Arms Control: Status of U.S.-Russian Agreements and the Chemical Weapons Convention
NSIAD-94-136
Published: Mar 15, 1994. Publicly Released: Mar 21, 1994.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
GAO evaluated the status of the Chemical Weapons Convention, focusing on: (1) U.S. progress in implementing two bilateral agreements with Russia; and (2) the costs incurred by the United States in preparing for and implementing the treaties.
Recommendations
Matter for Congressional Consideration
| Matter | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Congress may wish to consider rescinding that portion of fiscal year 1994 funds appropriated to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) to pay for U.S. support to the Preparatory Commission that is clearly in excess of the funding required. | In September 1994, Congress reprogrammed the $5 million in unobligated funds for ACDA's 1995 required contributions to support the Preparatory Commission. |
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | The Director, ACDA, and the Secretary of Defense should reach an agreement with the Preparatory Commission (and subsequently the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) on how the United States can be reimbursed for some of the costs of U.S. research and development efforts which directly support the chemical weapons verification regime. |
ACDA and DOD do not intend to implement the recommendation. They stated that the organizations lacked the long-term technical oversight capability, as well as the financial resources, to fund 75 percent of U.S. research and development programs; that U.S. influence would be lost; and that other nations would want their research and development programs funded. While GAO still believes that its recommendation is valid, it cannot dismiss ACDA's and DOD's reasons for nonacceptance without considerable additional audit work. But because these organizations have no intention of implementing the recommendations, no additional followup work should be done.
|
| United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency | The Director, ACDA, and the Secretary of Defense should reach an agreement with the Preparatory Commission (and subsequently the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) on how the United States can be reimbursed for some of the costs of U.S. research and development efforts which directly support the chemical weapons verification regime. |
ACDA and DOD do not intend to implement the recommendation. They stated that the organizations lacked the long-term technical oversight capability, as well as the financial resources, to fund 75 percent of U.S. research and development programs; that U.S. influence would be lost; and that other nations would want their research and development programs funded. While GAO still believes that its recommendation is valid, it cannot dismiss ACDA's and DOD's reasons for nonacceptance without considerable additional audit work. But because these organizations have no intention of implementing the recommendations, no additional followup work should be done.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should review the treaty compliance programs of the military services with the view of determining and implementing the most cost-effective system for generating and transmitting site-diagrams in the event of a challenge inspection. |
DOD conducted a formal review of the military service treaty compliance programs, as recommended in the report. In October, DOD plans to finalize a report on the results of its review.
|
Full Report
Public Inquiries
Topics
Arms controlArms control agreementsChemical warfareChemical weaponsCost controlHazardous substancesInternational agreementsInternational organizationsInternational relationsMunitionsNuclear proliferationWeaponsChemical weapons disposal