Revealed: The private companies making a killing destroying Syria's chemical weapons
No country volunteered to perform the task, and there is money to be made from it, says David Usborne
David Usborne Author Biography
Friday 22 November 2013
The chemical weapons arsenal of Bashar al-Assad of Syria is turning into an unexpected boon to companies which are being asked to participate in the destruction of hundreds of tonnes of related substances that must be shipped out of the country as part of an international mandate to dispose of them.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, based in The Hague, confirmed tonight that it has invited companies around the world to come forward with proposals to handle and destroy roughly 800 tonnes of toxins, “accounting for the major part of the Syrian stockpile”.
The move came after it was unable to find a country willing to take on the task of destroying the stockpile.
Albania, which came closest to receiving the chemicals, last week abruptly rejected a US request that it offer to host land-based facilities to destroy them.
Now it is up to the private sector, and there is money to be made. According to the OPCW, the cost of the “destruction activities to be undertaken by commercial companies” is estimated at “€35m (£29m) to €40m”.
Commercial companies interested in profiting from the disposal of the less harmful substances have until 29 November to respond. The accelerated timetable reflects the extreme pressure that the OPCW finds itself under as it tries to meet an end-of-December deadline to remove all of the Assad arsenal from Syria.
The OPCW, which recently was honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize, was plunged into the Syria crisis in the wake of a devastating chemical attack in August that killed hundreds in suburban areas of Damascus that the West quickly blamed on Assad. To avert US strikes, the regime agreed to a joint US-Russia plan under which it joined the international ban on chemical weapons and agreed to the destruction of its arsenal. With such little notice, it remains to be seen how many companies might step forward to assist in the process.
One possible candidate, URS Corp, based near Albany, New York, which has played significant roles in the destruction of American chemical stockpiles during the 1990s as well as weapons of mass destruction in post-Soviet Russia. A spokesperson declined to comment on whether it might seek all or part of the contract.
“It’s certainly unusual that they would go out for tender for private companies to destroy these substances,” Ralf Trapp, an independent consultant on chemical weapons disarmament based in France, told The Independent. “But we are in unusual circumstances.” He added: “We are not talking about the chemical weapons themselves, but they are essentially trying to get rid of the rest of the programme.”
The Foreign Office indicated the Government would not stand in the way should a UK company step forward. “We shall have to look at exactly what is being proposed,” a spokesperson said. “There is no objection to them expressing interest and we would expect normal health and safety and environmental regulations to be observed.”
The chemicals listed in the invitation do not include the most dangerous substances such as actual nerve agents or weapons which amount to an additional 500 tonnes.
The OPCW is meanwhile is grasping for a Plan B for dealing with the 500 tonnes of deadlier materials – the weapons and nerve agents – that are too dangerous to put out to tender. A week ago, the Prime Minister of Albania, Edi Rama, declared in a national broadcast that “it is impossible for Albania to get involved in this operation”. He made the statement after there were huge street protests in the capital Tirana opposing Albania’s participation.
Together with Washington, the agency is exploring the possibility of shipping those agents to a Syrian port and then attempting to destroy them on board a ship in the Mediterranean using a portable incineration plant recently developed by the Pentagon. The US in turn would provide a frigate to stand guard while the operation was under way. Even then there would be by-products of the incineration that would have to be shipped somewhere for disposal.
No decision has been reached on the sea-borne option, however, and the OPCW continues to explore other land-based alternatives. Among those involved in the discussions are believed to be Britain, Germany, France and Italy, all of which have facilities capable of handling the toxins. However, the farther any host country is away from Syria, the more significant the challenges of getting the substances to them would be.
“Russia is another obvious alternative,” Mr Trapp suggested, because of its experience in destroying weapons of mass destruction, although that too would involve either a very long sea trip or an overland journey requiring that permission be granted from all the transit governments along the way. “Or they might find certain remote territories where it would be easier to set up something,” he added. “Doing this on land would be much simpler.”
There are precedents for transporting deadly chemical agents long distances on the ocean. Most notably, in the late 1990s, the US military sent some of its prohibited chemical arsenal to the tiny Johnston Atoll in the middle of the Pacific after URS Corp built a destruction facility there.
Nor is it unprecedented to dispose of such materials at sea. Several years ago Japan also destroyed hundreds of prohibited chemical bombs offshore.
__________
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog".
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
23112013
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment