Biden-Specter, House Proposals to Fund C.T.B. Preparatory Commission Amount to Treaty Implementation Without Ratification
(Washington, D.C.): In coming days,
Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Arlen Specter (R-PA)
are expected to seek a vote on an amendment to one of the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations
measures that would, if approved, effectively begin the implementation of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTB) prior to its approval by two-thirds of the Senate. Quite apart
from the
fact that this initiative deserves to be defeated on its merits, Senators should be disinclined to
approve any such affront to their institution’s constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities.
The Biden-Specter amendment reportedly would provide some $28 million
to the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty’s Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) — yet another international bureaucracy
created by a multilateral treaty for the purpose of promulgating monitoring arrangements and
other implementing procedures.(1) A similar, but somewhat
less ambitious effort to circumvent the
Constitution is contained in H.R. 4276, the House version of the FY 1999 Commerce, Justice,
State, and Judiciary Appropriations Act now awaiting House action. This version would make
only $15 million available and only for certain purposes (e.g., administrative expenses, purchase of
training equipment and upgrades to existing monitoring systems).
The net effect of both, however, would be to advance an agenda that has become increasingly
commonplace as the Clinton Administration has striven to accomplish its agenda through
executive orders and by expending funds and otherwise adjusting federal programs to make them
conform to unratified treaty requirements.
Congress should make unmistakably clear its determination to prevent such erosions
of its
authority.(2) To its great credit, the House of
Representatives did just that last week when it
voted to reject the Administration’s bid to begin covert implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol —
an accord the President has refused to date to submit to the Senate. This welcome action
occurred when an amendment to the House of Representatives’ Housing and Urban
Development/Veterans’ Affairs appropriations bill offered by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) was
defeated by a sizeable bipartisan majority. A similar effort should be made by the Congress with
respect to the Administration’s bid to impose new constraints on missile defense programs,
without forwarding its new Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaties for the
Senate’s advice and
consent.
Shattering Lingering Illusions About the CTB
Both the Biden-Specter amendment on the Comprehensive Test Ban and the House
Appropriation Committee’s funds for PrepCom — like the Administration’s machinations
involving the Kyoto Protocol and the new ABM treaties — reflect an unhappy reality for the
proponents of these flawed agreements: None of these accords is likely to pass muster in the
Senate.
In the case of the CTB, the reason is fairly self-evident. As the Center for Security Policy
noted
on 19 May 1998(3):
- “…The inescapable truth, borne out by the recent Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests is
that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will not prevent nations determined to have
nuclear weapons from achieving their goal. It cannot even be relied upon to prevent
them from conducting covert nuclear tests.
“The only thing this treaty will surely do is deny the United States the one
tried-and-true technique available to us to assure the safety, reliability and
effectiveness of the American nuclear deterrent. By permanently precluding
the sort of periodic, safe, underground testing used to find and fix defects in the
Nation’s thermonuclear arsenal — and to minimize the susceptibility of that arsenal
to accidents or functional obsolescence — the CTB would be worse than useless.
It would actually be detrimental to U.S. security.”
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Unable to muster the facts in support of treaty ratification, the proponents of these legislative
end-runs are hoping to pressure their colleagues to vote for this ill-advised and defective treaty by
pointing to a recent public opinion poll purporting to show that sizeable majorities of Americans
support the CTB. To achieve such results, however, these polls — which have been sponsored by
a group of arms control advocacy organizations, the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear
Dangers —
assign to the Comprehensive Test Ban benefits it cannot deliver and downplay the real
costs associated with this treaty for the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
For example, one illustrative question declares that “the [CTB] is an important step in
stopping
the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide…and would prevent other countries from developing
reliable nuclear weapons.” It goes on to assert that the U.S. “does not need further nuclear tests
to maintain our nuclear arsenal.” None of these claims is true.
The question goes on to misrepresent in important ways the considered judgment of experts
opposed to this treaty. It tells respondents that CTB opponents believe that ratification of the
treaty “would prevent the U.S. from conducting tests to maintain and improve our nuclear arsenal
while other countries seeking nuclear arms could continue to conduct secret tests.” In fact,
hard
experience shows that nuclear testing is not just nice to have but essential to the U.S.
ability
to “maintain and improve” its nuclear arsenal. The public would be unlikely to respond
the
same way if the question were phrased more accurately: “Would you support a permanent
cessation of the testing necessary to assure the reliability, safety and effectiveness of the U.S.
nuclear deterrent, even though other countries will be able covertly to continue such testing and,
thereby, to increase the threat they are able to pose to the United States?”
The Bottom Line
Legislators would be wise to heed the advice of Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott (R-MS)
who declared 29 May 1998:
- “American policy should shift from a misguided focus on an unverifiable and
ineffective [CTB] treaty that precludes maintaining the safety and reliability of
the U.S. nuclear deterrent to a sustained effort to build international support for
de-escalating the nuclear arms race in Asia. This should include multilateral
sanctions and a complete reappraisal of U.S. export control, counter-proliferation and
arms control policies.”
If Senator Lott’s colleagues follow his lead, then at least 34 Senators will vote against
the
Biden-Specter amendment — thus demonstrating that the CTB Treaty is unratifiable. The House
should do nothing to preempt the constitutional prerogatives of the Senate by approving
any
funds for the CTB PrepCom.
– 30 –
1. See in this connection the Center’s Decision
Briefs entitled Truth or Consequences # 11:
Clinton’s ‘Changes’ to the CWC Are Necessary, But Clearly Not Sufficient (
April 1997), Will 1998 Be The ‘Year of Surrendered Sovereignty’?
(No. 98-D 01, 5 January
1998) and Senator Lott ‘Grows’ in Office (
2. See Chairman Helms Sets the Right Priorities on
Pending Treaties: ABM Amendments,
Kyoto Accord to Precede the Test Ban (No. 98-P
13, 22 January 1998), Senate Should Vote to
Defend America ‘As Soon As Technologically Possible’ (
Implementation of Treaties Without Ratification, Period (
3. See India’s Nuclear Tests Show Folly of Clinton’s
C.T.B. (No. 98-D 86, 19 May 1998).
4. For a detailed discussion of the implications of the CTB for U.S.
nuclear forces and other
nations’ nuclear programs, see India’s Nuclear Tests Demonstrate the Bankruptcy
of Clinton’s
So-Called ‘Non-Proliferation’ Policy (No. 98-D 82,
12 May 1998).
- Frank Gaffney departs CSP after 36 years - September 27, 2024
- LIVE NOW – Weaponization of US Government Symposium - April 9, 2024
- CSP author of “Big Intel” is American Thought Leaders guest on Epoch TV - February 23, 2024