Gen. Schwartzkopf Tells Senate He Shares Critics’ Concerns About Details of the Chemical Weapons Convention

(Washington, D.C.): Under questioning
before the Senate Armed Services
Committee today, General Norman
Schwartzkopf — commander of the allied
forces in Operation Desert Shield/Storm
— acknowledged that he was
“unfamiliar with all the
details” of the Chemical Weapons
Convention and shared some of the
concerns expressed by those who oppose it
in its present form. This is a signal
development insofar as the treaty’s
advocates had made much of the General’s
recent endorsement of the CWC during
previous testimony on Gulf War Syndrome.

Q. & A.

General Schwarzkopf was questioned by
one of the Senate’s most steadfast
leaders on national security matters and
a courageous critic of the Chemical
Weapons Convention — the new chairman
of the Armed Services Committee’s
Readiness Subcommittee, Sen. Jim Inhofe
(R-OK) — about several of the CWC’s more
troubling aspects as seen from a military
standpoint. Among the most noteworthy
aspects of their exchange (and a brief
intervention by Deputy Secretary of
Defense John White, who also participated
in the hearing) were the following
points:

Sen. Inhofe: “If
the Chemical Weapons Convention were in
effect, would we still face a danger of
chemical attack from such places as Iraq
[which has not signed the CWC] — or Iran
[which] actually signed onto it?”

Gen. Schwartzkopf:
“Senator, I think that the
answer is probably yes. But, I
think the chances of that happening could
be diminished by the treaty only because
it would then be these people clearly
standing up and thumbing their noses at
international law — and it would also
help us build coalitions against them, if
that were to happen.”

Sen. Inhofe:
“Aren’t they still thumbing their
noses right now in Iraq?”

Gen. Schwartzkopf: “There’s
no question about it, Senator —
I mean the fact that they used it in the
first place against their own people but,
I still feel — we have renounced the use
of them and I am very uncomfortable
placing ourselves in the company with
Iraq and Libya and countries such
as…North Korea that have refused to
sign that Convention. The problem
with those kinds of things is that
verification is very difficult and
enforcement is very difficult….”

Sen. Inhofe:
“…General Shali[kashvili] I think
in August of 1994…said that ‘even
one ton of chemical agent may
have a military impact.‘ I would
ask the question: Do you believe that an
intrusive, on-site inspection — as would
be allowed by the Chemical Weapons
Convention — would be able to detect a
single ton or could tell us conclusively
that there isn’t a single ton?”

Gen. Schwartzkopf:
“No, no as I said earlier, we
can’t possibly know what’s happening on
every single inch of every single
territory out there where this would
apply.”

Sen. Inhofe:
“And as far as terrorists are
concerned, they would not be under
this?”

Gen. Schwartzkopf: “Of
course not.”

Sen. Inhofe: “Like
any treaty, we have to give some things
up, and in this case, of course we
do…and there are a couple of things
that I’d like to [explore]…the
interpretation from the White House
changed…they said that if the Chemical
Weapons Convention were agreed to, that
it would affect such things as riot
control agents like tear gas in
search-and-rescue operations and
circumstances like we faced in Somalia —
where they were using women and children
at that time as shields. Do you agree
that we should be restricted from using
such things as tear gas?”

Gen. Schwartzkopf:
“I don’t believe that is the case
but I will confess to you that I
have not read every single detail of that
Convention so, therefore, I really can’t
give you an expert opinion. I
think you could get a better opinion
here.”

Secretary White:
“I am going to hesitate to give a
definitive answer because there has been,
in the administration, a very precise and
careful discussion about what exactly,
and in what situations, this would apply
and when this wouldn’t apply….”

Sen. Inhofe: “Do
you think it wise to share with
countries like Iran our most advanced
chemical defensive equipment and
technologies?”

Gen. Schwartzkopf:
“Our defensive capabilities?”

Sen. Inhofe:
“Yes.”

Gen. Schwartzkopf: “Absolutely
not.”

Sen. Inhofe:
“Well, I’m talking about sharing our
advanced chemical defensive equipment and
technologies, which I believe under
Article X [they] would be allow[ed] to
[get]. Do you disagree?”

Gen. Schwartzkopf:
“As I said Senator, I’m not
familiar with all the details — I — you
know, a country, particularly like Iran,
I think we should share as little as
possible with them in the way of our
military capabilities.”

The Bottom Line

After this morning’s hearing, Senator
Inhofe announced:

“It is clear to me
that the Clinton Administration’s
full court press to secure
ratification of the Chemical
Weapons treaty ought to be slowed
down until the American people
are fully apprised of what this
agreement entails. I
oppose this treaty because I have
examined it closely and believe
there are serious problems
contained in its fine print.

“Before Senators vote to
ratify this Treaty, it is
absolutely vital that they be
‘familiar with all the details.’
The American people should expect
no less of their elected
representatives. All of us want
to protect America from the
dangers of chemical weapons. But
we have no business blindly
endorsing a treaty of nearly 200
pages without carefully
evaluating all of its provisions
on their own merits.”

To this the Center for Security Policy
can only add, “Amen.”

– 30 –