The San Francisco Chronicle
September 24, 1997

Banning Nuclear Tests

THE END of the Cold War has opened fresh opportunities for nations to agree on sensible nuclear policies. Why then has it taken so long to approve a ban on nuclear weapons tests? For starters, rival nations such as India and Pakistan refuse to give up a potent weapon. Also, there are skeptics, including Republicans in the U.S. Senate, who question whether a ban can really be enforced.

This is the dispiriting deadlock that President Clinton is trying to break with his call for this country to take the lead and approve a test ban. He signed the United Nations document last year and will now push the Senate to follow suit. On balance, this country's interests are amply protected. Computer simulations and lab tests can keep research up to date, and this nation spends $4.5 billion maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal. Snooping to make sure Russia or China abide by the treaty is reliable though not foolproof.

Clinton's initiative also focuses attention on the improving image of the United Nations. The president says he will push for payment of $ 1 billion in back dues, withheld because of doubts about the U.N.'s tangled bureaucracy. With reforms made, the world organization may finally collect the money. A test ban treaty, once signed, would be a convincing example of what the international body can achieve.