New National Poll Shows Overwhelming Public Opposition To A Flawed Chemical Weapons Convention

(Washington, D.C.): On 4-5 April 1997,
the Luntz Research Companies conducted a
national poll of 900 American adults
concerning the controversial Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). This poll was
intended to ensure that public sentiments
about the present treaty were properly
understood — an objective made all the
more necessary by earlier canvass
performed by the Wirthlin Group. The
Wirthlin poll suggested overwhelming
support for a treaty that “would ban
the production, possession, transfer and
use of poison gas.”

The Luntz Poll

This poll — which was sponsored by
the Center for Security Policy, a
non-partisan educational organization
specializing in national defense and
foreign policy issues — asked
respondents whether they would support
the CWC if it had certain troubling
characteristics and/or implications. The
text of the questions and the responses
follow (including a breakout of the views
of the respondents who identified
themselves as having voted Republican in
the 1996 congressional election, since
the treaty’s fate will be decided by the
Senate’s GOP members) href=”97-P50.html#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾:

“President Clinton will ask
the U.S. Senate to vote in the
next few weeks for an arms
control treaty called the
Chemical Weapons Convention. It
is supposed to ban the production
and stockpiling of nerve gas and
other chemical weapons worldwide.
Let me read you two opinions
about the treaty [order of
following two paragraphs reversed
in every-other question]:

“Treaty supporters point out
that more than 160 countries have
signed the Chemical Weapons
Convention and believe it would
create international pressure to
get rid of such weapons — and
punish those who keep them. They
say that, even if it does not
work perfectly, it will still be
better than having no treaty at
all.

“Treaty opponents —
including four former Secretaries
of Defense — believe there are
serious problems with this
treaty. If they are right, it
will not rid the world of
chemical weapons and may,
instead, have even more
undesirable effects. They believe
that such problems could make the
result of this Convention worse
than having no treaty at all.

“With these views in mind, I
would like to ask you whether you
would strongly support, somewhat
support, somewhat oppose or
strongly oppose the Chemical
Weapons Convention if it did the
following things:

1. “If only the United
   States and its allies wound up
   obeying it while other,
   potentially hostile countries
   like Russia, China, Iran, Iraq or
   North Korea keep their chemical
   weapons?”

















Total Sample	Republicans
15% Strongly support	13% Strongly support
16% Somewhat support	14% Somewhat support
Total Support 31%	Total Support 27%
16% Somewhat oppose	16% Somewhat oppose
44% Strongly oppose	50% Strongly oppose
Total Oppose 60%	Total Oppose 66%
9% Other (No opinion/Don’t know/Refused)

2. “If it would result in
   the transfer of technology that
   could help countries like Iran,
   Cuba or China increase
   their ability to fight chemical
   wars?”

















Total Sample	Republicans
9% Strongly support	7% Strongly support
10% Somewhat support	10% Somewhat support
Total Support 19%	Total Support 17%
17% Somewhat oppose	14% Somewhat oppose
53% Strongly oppose	62% Strongly oppose
Total Oppose 70%	Total Oppose 76%
11% Other (No opinion/Don’t know/Refused)

3. “If countries that
   violated its prohibitions went
   unpunished?”

















Total Sample	Republicans
7% Strongly support	8% Strongly support
9% Somewhat support	8% Somewhat support
Total Support 16%	Total Support 16%
17% Somewhat oppose	15% Somewhat oppose
56% Strongly oppose	61% Strongly oppose
Total Oppose 73%	Total Oppose 76%
11% Other (No opinion/Don’t know/Refused)

4. “4. If it would authorize UN
   inspectors to go to any site in
   the United States, potentially
   without legal search warrants and
   potentially risking American
   business or military
   secrets?”

















Total Sample	Republicans
10% Strongly support	6% Strongly support
12% Somewhat support	9% Somewhat support
Total Support 22%	Total Support 16%
19% Somewhat oppose	19% Somewhat oppose
49% Strongly oppose	57% Strongly oppose
Total Oppose 68%	Total Oppose 76%
11% Other (No opinion/Don’t know/Refused)

The CWC Does Have
These Flaws

Thanks to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee under the leadership of its
chairman, Senator Jesse Helms, there
is now little doubt that the Chemical
Weapons Convention awaiting Senate advice
and consent is defective in each and
every one of these respects. In
the course of hearings the Committee held
this week, an array of unimpeachable
authorities highlighted the treaty’s
flaws with respect to its
ineffectiveness, its technology transfer
implications, its unenforceability and
its ominous implications for American
constitutional rights and businesses.

Such points were underscored by four
former Secretaries of Defense (James
Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Caspar
Weinberger and Dick Cheney [in
the form of a letter]), a former Director
of the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency (Fred Iklé), a
former UN Ambassador (Jeane
Kirkpatrick) and two other,
prominent former Defense Department
officials (former Assistant Secretary of
Defense Richard Perle
and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense Douglas Feith).

The Center anticipates with pleasure
further hearings next week by the Foreign
Relations Committee that are expected to
address in greater detail the business,
constitutional, intelligence and military
issues associated with the Chemical
Weapons Convention. It calls upon the
Senate Armed Services Committee and
Intelligence Committees to exercise their
respective oversight responsibilities as
well before the full Senate is asked to
address this fatally flawed treaty. Such
hearings can only serve to inform the
debate about the CWC and reinforce
the need for it to be conducted in a
rigorous and deliberate manner —
not the artificially constrained,
superficial and disinformed consideration
the Clinton Administration would prefer
from the Senate.

– 30 –

1. The poll has a
margin of error of 3.3%. Subtotals
reflect rounding of responses.