The Weekly Standard Weighs In On The C.W.C.:’Just Say No To A Bad Treaty’

(Washington, D.C.): According to the Washington
Post, the debate over the Chemical
Weapons Convention (C.W.C.) has become
one “between conservatives.” A
variation on this theme is the claim that
it is a debate “between
internationalists and isolationists”
— read, “good” conservatives
who appreciate the importance of American
power and leadership in the world and
“bad” conservatives who believe
the United States can safely walk away
from international affairs and
responsibilities.

Fortunately, the fraudulent nature of
such characterizations is revealed in the
attached
editorial which leads the current
issue of one of American
conservatism’s most influential
periodicals — The Weekly Standard.
As the Standard puts it:

“What we really have here is
the continuation of one of this
century’s most enduring disputes.
In the first camp are the
high priests of arms control
theology, who have never met an
international agreement they
didn’t like. In the second camp
are those who take a more
skeptical view of relying on a
piece of watermarked, signed
parchment for safety in a
dangerous world. The
case for ratifying the Chemical
Weapons Convention is a triumph
of hope over experience.”

The magazine goes on to describe the
debate over the CWC as one essentially
between those who subscribe to “Reaganite
internationalism” on the
one hand and “the more
starry-eyed Wilsonian version” on
the other — a difference it says
is rooted in the principle that
“treaties must reflect reality, not
hope.” Perhaps even more
important is its practical guidance to
conservatives who would prefer to be in
the former camp rather than the latter:

“In the Reagan years, the
treaty was mostly a sop to
liberals in Congress, an attempt
to pick up some points for an
arms control measure at a time
when Reagan was trying to win on
more important issues like the
defense build-up and the
Strategic Defense Initiative. And
President Bush pushed the treaty
in no small part because he had
disliked having to cast a
tie-breaking vote in the Senate
as Vice President in favor of
building chemical weapons. Republicans
today are under no obligation to
carry out the mistakes of their
predecessors.

“In one respect, the debate
over the Chemical Weapons
Convention calls to mind the
struggle for the party’s soul
waged in the 1970s between
Kissingerian detente-niks on one
side and the insurgent forces led
by Ronald Reagan on the other. Back
then, conservative Republicans
like Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott knew without
hesitation where they stood. They
should stand where they stood
before, foursquare with the ideas
that helped win the Cold War, and
against the Chemical Weapons
Convention.”
(Emphasis added.)