The End of Arms Control as We Have Known It

(Washington, D.C.): An extraordinarily important, emerging reality is for the moment being
obscured by the vitriol and frenzied misrepresentations emanating from the Clinton
Administration and its allies in the wake of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty’s crushing
rejection by the United States Senate: Unverifiable and unenforceable multilateral arms
control treaties do not advance American security interests, will not enjoy the support
of the
necessary two-thirds of the Senate and must be eschewed by the U.S. executive branch.

Fortunately, three well-credentialed security policy practitioners with considerable
experience in
the negotiation and implementation of arms control agreements — former Director of
Central
Intelligence Robert Gates, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Assistant
Secretary of
State Richard Burt and former acting Director of the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament
Agency James Hackett — have each recently published essays making this point in the
New
York Times, Washington Post and Washington Times,
respectively (see the attached). Highlights
of each of these op.ed. articles include the following (emphasis added).

• Gates: “Multinational cooperation is absolutely essential to slowing or
  containing such
  threats as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons proliferation and the spread of ballistic
  missile technology. But I question whether formal, ratified treaties are the most
  effective
  way to deal diplomatically with such threats. Multilateral treaties often offer only a
  pretense of effective monitoring. Furthermore, treaties ‘in perpetuity’ are nearly impossible to
  adjust to today’s rapidly changing technological and security realities. And to ratify a treaty
  when we can confidently predict that key governments either will not sign it or, if they sign
  will not observe its terms, undermines the legitimacy and value of the arms control process
  itself.”

• Burt: “…It is unclear how a test ban would curb nuclear proliferation. In
  the bipolar
  international system of the Cold War, nations took their cue on nuclear matters from the two
  superpowers. In the increasingly fragmented and decentralized world of the 21st century,
  nations such as Iraq and North Korea refuse to follow Washington’s lead. Pakistan and India,
  which have acquired nuclear arsenals despite concerted opposition by the United States and
  others, are cases in point. Like some earlier accords, such as the 1972 American-Soviet
  agreement curbing anti-missile defenses, the test ban treaty represents an anachronistic
  approach to arms control. Despite numerous complaints, however, the
  Clinton
  Administration has insisted on pursuing an outmoded agenda unsuited to a new security
  environment.”

• Hackett: “The Senate vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  (CTBT) was more than
  just the defeat of a flawed agreement, it signaled the coming of age of a majority of
  Americans on the futility of trying to defend the country through arms control….Unverifiable
  treaties that ban weapons and limit technologies are dangerous.”

The Bottom Line

The time has come for a frank and rigorous reappraisal of the contribution that arms control
as
we have known it can make to U.S. security and world peace. Senators who voted to defeat the
CTBT and Messrs. Gates, Burt and Hackett who have helped underscore the larger importance of
that action deserve the Nation’s gratitude and support for setting the stage for such a reappraisal.