14 October 1999
(Clinton Pledges to Maintain Moratorium, Pursue Arms Control) (1140) By Ralph Dannheisser Washington File Congressional Correspondent Washington -- When the U.S. Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty October 13, it marked the first time in the nuclear age that the body had turned down an arms control agreement negotiated by the executive branch. Some observers reached back further in terms of a historical parallel and compared the action to the Senate's rejection in 1919 and 1920 of the Treaty of Versailles creating the League of Nations -- a pact that had been fervently pushed by President Woodrow Wilson. That action denying U.S. membership hobbled the international organization and, many historians feel, helped create the international conditions that ultimately led to World War II. While denouncing the Senate's CTBT action as dangerous and motivated by partisanship, President Clinton pledged later October 13 that it did not spell the end for U.S. participation in arms control -- that "when all is said and done, the United States will ratify the test ban treaty." Moreover, Clinton promised that, despite the defeat, the United States under his presidency would continue its policy of abstaining from all nuclear testing, a policy it has followed since 1992. The CTBT would institutionalize such a testing halt for all participating nations, adding a ban on underground explosions to an existing ban on atmospheric testing. As vexing as it may be at times to members of the executive branch, the Senate's role in approving treaties is clearly established in the basic document setting forth the structure of the U.S. government -- the Constitution, ratified in 1789. That founding document prescribes that the president "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur." In the present case, proponents of the treaty did not even come close to mustering the required margin. Indeed, they failed to gain a simple majority, with just 48 votes in favor, 51 against, and Senator Robert Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat, voting present. Developments in the days and hours leading up to the vote suggested that the outcome resulted from a blend of partisanship and deeply held conviction. Partisanship could be deduced from the fact that only four of the Republicans, who are in the majority in the Senate, parted company with 51 of their colleagues to vote in favor of ratification. Meanwhile, 44 of the 45 Democrats voted to ratify, with only Byrd withholding his outright support. But at the same time, it appeared clear that principle on both sides played a role as well. Among the Republicans who opposed the treaty as written were Senator John Warner of Virginia, the widely respected chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, himself a champion of earlier arms control efforts including the Nunn-Lugar Act. Many senators -- including some who had substantive objections to portions of the treaty -- worked hard to put off a vote, once it became clear that the votes for passage were lacking. An outright defeat by the Senate, they worried, could undermine the United States' standing as a moral leader in the world and encourage other countries with a nuclear capability to expand testing of their own weapons. Warner, along with his equally respected colleague, Democrat Daniel Moynihan of New York, led an effort to convince Senate Majority (Republican) Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi to take the issue off the Senate schedule. By late October 13, Warner and Moynihan reported that more than half of the 100 senators had signed on to their effort. But that was not enough to sway the Senate leadership in the face of the determined insistence by several Republicans, including Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that the treaty be voted on and defeated. U.S. allies around the world swiftly expressed disappointment at the Senate action, with NATO Secretary General George Robertson saying he hoped that "this is not a permanent position." Meanwhile Russia, which itself has yet to ratify the treaty, said it was "disillusioned and seriously concerned" by the vote. "This decision is a serious blow to the entire system of agreements in the field of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation," Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Rakhmanin said. The outcome of the vote, the stakes in terms of defense policy and worldwide arms control efforts, and the post-vote comments by the president virtually guarantee that the Senate action will become a campaign issue as the 2000 federal elections approach. Nationwide elections will be held in just over a year for a new president, one third of the 100-member Senate, and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives. As a rule, it should be noted, foreign policy issues do not tend to energize U.S. voters. Nevertheless, Democrats can be expected to take up Clinton's argument that "it is crazy for America to walk away from Britain and France, 11 of our NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies, the heads of our nuclear labs, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 32 Nobel laureates, and the whole world, having depended on us for all these decades to lead the fight for nonproliferation." Those arguments could be made more forcefully if, for example, Russia or China -- both also adhering to a moratorium at this time -- resumes testing, or if increasing tensions between India and Pakistan lead to an acceleration of their nuclear weapons production and testing programs. "We expect that this should be and will be a national issue next year in the presidential elections," Senate Minority (Democratic) Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said after the vote. Republicans could try to use the issue as well, suggesting that the Senate saved this country from signing on to an unenforceable and unverifiable treaty that would also threaten efforts to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Most Republican candidates for their party's presidential nomination, including the front-runner, Texas Governor George W. Bush, have already condemned the treaty. In the meantime, there would be nothing to prevent the president from bringing the treaty before the Senate once again -- perhaps with language appended to soothe serious opponents -- should changing circumstances produce a situation in which it appeared that the needed 67 votes for ratification could be mustered. To date, the CTBT has been signed by 154 nations -- with President Clinton the first national leader to sign, in 1996. But it has been ratified by only 26 of the 44 nations known to have a nuclear capability -- those nations that must ratify to put it in force. (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Programs, U.S. Department of State)