A Congressional Perspective on Weapons Destruction

Glen Browder (Former Member, U.S. Congress)
Eminent Scholar in American Democracy
Jacksonville State University
Jacksonville, AL 36265

Distinguished Visiting Professor of National Security Affairs
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93943

INTRODUCTION

More than a decade after enactment of the global Chemical Weapons Convention, progress on eliminating the CW stockpiles of the world's two major powers-the United States and Russia-can be measured in disappointing terms such as "environmental controversies", "technological difficulties", "unacceptable costs", "intractable politics", and "only limited, mixed results".

To put it in bottom line assessment, mounting problems seem to have slowed an inherently contentious endeavor birthed at the end of the Cold War; and, almost assuredly amid finger-pointing in all directions, neither country will meet the 2012 CWC deadline.

While the original treaty timetable called for almost half (45%) of American/Russian weapons to be destroyed by this time, the reality is that the U.S. has done away with only a fourth (27%) of its 31,500 ton stockpile and Russia has barely begun (1-2%) elimination of its 40,000 ton cache (these two parties own about 99% of the world's known CW tonnage); and the most lethal weapons lie further along the destruction timeline.

CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING/OVERSIGHT

The U.S. Congress exercises funding/oversight responsibilities for American demilitarization and provides significant contribution (through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program) to Russian CW destruction; and recent Washington hearings illustrate the nature and extent of problems afflicting the elimination of toxic legacies from the past century.

THE AMERICAN CW DESTRUCTION PROGRAM

In one hearing just this month, the General Accounting Office (Congress's watchdog over Federal expenditures), reported categorically that the American CW destruction program is way off track; and GAO's Raymond Decker declared that America needs a new national public dialogue to address the demilitarization issue.

"Due to schedule delays, the United States will not meet the CWC April 2004 deadline to destroy 45 percent of the stockpile. Although it has received an extension for this task to December 2007, it is questionable if the program will meet this deadline. DOD has said it will ask for an extension of the final deadline to destroy 100 percent of the stockpile beyond 2007. Unless the program resolves the problems causing program delays, the United States risks not meeting this deadline, if extended."

Congressman Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Chairman of the House Armed Services Terrorism Subcommittee, called the ever-increasing price tag "mind-boggling"; and he warned that the demilitarization program must change course:

"Current estimates that the last agent will not be destroyed until 2014 and the last facility will not be closed until 2019 not only add to the total cost of the program, but also place our obligations and commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty at risk. They frankly are unacceptable."

For the record, almost 9,000 tons of the American stockpile has been destroyed as of March 15, 2004; and 100% of the stockpile is now under contract for destruction. One disposal operation has been completed and shutdown (Johnson Atoll in the Pacific), three disposal facilities are operational in the continental United States, and an additional three facilities could be operational by the end of the year. The American demilitarization program is best characterized as mixed, stumbling, costly progress; but it is progressing.

THE RUSSIAN CW DESTRUCTION PROGRAM

By comparison, the Russian program-from the perspective of the American Congress-is a relative quagmire involving much more than financial considerations. Russia (due to many reasons, some beyond its control) has never met any CWC destruction deadlines. While the leading light of global WMD destruction-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)-continues to champion international cooperation on behalf of the Russians, the movement has encountered considerable scrutiny and criticism in the House of Representatives.

Consequently, the House has placed several restrictive conditions on continued American funding for CW assistance to the Russians, requiring the Bush Administration to seek annual waivers before proceeding to assist the Russian program.

House hearings reflect obstacles to America's continued financial support of CW demilitarization in Russia.

For example, at a March 17 House Armed Services Committee hearing on weapons of mass destruction, Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) sharply questioned whether CTR is affording Russia the opportunity to strengthen its offensive strategic programs. In that same hearing, Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) complained about American access to the Russian programs, transparency in those programs, and real progress with demilitarization. The only solution, according to Chairman Hunter, is on-site federal managers at these Russian weapons facilities.

Discussions with other policy-makers and staffers reflect similar sentiments on Capitol Hill. There is continued support for CTR in general, but growing concern that the program has lost its focus; more specifically, there's doubt about Russia's commitment to going forward. What the U.S. Congress wants, according to these sources, is physical manifestation of actual progress in destroying the CW stockpiles. While waiver authority has been granted to the Bush Administration in the past, further concessions are not a foregone conclusion.

As Sen. Lugar concluded in an article focusing on Congressional conditions for Russian demilitarization assistance, the Russians must be realistic:

"To date, the Russians have worked to satisfy five of the six conditions, leaving one remaining barrier to U.S. assistance. The remaining condition requires the full and accurate disclosure of the Russian chemical weapons stockpile. There is disagreement over whether the Russian declaration under the Chemical Weapons Convention is complete. The Russians have not granted access to some closed facilities, which they say either no longer house chemical weapons materials or never did. It is extremely important to reach an acceptable conclusion to this matter this year. It cannot be set aside, as some Russians have proposed."

CONCLUSION

The blunt articulation of congressional frustrations-with both the U.S. and Russian Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Programs-should signal to domestic and worldwide observers the reality of serious, mounting problems in ridding our world of the Cold War's toxic legacy. The noble statements and objectives of the Chemical Weapons Convention are still inspiring; but actual destruction of chemical weapons plods along at an unacceptable pace. American taxpayers (and Russian citizens too) deserve focused attention and constructive action from those in charge of their taxes and future security.