A Place To Start on Campaign Finance Reform: C.M.A. Should Refrain From Putting Senators in Compromising Positions On the Chemical Weapons Convention

(Washington, D.C.): Last night, the
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA),
an organization representing some 190
large American and multinational chemical
producers, held a Washington fund-raiser
for the Senate Majority Leader, Sen.
Trent Lott (R-MS). This event presumably
will help the distinguished Republican
leader prepare his war chest for future
electoral campaigns. It seems
inconceivable, however, that this event
could have the effect CMA probably hoped
for — namely, inducing Senator Lott to
disregard the serious concerns he has
expressed about the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) and to secure the
treaty’s prompt ratification.

After all, such an initiative occurs
at the very moment that Bill
Clinton’s presidency is undergoing a
Chinese water-torture (pun intended) of
daily revelations about fund-raisers
buying access, influence and policy
changes. This event, and other
Capitol Hill occasions like it sponsored
by interested parties such as CMA, can
only complicate the position of Senators
obliged to act on the controversial CWC.

The CMA is, nonetheless, reportedly
investing millions of dollars in its
campaign for CWC ratification — a
campaign being carefully coordinated with
the Clinton Administration and others. As
the Center has documented in recent weeks
in its Truth or Consequences
series of Decision Briefs href=”97-D34.html#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾,
this effort appears intended to obscure
the key problems with this convention
that have been identified by an array of
knowledgeable experts — problems
called to the attention of the Senate a
few months ago by no less a figure than
Senator Lott.

Senator Lott, On the Record

In fact, on 9 September 1996 —
shortly before the Administration
realized that it did not have the votes
to approve the Chemical Weapons
Convention and asked that it be withdrawn
from consideration — Senator Lott made
an important floor speech concerning the
CWC’s myriad flaws. Highlights of his
remarks included the following:

“…As we near consideration
of [the CWC], I wanted to share
with my colleagues some of the
correspondence that I have
recently received. Late on Friday
of last week, I received a letter
of opposition to the Convention
signed by more than 50 defense
and foreign policy experts,
including two former Secretaries
of Defense, former members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many
others.

“The letter made four
fundamental points: The
Chemical Weapons Convention is
not global, it is not effective,
and is not verifiable, but it
will have significant costs to
American security. Their
letter concludes by stating that,
‘The national security benefits
of the Chemical Weapons
Convention clearly do not
outweigh its considerable costs.
Consequently, we respectfully
urge you to reject ratification
of the CWC unless and until it is
made genuinely global, effective,
and verifiable.’

“This is not my judgment. It
is the judgment, however, of Caspar
Weinberger, William Clark, Dr.
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ed Meese, Dick
Cheney, and many others
who served with distinction under
Presidents Reagan and Bush. I
think their views deserve serious
consideration from every Member.

“As you will note, two of
those names that I read are
former Secretaries of Defense and
certainly highly respected. Our
colleague from the House of
Representatives, Dick Cheney, is
one that I really had not known
exactly what his position was, so
it was of great interest to me to
see what his thoughts might be.

“I have two other letters
that I encourage Members to
review. First, the National
Federation of Independent
Business wrote to me
today expressing serious concern
about the impact of the CWC on
the more than 600,000 members of
the NFIB. The letter notes that
under the CWC, for the first time
small businesses would be subject
to a foreign entity inspecting
their businesses. The
concerns that are expressed
concerning increased regulatory
burden of the Chemical Weapons
Convention on American small
business I think should be
weighed very carefully before
coming to a decision about his or
her attitude and what the
position would be of that Senator
on the convention . I know my
colleagues do not want to vote
first and ask questions later
when it comes to small business,
which already bears a
disproportionate share of the
regulatory burden from the
Federal Government.

“I also received a letter
today from retired Gen.
James A. Williams,
former head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency with almost
four decades of experience in
intelligence. General Williams
raises very serious concerns over
the potential of CWC
being used to gain proprietary
information from American
business. He concludes
that ‘there is potential for the
loss of untold billions of
dollars of trade secrets which
can be used to gain competitive
advantage, to shorten R&D
cycles, and to steal U.S. market
share.’ Many businesses have
contacted my office and the
offices of other Senators
expressing these and similar
concerns about Senate action on
this convention….

“I wanted to call to the
Senate’s attention this
correspondence that I have
outlined because it is very
important that a range of views
be made available to all
Senators. The administration has
been making its case for quite
some time, but opponents of the
convention have just begun the
serious examination the
convention really deserves….

“My own personal greatest
concern is the question of
verification. What do we
do about Iraq? If we pass a
convention like this, that would
be applicable to us, sort of the
law-abiding citizens of the
world, how do we make sure what
is happening in Iraq, North
Korea, and Libya, the renegade
countries of the world? Is
this going to be a situation
where we go forward with this
convention, this Chemical Weapons
Convention, yet those who are the
real threat do not participate,
or deny that they are involved,
or we are not in a position where
we can verify what they are
actually doing?”

The Bottom Line

As the foregoing remarks indicate, Senator
Lott has approached the controversial
Chemical Weapons Convention in a fair,
reasonable and statesmanlike fashion. He
has been responsive to the Clinton
Administration’s insistence that the
treaty be scheduled for a vote last fall,
its request on 12 September 1996 that the
order for a vote be vitiated (in the face
of certain defeat) and its demands this
year for negotiations aimed at reviving
the CWC’s prospects and/or fixing the
accord’s shortcomings. At the same time,
he has striven to ensure that the
concerns of his colleagues and others
opposed to this treaty are not given
short shrift.

It would be a grave disservice to the
Majority Leader, to the institution he
manages so ably and to the Nation if the
appearance that strings were attached to
the Chemical Manufacturers Association’s
largesse were to sully Senator Lott’s
future stewardship of the top CMA
legislative agenda item — the CWC. The
Center for Security Policy calls on CMA
to refrain from using its deep-pocketed
Political Action Committee in ways that
could compromise the integrity of the
debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention
and put key participants in that debate
in compromising positions.

– 30 –

1. These papers —
dealing with issues like the Convention’s
impact on the U.S. military, on American
businesses, on citizens’ Constitutional
rights, etc. — can be accessed via the
Center’s site on the World Wide Web
(www.security-policy.org) or by
contacting the Center.