Senator Lugar Rebuts False Charges of Partisanship and Isolationism in the C.T.B.T. Vote

(Washington, D.C.): There are few members of the U.S. Senate whose reputations can
compare
to that of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) when it comes to bipartisanship on foreign policy matters,
support for American engagement overseas and confidence in the contribution arms control can
make to U.S. security and international peace. It was, consequently, a mortal blow to the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) when Sen. Lugar announced that, in his considered
judgment, that accord was too defective to warrant the Senate’s advice and consent.

It can only be hoped that — thanks to a powerful op.ed. article he published on 21
October
in the Chicago Tribune — a similar effect will now be achieved with respect to the
spurious,
insidious and clearly orchestrated efforts to portray his vote, and that of fifty other
Senators, against the CTBT as acts of partisanship, isolationism and rejection of all arms
control. Sen. Lugar is to be commended, first, for the courage he displayed in voting his
conscience and, now, for his willingness to contest the campaign of political character-
assassination being mounted by the Clinton Administration and its allies.

Treaty Not in the Best Interest of U.S. Safety and Security

By Sen. Richard Lugar

The Senate was right to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty last week.
Its usefulness
to the goal of non-proliferation is questionable. Even as a symbolic statement of our desire for a
safer world, it is problematic, because it would increase risks and uncertainties related to the
safety of our nuclear stockpile.

President Clinton’s complaint that he could not mount an effective lobbying campaign on
behalf
of the treaty because of the short notice of the vote demonstrates his lack of understanding about
how arms-control treaties are ratified. Past arms-control treaties have been passed by
substantial margins because senators have been involved in every step of the process.
Potential Senate objections have been anticipated during negotiations, and presidents have
worked with senators at an early stage to establish a mutual process of investigation and
debate on ratification. Despite having several years to engage the Senate, the Clinton
administration failed to initiate a serious campaign to address the legitimate concerns of senators.

The CTBT failed by a 19-vote margin, not because of a desire to embarrass the president, but
because senators had genuine concerns.

Many Republicans who voted against the treaty, as well as six former Secretaries of Defense
who
announced their opposition, have long records of support for verifiable arms-control agreements.
We understand the value that such treaties have had for the security of the United States and are
willing to work with a president who sends a sound treaty to the Senate.

But we also believe that an arms-control treaty must be verifiable, enforceable and
likely to
achieve its basic goals. An arms-control treaty must have teeth.
During the last two decades,
arms-control efforts have been successful because they have been based on hard-headed
assessments of our national interest. If we embrace an approach to arms control that
comes to
be perceived as a symbolic gesture, we will undermine support for and confidence in
further arms-control efforts.

The CTBT presented to the Senate by the president lacks teeth. It has serious
deficiencies,
both in its basic concept and in its envisioned implementation.

The treaty contains a complex verification and inspection procedure that must be improved.
Requests for on-site inspections are not automatically granted. They have to be approved by at
least 30 members of the treaty’s 51-member executive council. The treaty also includes a
loophole allowing each country to declare a 50-square kilometer area of its territory as off limits
to inspections.

If a country is caught conducting an illegal nuclear test, there is no effective process for
punishing that nation. The treaty envisions multilateral sanctions, but such efforts have proven
almost impossible to enact and enforce. Even against outlaw nations such as Iraq, we have found
it difficult to maintain international consensus for sanctions. How will we build support for
sanctions against more responsible and commercially important countries that choose to test?

We have no evidence that any nation serious about developing nuclear weapons will
be
dissuaded by this treaty. Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Libya and others who
have
sought nuclear weapons have done so because they want the power, prestige, and leverage that
comes with joining the nuclear club. Such countries will either refrain from signing the treaty or
will simply withdraw from it when they are ready to test.

Moreover, any country seeking nuclear weapons already will have disregarded the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty. An additional treaty is unlikely to affect their
calculations. In short, the
CTBT, as presently written, offers little benefit to the United States other than as a statement of
our moral intent with regard to nuclear weapons.

But ratifying this treaty would have tangible costs for our security. The
U.S. nuclear arsenal
provides a deterrent that is crucial to the safety of Americans and is relied upon as a security
umbrella by most countries around the world. Without testing, the safety and reliability
of the
stockpile will degrade unless an effective alternative to testing is established. Clinton
has
expressed faith in the “Stockpile Stewardship Program” — a computer-based method of
evaluating weapons. Progress has been made on this capability, but unfortunately, the jury still is
out on whether it can satisfy our needs indefinitely. The Senate was asked to trust the security of
our country to a program that is unproven and unlikely to be fully operational until perhaps 2010.

Proponents of this treaty have lamented the absence of cooperation and expressed fear that
we
have begun a period of partisan conflict over national security matters. But the
requirements of
bipartisanship do not include ratifying a major treaty when senators have serious doubts
about its efficacy.

In reality, the tradition of bipartisanship in foreign policy is too resilient to be extinguished
by a
vote on one issue. There is substantial support among senators of both parties for a cooperative
foreign policy and continued progress on arms control. The president and Congress should move
forward with substantive discussions, not only on the direction of arms control but on the
fundamental premises of our national security policy.

Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana is the senior Republican member of the Senate Foreign
Relations and
Intelligence Committees.