All bets are off! You'll see a lot of testing. You'll have Russia testing, you'll have China testing, you'll have India testing, you'll have Pakistan testing. And we will be in a much, much more dangerous world," he said.
The reaction of Congress to this warning of dire consequences by US President Bill Clinton should the US abandon the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was to resoundingly defeat the treaty -- the first time the Senate had rejected a major treaty since it turned its back on the Treaty of Versailles over 80 years ago. Clinton's overstated warnings of gloom and doom notwithstanding, the CTBT's defeat is not likely to result in the immediate resumption of nuclear weapons tests, either by the US or by any of the above-referenced states. Indeed, the Chinese have elected, at least thus far, to seize the moral high road, contrasting their continued commitment to the cause of nuclear disarmament with Congress' abandonment of this lofty goal. The Russians, among others, have similarly taken delight in criticizing the US for its "do as I say, not as I do" approach to foreign policy.
Ratification setback
However, the Senate's 48-51 vote -- with minor exceptions, almost exclusively along party lines -- has certainly set back, if not killed, any hope for immediate ratification of the treaty from most of the significant treaty hold-outs, most prominently India and Pakistan. As one senior Pakistani arms control official noted just before the vote, "If the largest power is out of this, it's all over -- this treaty is dead." (For the treaty to enter into effect, all 44 nations that have the presumed capacity to build nuclear devices are required to ratify the treaty. While US ratification would not guarantee that others will follow suit, the failure of the US to even come close to the two-thirds majority needed to ratify -- itself sufficient to prevent the treaty's entry into force -- also effectively removes the pressure on other significant recalcitrants to come forward.)
While this may not mean the death of the arms control and non-proliferation movement as we know it, it certainly raises legitimate questions about America's willingness and ability to continue to lead this effort. It also demonstrates US partisan politics at its very worst. As one US weekly news journal lamented, "What happened in the Senate's back alleys -- and, finally, on the Senate floor -- was a nasty political food fight over nothing less than the international arms race."
Another political commentator described the Senate's action -- in my view, rightly -- as "a dangerous abdication" of US world leadership, further arguing that "the desire to punish Clinton is no justification for a vote that caused international dismay and damaged America's national interest."
While this was clearly not one of Congress' (or America's) finest hours, it would be wrong to dismiss the vote as simply an ugly exercise of US partisan politics. There were some serious reservations about the treaty and Clinton failed to make a convincing case for ratification, causing even moderate Republicans who might be otherwise inclined to abandon the treaty.
Verification procedures
The most serious attacks against the treaty focused on two issues: verification and the ability of the US to maintain its nuclear arsenal. The verification argument seemed disingenuous to many. While it may be impossible to absolutely prove a negative -- that a country will not or cannot cheat -- the treaty allows for additional monitoring stations and challenge inspections that would significantly decrease the ability of potential violators to test. This is not a treaty based on good faith alone; it contains serious, highly intrusive verification procedures.
RSS