Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)


GLobalSecurity.org preliminary translation of Russian original

Note the Russian Foreign Ministry in connection with the publication of the next report of the US Department of States' compliance with agreements on arms control and non-proliferation

29/04/17

The US is formally in favor of unconditional compliance with international law. This applies to the full implementation of international agreements aimed at strengthening international security and the maintenance of global stability, key among which are treaties and conventions on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation (KVRN).

In proclaiming this approach and setting their own, "ideal", it seems Washington, criteria for the implementation of an agreement, the United States claim to a monopoly right to evaluate the actions of other countries to fulfill contractual obligations. And Washington does in a peremptory manner, ignoring the established practice of the treatment of the issues by means of engagement provided for this multilateral mechanisms.

Introduced April 25 progress report of the US State Department with the same limitations that were inherent in all previous such documents. Together with the nomination of the absolutely groundless accusations against individual countries, the authors once again attempted to introduce the United States itself is almost the only country with an impeccable "track record" performance obligations in the field of KVRN agreements. Such an unacceptable manner of filing and compilation of facts has become an American tradition to sum up the basics of the US claims to "American exclusive right" to judge "guilty" and demand their punishment.

Russian Federation, sharing setting on the full and unconditional implementation of obligations under international agreements, categorically rejects the methods and means used by Washington for the "removal to clean water," states that, in his opinion, are "violators" of contractual obligations.

In recent years, there is growing evidence to suggest that the reason for such actions of the USA - not a banal unwillingness to burden themselves with a difficult and lengthy expert dialogue, but something much more serious - Washington's fear of being exposed to the nomination baseless accusations against other countries; and admitted by the US violations of international agreements in the field of KVRN.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has to again pay attention to such unacceptable actions of the US and the undeniable facts that are intended to facilitate an objective assessment of the real state of implementation of Russia and the United States to meet its contractual obligations in the field KVRN.

1. The issue of missile defense

In 2001, the US withdrew from the treaty in 1972 ABM and headed for the unilateral and unfettered capacity of its global missile defense system. Thus it destroyed one of the pillars of the system of global strategic stability.

Since reckless formation of a US missile defense system the most adverse impact on the international security system, greatly complicated relations not only in the Euro, but also in the Asia-Pacific region has become one of the most serious obstacles to the further gradual nuclear disarmament, creating dangerous conditions for the resumption of the nuclear arms race.

Repeatedly drawn the attention of the American side on this issue. However, willingness to communicate, and to take into account Russian concerns manifested was not. The United States refused to discuss even put forward by the Washington guarantees not directed against Russia missile defense assets placed in Europe.

There is still no answer to the question against whom carried sverhzatratnye and totally disproportionate to any prospective challenges in the field of missile defense preparations. Revealing was the US unwillingness to adjust their anti-missile plans, despite the successful implementation of the reached agreements in 2015 with respect to the Iranian nuclear program. And we all remember that at one time it was a pivotal and, in fact, the only argument that Washington even at the level of the US president justified the deployment of its missile defense system in Europe.

It should be understood that the anti-missile facilities placed around the world, are part of the very dangerous global project aimed at ensuring universal overwhelming US superiority at the expense of the security interests of other countries. Actively build up US missile defense architecture in all its totality significantly changes the strategic balance of forces offensive weapons in the region and create a fundamentally more and more serious risks of global instability.

The danger is that the presence of anti-missile "umbrella" can lead to pernicious illusions of invincibility and impunity, which means - give rise to the temptation in the "hot heads" in Washington for new dangerous unilateral steps in solving global and regional problems in circumvention of the UN Security Council and contrary common sense, as it was done April 7, when the US launched a missile attack on a sovereign state - Syria.

There is only one way to solve this problem - the United States in the implementation of its missile defense plans are required not only in words, but in fact guided by the generally accepted, and has been repeatedly confirmed by the Washington profile on international markets principle of the inadmissibility of strengthening their own security at the expense of other states.

2. US obligations under the INF Treaty

Washington gives wrong information about their "fulfillment" of obligations under the INF Treaty. Already the United States for many years simply ignore Russia's serious concerns that are directly related to the implementation of the American side of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty:

- US placed at its missile base in Romania and will be located on the same basis in Poland ground missile complexes "Aegis Eshor", composed of vertical launch system similar universal installations Mk-41, capable of launching cruise missiles average "Tomahawk" range . It is a fact that it is - a gross violation of obligations under the INF Treaty.

- In the interests of missile defense for more than two decades, the United States continued to test with the target missiles that are similar in characteristics to the ballistic missiles of intermediate and shorter-range ground-based, improving, inter alia, key elements of the INF Treaty, prohibited missile systems.

- the United States for many years building up the production and use of percussion drones. Such eventual delivery means WMD clearly fall under the definition contained in the INF cruise missiles, land-based.

It should be noted that the last two of these violations the INF Treaty, we point out the American colleagues for the past fifteen years. No no constructive response.

With regard to our concerns related to the deployment of US land-based missile launchers, then after we first announced it in 2014, the United States, instead of at least trying to solve this problem, in response to a campaign launched by the public, absolutely unfounded accusations Russia in violation of the INF Treaty: that our country produces and tests banned under the Treaty of ground-launched cruise missiles. No argument capable of supporting advanced in our address the claims, and is not shown. Transmitted by the American side "information," which supposedly allow you to determine what it is, in fact, it is a fragmentary fragmentary signals, does not make it clear on what is still based bankrupt American concern. A matter of grave concern, that the representatives of a number of US agencies use similar "factology" as a pretext for the promotion of the next campaign on the possible use of "reciprocal measures" against Russia.

3. US obligations under the NPT

The US claims to "fulfill" their obligations under the NPT, however, still did not change the alarming situation related to non-compliance with key provisions of the Washington Treaty. The US continues to attract European non-nuclear NATO countries to participate in the so-called "joint nuclear missions." These "missions" include the elements of nuclear planning and the development of practical skills in the use of nuclear weapons with the activation of carrier aircraft, their crews, infrastructure, airports and ground services provide non-nuclear NATO countries. All this is a direct violation of Articles I and II of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Moreover, in recent years has launched a campaign of unprecedented scale upgrade of all components of the American nuclear arsenal, including non-strategic nuclear weapons in the territory of other states. US plans to deploy in Europe, new nuclear bombs with a reduced capacity, but increased accuracy. With such characteristics substantially reduced "threshold" of nuclear weapons. These nuclear weapons are no longer a "political weapon" and become "weapons of the battlefield." Simultaneously replicated unfounded false thesis about the growth of "the Russian nuclear threat." Deliberately distorted the position of our military doctrine concerning the use of nuclear weapons. Western public persistently told that Russia supposedly revises his views on the place and role of nuclear weapons and makes it all the more strong accent. All this is not true.

In the problem of "joint nuclear missions" can be only one solution - the return of all non-strategic nuclear weapons to the United States and a ban on his placement abroad, the elimination of the entire infrastructure to ensure rapid deployment of these weapons, and razumettsya, refusal to carry out any training (exercise) related to the development of skills of use of nuclear weapons of the armed forces of states that do not possess such weapons.

4. Avoiding the US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

The United States is of great concern unwillingness to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). As a result of this extremely important international treaty for 20 years can not go into the category of acting.

Moreover, the influential political circles in the US, according to the available information, is not alien to the idea of ??a possible resumption of nuclear tests. Its implementation would be directly contrary to the declared Washington's commitment to strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

Given the fact that the issue of accession to the CTBT Treaty remained outside the country behave with a direct eye on the United States, as "stagnant" Washington's position is the main obstacle to the transformation of the CTBT in the existing international legal instrument.

5. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the United States Government on the Disposition of Plutonium Designated as plutonium designated as no longer required for defense purposes, handling and cooperation in this area and the protocols to that Agreement (hereinafter - SOAP)

Approval of the US side that the Presidential Decree on the suspension of the SOAP does not a good reason for suspending the operation of the Agreement in accordance with international law, does not correspond to reality.

The preamble of the Decree clearly stated that the decision to suspend the SOAP was made due to fundamental changes in the circumstances, the emergence of the threat to strategic stability as a result of the United States of hostile actions against the Russian Federation and the United States failure to ensure fulfillment of the obligations for disposal of excess weapons-grade plutonium under international treaties. Suitable surfaces are reproduced in Article 1 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation ? 381-FZ, dated October 31, 2016, which legislated the suspension of the SOAP.

Thus, in the period after the entry into force of SOAP in June 2011, the United States has taken a number of steps leading to a radical change in the circumstances that existed at the conclusion of this Agreement.

In 2012, the United States adopted the so-called "Magnitsky Act", which initiated the unprecedented sanctions pressure on our country under false pretenses.

From 2014, after the reunification of the Crimea with the US Russia made a series of hostile moves aimed at direct undermining of the Russian economy and social stability, including "the Freedom Support Act of Ukraine", allowing interference in Russia's internal affairs. Sanctions were also imposed on the individual subjects of the Russian Federation, Russian individuals and legal entities.

At the same time it began actively build military infrastructure of NATO and US troops near the Russian borders, which radically changes the strategic balance in Europe, and is fraught with increased military confrontation and tension.

In connection with Russia set out above was adopted, said the decision to suspend the actions of SOAP in full accordance with Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

An additional argument in favor of the decision to suspend the SOAP was the apparent inability of the American side to fulfill obligations under the disposal of its own surplus weapons-grade plutonium on schedule and within the agreed terms with the Russian side. The assertion that the United States all the activities fit into the obligations set SOAP is not true.

In early February 2016 the Obama administration officially appealed to the US Congress with a message about the intention to change the method of disposal of 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium, subject to the SOAP. The new method does away with the use of weapons grade plutonium as fuel for nuclear reactors (so-called MOX) and provided instead simplified immobilization analogue - weapons grade plutonium mixing with the filler, followed by disposal in salt deposits. In this case, the US side has announced its intention to stop construction of a MOX fuel plant at the Savannah River (South Carolina) and plans to turn the unfinished plant in the next few years.

We note that the United States acted with the idea of ??"immobilization" of plutonium at the stage of preparation of SOAP. The Russian side has consistently pointed to the fact that such an approach can not ensure the irreversibility of disposal.

Violation on the part of Washington is that steps to change the method of plutonium disposition US administration began to take without getting consent from the Russian side, contrary to the provisions of the Agreement. Moreover, this was done after it was clearly brought to the US side that such an agreement will not be.

The Russian side is ready to consider the renewal of the SOAP after eliminating the American side the reasons that led to a fundamental change in the circumstances that existed at the date of entry into force of the Agreement, including the understanding that the United States will adhere to the agreed method of disposal.

6. Problems in compliance with the BTWC by the US

At the VIII Review Conference of the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC OK, Geneva, 7-25 November 2016), the US delegation at the crucial moment has blocked efforts to find compromise solutions. The result was disrupted adoption of the work program within the framework of the BTWC for the period 2017-20 gg.

Such unseemly course in general was not unexpected. Destructive experience of the US in this area considerable. Back in 2001 the US side derailed all the results of decades of multilateral negotiations on a verification protocol to the BWC.

All this makes Russia, which fully complies with its obligations under the BTWC, to think about the real and not declared to the public, military and biological agenda of the United States.

Against the background of the continuing weakening of the regime prohibiting biological weapons, the growing concern to us is to remain without Russian response questions with regard to implementation of and compliance with US obligations under the BTWC.

We can not but worry the planned deployment of US military biological infrastructure for the perimeter of the Russian borders. Particularly alarming significant increase posted in Georgia (p.Alekseevka) Department of Medical Research of the US Army. Pentagon is a realization of similar projects in other our neighboring countries.

Lack of clarity in relation to sending anthrax-established microbiological targets US military. Thus, in the 2005-15 biennium. of the Laboratory. L.Salomona (Dagueysky landfill, Utah) anthrax spores were sent to 194 destinations in 10 countries. Such actions raise serious concern given the fact that in 2001 the Research Institute for Infectious Diseases of the US Army (Fort Detrick, Maryland) have become a source of destruction of civilians the same disease.

Moreover, contrary to the obligations of the United States and the relevant decisions taken by the American participation at the international level, Washington still allows for the possibility of "retaliatory use" toxic weapons and other types of chemical weapons.

According to the Order number 11850 US President Dzh.Forda (1975), the American armed forces are allowed to use "non-lethal" toxin weapons and other types of chemical weapons as a method of warfare. It is clear that the degree of "non-lethality" US military will in such cases to determine on their own.

All this together creates a very disturbing picture around the "observance" of obligations under the BTWC by the United States.

7. Implementation of the US obligations under the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

For many years in their reports to the US State Department is trying to challenge the completeness of the Russian ad Article III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC) and thereby to question the competence and authority of the OPCW deserved as an effective and successful international structures in the area of ??disarmament and non-proliferation of WMD. Unlike Washington, claims at the OPCW to Russia simply does not have.

The United States should still more responsible approach to the issue of non-state actors use of chemical weapons in the Middle East region. And for this you just need to act within the framework of their obligations under UNSCR 2118, 2209 and 2235, and to share with the Security Council LIH evidence of crime and other terrorist groups in Iraqi Kurdistan, received the US military in 2015-2016. directly from the field of application extremists poisons.

It would not hurt to also get acquainted with the "irrefutable" evidence storage on the Syrian air base "Shayrat" chemical weapons, which was allegedly applied during airstrikes on settlement Khan Shaykhun, and to understand why the alleged himitsidentom in the Syrian province of Idlib Washington had acted in breach of international law. Moreover, the Americans and their allies blocked the adoption of the OPCW Executive Council decision without delay a thorough and impartial investigation on the spot in himintsidenta Khan Shaykhun with inspection visits by OPCW airbase "Shayrat", a draft of which was presented to Russia and Iran.

According to officially confirmed information, the US Defense Department during the occupation of the coalition troops in Iraq (2003-2009 gg.) Found, including purchased from the local population, about 5 thousand. Different himboepripasov produced during the reign of Saddam Hussein. At the same time the United States has not notified its actions according to the requirements of the CWC Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and spent their destruction in Iraq without proper verification and unsafe for people (there is evidence of the defeat of American troops) and the environment by undermining the outdoors.

In this context, it is surprising negative US reaction to Russia's repeated appeals in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article IX of the CWC in respect of access to the archives of the OPCW Technical Secretariat, related to this issue. We believe that our appeal will still be considered a positive.

Upon accession to the CWC with any ogovorkok, but the US Senate has not been done by the United States in the ratification documents recorded a number of conditions, bearing in terms of meeting Washington's obligations under the Convention is quite controversial.

So, the president and the administration are obliged to take action, if necessary, in violation of the CWC requirements, namely to prohibit the export of any chemical samples collected in the United States, outside of the country; impose restrictions on the possibility of carrying out inspections in the US OPCW experts to identify prohibited activities under the Convention at the request of another Member State; maintain in action Executive Order number 11850 US president on April 8, 1975, allowing in certain situations to use chemical weapons, intended for riot control, for military purposes (prohibited by Article I of the CWC).

The US continues to maintain reservations to the Geneva Protocol banning the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and bacteriological methods of warfare 1925, suggests the possibility of retaliatory use of chemical weapons and lethal incapacitating (incapacitating) action, which is also prohibited under Article I of the CWC.

8. Compliance with the Vienna Document 2011

Unfortunately, in assessing compliance with the obligations under the Vienna Document 2011 (VD-2011) on measures to strengthen confidence and security the United States regularly reproduce accusations against Russia in "selective implementation" and "lack of transparency".

US claims for WA-2011 are reduced to statements of some taking place in 2014. US concerns over the "execution of Russia VD-2011, including with regard to Ukraine."

Groundlessly accusing Russia of "arming, training separatists in eastern Ukraine, and administered together with them fighting," the United States and NATO countries have seriously discredited the role VD-2011 as a tool for objective monitoring military activity of states - participants of the OSCE. In this connection it is necessary to once again point out the obvious: The Russian Federation is not a party to the internal conflict in Ukraine.

With regard to the repeated reference to the Vienna Document (as CFE) allegations of "occupation", "annexation" of the Crimea and the deployment of troops "without the consent of the host country", then joining the peninsula to Russia is the result of the free will of its multi-ethnic population. The current status of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as the Russian Federation - a closed issue. He is not subject to revision. Accordingly, Russia is free to place any of its troops and military equipment on its own territory. Attempts to inspect the territory of Crimea as part of Ukraine's inspections are provocative and futile. Russia, of course, is ready to receive the inspectors, observers and evaluation group in the Crimea, in the case of the direction of her request on the Vienna Document.

By the way, Kiev still has not fulfilled its obligations under the Vienna Document in relation to the military activities of its forces in the Donbas. However, this does not say anything to the US State Department report.

With regard to accusations against us not to provide information on military bases of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, located in the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, note that these sovereign states are not the OSCE participating States and, accordingly, are not included in the application area of ??confidence-building measures, it defined 2011 Vienna document of the year. American experts who prepared this section of the State Department report, of course, well aware of this. Of course, they know, and that the said information is still available Russia, but in line with other OSCE documents - Global exchange of military information.

In 2016, as before, the Russian side has repeatedly sent voluntarily States - OSCE participating States, including the United States, the notification detailing the parameters of conduct unscheduled inspections. Of course, they take into account only those powers which fall under the provisions of the Vienna Document. It is significant that in the past year or "unusual" or "unplanned" military activities or exceeding the parameters of notifiable military activities of the armed forces have not been recorded in the course of inspections of the OSCE Vienna Document of the States Parties. Therefore, in the report of the State Department's hints at the possibility of such exceedances during unannounced inspections groundless.

A few words about the report referred to in (of course, with the reproach that we are "hidden" data) Russian major weapon and military equipment. As has been repeatedly shown to our partners, armored vehicles BRM-1K by its characteristics do not fit into any of the categories of such equipment, which must be provided with information on the Vienna Document. A combat aircraft Su-30cm and attack helicopter Ka-52 has not yet been put into service.

As for the two military units that are not reflected in the Russian information on the Vienna Document, they are there to be, and should not, because they do not meet the criteria set out in paragraph 10 of the VD-2011.

Washington exaggerated accusations of "unwillingness" of Russia to participate in the renewal of pan-European regime of confidence-building measures. Increasing military pressure on Russia, we both offer on the path of "substantial modernization" mode confidence- and security of the Vienna Document, which, in the understanding of the US and its allies should be aimed at a unilateral increase in the transparency of our armed forces, and in some cases - undermining the foundations of OSCE activity - the principle of consensus in decision-making.

However, the transparency measures did not build in a confrontation policy of sanctions and non-military cooperation. The policy of "containment" of Russia undermines the basis for negotiations on updating the HP-2011.

We believe that provided for the HP-2011 engine provides the necessary information about the armed forces of states - participants of the OSCE, and at this stage corresponds to the existing realities in the field of European security.

In the current report, as before, the United States "modestly" silent about the numerous problems with the implementation of the Vienna Document, available both in themselves and that of their allies. For example, during an inspection of one of the US forces in Germany January 19, 2016, its representatives refused to explain the discrepancy between the stated and the actual quantities of arms. Not consistent with the letter and spirit of the Vienna Document of openness and a similar behavior of Polish accompanying during an inspection 6-9 June 2016 Four times a year the Russian inspectors have been denied the opportunity to observe the military exercises of NATO, since the timing of their change without any notice .

9. The issue of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

As the authors of the report of the State Department once again mentioned the suspension of Russia's participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, presenting it as a "violation" of the obligations under this Treaty, it should be recalled next.

The US and its allies have repeatedly bypassed the restrictive provisions of the CFE due to the expansion of NATO. However, they went in every possible way by the proposed renovation Russian regime of control over conventional arms in Europe (Cove) in accordance with the new military-political realities of the continent. The most striking proof of this - their refusal to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the CFE.

Only after the suspension of Russian actions CFE US and its allies were forced to talking about the "need to decide on the future fate of the cove." However, their attempts to use the dialogue on this issue as a lever of pressure on Russia eventually led to its freezing.

Verbally expressing commitment to "maintain, strengthen and modernize the conventional arms control in Europe", the US and NATO on the matter in recent years, again headed for the "containment" of Russia and further change the balance of power in the European region in its favor, including close proximity to the Russian borders. US attempts to "flexible" interpretation of the provisions of the Russia-NATO Council on the "substantial combat forces", coupled with increased volumes of heavy weapons and military equipment in the units and in European warehouses forward deployed NATO is de facto a dangerous balancing on the brink of violation of the provisions of this important document.

Taking into account all these circumstances, return to the topic of implementation of long and hopelessly outdated CFE does not make sense.

As for the prospects of developing a new regime Cove on the principles of equal and indivisible security, balance of rights and obligations of the parties, they should be considered in the context of failure NATO troops from the military action of "containment" of Russia in Europe, the normalization of relations with the Russian Federation, including in the field of military cooperation.

10. US obligations under the Treaty on Open Skies

The American side not for the first time reproduces a template of accusations against Russia in the alleged failure to comply with the Open Skies Treaty (OST). For these claims, we repeatedly gave full answers in the Consultative Commission for the Open Skies (UNSC), and in the comments on previous reports of the State Department.

So, forced to once again remind you that the limit on the maximum range of the Kaliningrad region is entered in accordance with the provisions of the UNSC resolution and DON. This arrangement provides the same performance monitoring, as well as during flights over the rest of the territory of the Russian Federation and on the territory of neighboring states (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia).

Restrictions DON flights near the borders with the independent states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia introduced in accordance with the Agreement, providing that observation flights shall be held no closer than 10 km from the state border, which is not a party to it.

Our demand prepayment for observation flights over the Ukrainian territory of the Russian Federation due to the failure to return the Kiev Russia billions of dollars in debt. Its validity is confirmed by the fact that Ukraine still does not pay the bill for their own participation in the activities on the inspection of Russian Digital Sky open platforms in June 2016. This report some reason did not say anything.

Unfortunately, Americans are silent about the abuses and problems with compliance DON by the United States itself, its NATO allies and other "close" it states.

During the 12 years of the US ignored its Treaty provisions on the development of special procedures for the monitoring of its island territories and possessions. Thus, for a long time a significant part of the territory of the United States are not available for observation, which is a gross violation of the foundations of the Treaty. Only at the end of 2015. Washington went to meet our requirements. A corresponding procedure for the Aleutian Islands still do not provide the opportunity to stop for a rest of the crew, which may adversely affect the safety and significantly limits the ability of Russia to monitor this part of the United States.

Refusing to provide a sufficient number of intermediate stops, the United States (and with them, and Canada) is almost shut down their territory against surveillance An-30B Russian aircraft with digital equipment, in breach of Article III of the Treaty, providing for the obligation of each State party to accept observation flights over its territory . In support of this position the US side referred to the need to clarify the text of the UNSC decision on the issue, but so far not taken any steps in this direction. At the same time Washington was blown argument about the alleged emerging threat to US national security in the case of flights of Russian aircraft open sky with digital on-board complex. Although it was the US initiated the "transition to digital" in DON.

The American side, assume the right to judge the actions of other states, persistently justifies the breach of contractual obligations by their intimate partners and allies. For example, the US in fact supported devastating for Georgia Contract termination decision to perform its obligations under the DON in relation to Russia, thereby creating a precedent for selective implementation of the multilateral instrument. Rather than condemn the contrary to the provisions DON closing Turkey from seeing a significant region in the south-east of the country, Washington cynically declared that he was satisfied with the way Ankara fulfills the contract. Considering the need to "take into account the security environment" in Turkey, the United States for many years sought to overturn the established Russian hazardous airspace over the Chechen Republic and the surrounding areas. By insisting on the ability to make observation flights over the whole of Russia (including over Moscow) without restrictions on height, they prefer not to pay attention to such restrictions in the United Kingdom, Norway and some other countries (by the way, the report for the first time recognizes the link between the appearance of the last and the examination of Russian Tu-154M Lk-1 with digital on-board equipment). We raises serious concerns that the policy of "double standards" has become the norm for American counterparts.

11. Freezing American side tranche of Russia's voluntary contribution to the IAEA

In March 2017 the US banks have frozen tranche of Russia's voluntary contribution to the implementation of the IAEA's Program of Action for Cancer Therapy. Russian bank to make payments, the question was raised as to whether the translation of attitude to Iran. Despite assurances from the Russian side that the money is allocated purely for humanitarian purposes, US banks delayed tranche of translation for a few weeks, and at the beginning of April 2017 returned the frozen funds to the account of the State Corporation "Rosatom". As a result, the IAEA still has not received Russia's voluntary contribution to the goal of cancer treatment in 2017.

It seems that American financial institutions are unlikely to be decided on their own to go to the blocking state payments sovereign state. Most likely, this is a free interpretation of American government restrictions in the context of national sanctions which hit indiscriminately, even on purely humanitarian operations. Despite the repeated statement of the Russian side of the issue in contacts with officials of the United States, the US administration has not clarified its banks fallacy of steps taken by them. One gets the impression of deliberate creation of obstacles to the financing of the IAEA Russian humanitarian project. These actions of the US banks may be regarded as an abuse of the international financial system by ensuring that transactions in dollars, in this case directly affects the functioning of the UN system.

* * *

To summarize this brief review, we look forward to receiving any clear explanations on all the facts presented by us and urge the US again to abandon the unseemly practice against the background of their own serious "flaws" to put forward baseless claims to other countries, thereby misleading the international public opinion. We also hope to return to Washington and proven more than once proved its effectiveness method for the settlement of disputes and disagreements - full-length negotiations with a comprehensive examination of the essence of the problems without bias and without politicization "of the work to the public" by presenting allegations.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list


 

privacy policy