Wed, Oct 20, 1999 page8

• Test ban defeat marks new realism

  • John Bolton
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The US Senate's blunt rejection last week of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on nuc-lear weapons caused considerable international consternation. Many CTBT supporters, including Americans, worried almost hysterically that this first defeat of a major treaty, the most important since Versailles in 1920, meant that the US had truly gone isolationist. In turn, this led them to worry that nuclear proliferation will accelerate uncontrollably, and that international peace and security will be gravely threatened.

  In fact, both of these fears are not only incorrect, but are indications of a profoundly misguided and potentially dangerous philosophy in American foreign policy. Contrary to this timid and neo-pacifist analysis, the Senate vote on the CTBT marks the beginning of a new realism on the issue of weapons of mass destruction and their global proliferation. Although undoubtedly a stinging and perhaps crippling humiliation for the Clinton administration, the Senate vote is also an unmistakable signal that America rejects the illusory protections of unenforceable treaties. Mere promises by adversaries and rogue regimes, unverifiable in critical respects, simply do not provide adequate protections, and may actually hobble our ability to maintain the most important international guarantee of peace -- a credible US nuclear capability.

  These important substantive objections to the CTBT now risk being submerged by a frenzy of accusations by the treaty's supporters. Appalled as they are at their defeat, they seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge that serious moral, philosophical, political and military objections to the treaty carried the day. Instead of accepting defeat on the merits of the argument, they are determined to convince the rest of the world that the Senate vote represents either: (1) political animosity, bordering on hatred, for President Clinton personally; or (2) that Henry Cabot Lodge and the "Irreconcilables" of the 1920 Versailles treaty debate rose from their graves to take control of the Senate again. Spreading these myths is important for CTBT supporters, because it allows them to act as if the considered judgment of 51 Senators was in fact illegitimate.

  

  Consider the argument that partisan antipathy for President Clinton was the real motivating factor that persuaded an absolute majority of Senators to vote against the CTBT. It has certainly always been true, as Aristotle first pointed out, that "man is by nature a political animal." What actually happened here, however, is that Senate Democrats, with the President's consent, first brought politics into the issue by threatening to tie up all Senate business unless hearings and a floor debate were permitted on the CTBT. When Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott quickly agreed not just to a debate, but to an "advise and consent" vote, the President and the treaty's supporters were taken by surprise, utterly unaware that opposition to the CTBT had been growing quietly for some time.

  When the administration realized that it faced an enormous political debacle of its own making, it tried desperately to find a face-saving way out, hoping to blame Republicans and thereby gain politically in the 2000 elections. To advance that strategy, treaty supporters argued that there had not been sufficient hearings or enough time for floor debate in the Senate to give adequate consideration to the CTBT.

  So arguing, however, simply exposed further President Clinton's own failure of leadership. He signed the CTBT with great fanfare in 1996, and then largely ignored it for over three years. It should come as no surprise to any observer of the Clinton administration that, once having obtained the photo opportunity afforded by the election-year signing ceremony, the President's attention immediately shifted elsewhere.

  Thus, what really happened on the CTBT was the proper functioning of the American system of separation of powers. The United States does not have a parliamentary system where the legislative branch acquiesces meekly to what the president wants. Where, as here, a sufficient number of Senators believe that the president has failed to meet the obligations of his office, they have in truth their own constitutional obligations to fulfill, which is precisely what they did on October 13. This was not politics; a high constitutional principle was at stake.

  Moreover, the very breadth of opposition to the CTBT disproves the idea that the Senate vote reflects a new American isolationism. In the Clinton mythology, Senator Jesse Helms alone hijacked the entire American body politic. In fact, six former secretaries of defense (Schlesinger, Laird, Rumsfeld, Weinberger, Carlucci and Cheney), two of President Clinton's own former directors of central intelligence (James Woolsey and John Deutsch), and many, many other undoubted internationalists such as Henry Kissinger and Jeane Kirkpatrick were also opposed to ratification.

  In the Senate itself, one of the most articulate CTBT opponents was Senator Richard Lugar, who said: "I do not believe that the CTBT is of the same caliber as the arms control treaties that have come before the Senate in recent decades. Its usefulness to the goal of non-proliferation is highly questionable. Its likely ineffectuality will risk undermining support and confidence in the concept of multilateral arms control."

  These are not the words of an isolationist, but of someone who believed that the CTBT was hopelessly flawed. Neither Senator Lugar nor other treaty opponents advocated American isolationism, or even, necessarily, the rejection of multilateral arms control as a concept. In fact, the doomsday prophesies of treaty supporters demonstrate their lack of confidence in the merits of their own arguments, making them unwilling to debate seriously the concerns of Senator Lugar and others.

  In any event, the CTBT is dead. For Americans, this should be an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign, part of a larger debate on foreign policy issues sadly obscured under President Clinton. For others, this is a useful opportunity to re-examine in a hard-headed and realistic way how international peace and security are really guaranteed, and how to pursue serious non-proliferation efforts. The Senate has rejected wishes in favor of American strength and doubtless hopes our friends and allies will as well.

  John R. Bolton is the senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute. During the Bush administration, he served as the assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Palmeiras hopes for club cup win

  • 2

    US to deliver 10 new F-16s, source says

  • 3

    Taiwan blacklists Huawei and SMIC

  • 4

    Ma Ying-jeou’s forum speech regrettable, MAC says

  • 5

    Barring of Chinese officials justified, MAC says