on Russia.
Clearly, however, considerable numbers of tactical nuclear weapons
are becoming
obsolete. They must be transported to specialized enterprises,
where their
"filling" can be utilized.
Therefore we will face the same problems, that is, storage and
maintenance,
transportation and utilization. Without this help, we would have
had to find
resources in the Russian budget, reducing the salaries of teachers,
doctors and
servicemen or refraining from raising pensions.
Question: How about utilization of nuclear submarines?
Answer: This is really a major problem. It remains unclear whether
the West will
allocate money to utilize nuclear submarines, as they are not
directly included
in the class of weapons of mass destruction. However, I hope that
they will also
be covered by the programme.
The Northern and Pacific Fleets have about 150 scrapped nuclear
submarines. At
least 100 still have unloaded nuclear reactors and fuel on board,
as there is no
place to store them. Significant resources are required to build
nuclear waste
repositories where submarines are deployed. I hope that Europe
and Japan are
interested in this matter, as the problem concerns them directly.
Question: The defense minister and the nuclear industry minister
recently
visited the nuclear testing ground on the Novaya Zemlya. Do you
think it is
Russia's response to the recent information of the US plans to
resume nuclear
tests or does it intend to store nuclear waste there?
Answer: I don't think so. As far as I know, the USA does not
plan to conduct new
nuclear tests. At least, no decision has been taken to resume
these tests. The
Americans just keep their testing ground ready for the adoption
of such a
decision. In response we decided to check the state of the Russian
testing
ground, just in case we need it in future.
It would be irrational to build a nuclear waste storage on the
Novaya Zemlya. It
would be extremely expensive, as in addition to construction,
maintenance,
control and protection will be required.
Instead, the Russian government has decided to build a storage
base in
Chelyabinsk Region, near the Mayak enterprise.
See also:
Arms
Control
| 