| |||||||||
 |
 |
UNITED NATIONS -- Bill Clinton never met an arms control treaty or tax he didn't like, so it hardly comes as a surprise that he went rhetorically ballistic when the U.S. Senate shot down the recent Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
The vote came amid the stunning parallel political choreography of a military coup in rogue nuclear power Pakistan--a compelling reason to both sides of the debate for the need to control nuclear proliferation. Still accepting any Treaty for its own sake is poor diplomacy and dangerous security policy, and that why the Senate was correct in rejecting this flawed document.
The US already observes a moratorium on nuclear testing and so practically speaking, holds to the spirit of the document. Still, the US should pause before allowing itself to be legally bound by a security straitjacket once the Senate ratifies the text.
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) opined " I have little confidence that the verification and enforcement provisions will dissuade other nations from nuclear testing."
Though President Bill Clinton signed theTreaty in 1996 at the UN., I discovered many compelling reasons to hesitate before formal ratification--Algeria, China, India, Indonesia, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and Vietnam.
Administration allies claim that American leadership is needed to ensure global compliance--in other words we take the pledge first--and then presumably the People's Republic of China, among others, will gleefully follow Washington's lead and waltz down the primrose path to world peace.
Another argument follows that if the other countries cheat, we will impose tough sanctions upon them. Well , Iraq's Saddam, Serbia's Milosevic and until recently Libya's Gadaffi were the subject of tough sanctions for well deserved reasons. What has realistically happened? These regimes remain in power.
We are likewise reminded that under the Treaty terms, the national legislatures of forty-four countries with nuclear capability must approve the document before it takes effect--presently twenty-six states have done so including close American allies such as Belgium, Canada and Germany.
Of the seven acknowledged nuclear powers, only Britain and France have ratified the Treaty--the others Communist China and Russia have signed but not ratified while, North Korea, India and Pakistan have neither signed nor ratified..
Though France's Socialist government hypocritically lambasted the U.S. for not ratifying the Treaty, it was precisely France a few years ago who had to prudence not to sign this document until French nuclear testing produced a system par excellence. In other words when they got it exactly right, then Paris ratified the document.
Witnessing the shrill reactions from both Beijing and Moscow chastising the Senate, I was firmly convinced the Senate did the right thing.
President Clinton miscalculated on pushing for a formal vote he knew was far short of the two-thirds needed to pass. Despite all the Administration's self-righteous hype about partisan politics in the Republicans not ratifying the spurious document, one should be partisan in defense of American national interests. Recall a Treaty signed and ratified during the Carter Administration which allows for the handing over the Panama Canal in a few months time.
Commentators sagely advised that for the first time since Versailles in 1919, the Senate has voted down a Treaty--I seem to recall that Versailles was not exactly fondly remembered by too many Europeans, Americans or Chinese for that matter.
While it's pure nonsense to say we don't need arms control, it's far more reckless to claim that feel good treaties will somehow bully the bad boys into joining the polite community of nations.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues who writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
