Truth or Consequences #7: Schlesinger, Rumsfeld and Weinberger Rebut Scowcroft and Deutch on the C.W.C.

(Washington, D.C.): Today’s Washington
Post featured an op.ed. article by
three of the most distinguished public
servants of the latter Twentieth Century
— James Schlesinger, Donald
Rumsfeld and Caspar Weinberger
— concerning the reasons for opposing
the present Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC). Written in response to an earlier
op.ed. favoring this treaty which was
authored by former National Security
Advisor Brent Scowcroft and former
Director of Central Intelligence John
Deutch, the
Schlesinger-Rumsfeld-Weinberger essay
(a copy of which is href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_37at”>attached) should
be required reading for every Senator and
American citizen following and/or
participating in the debate on the CWC.

That should be the case in part simply
because of the stature of the
signatories. Dr. Schlesinger, Mr.
Rumsfeld and Mr. Weinberger all served
with distinction in the position of Secretary
of Defense, respectively for Presidents
Nixon and Ford, Ford and Reagan.
It also is relevant to the present
deliberations that Dr. Schlesinger’s
views are informed by his service as Director
of Central Intelligence under
President Nixon and Secretary
of Energy under President Carter.

The joint op.ed. should also command
careful attention because of the clear
and persuasive way it, first,
applauds Messrs. Scowcroft and Deutch’s
admissions about the CWC’s flaws
(notably, with respect to the
Convention’s unverifiability and the
treaty’s lack of global coverage) and,
second, underscores their
warnings about the dangers inherent in
the accord’s ratification
(notably, with respect to inspiring a
false sense of security, reduced
investment in defensive technologies,
transferring chemical weapons-relevant
production and defensive technology to
countries of concern and limitations on
the use of chemical-based non-lethal
technologies, such as tear gas).

Finally, the
Schlesinger-Rumsfeld-Weinberger essay is
of singular importance by virtue of the
powerful rebuttal it offers to the
Scowcroft-Deutch argument that the CWC is
“better than nothing.” The
three Secretaries conclude to the
contrary that — due to the combination
of these defects and dangers inherent in
the treaty, combined with its
unacceptably high costs for American
businesses and taxpayers — the U.S.
would be better off not being a party
than becoming one.

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy
commends former Secretaries Schlesinger,
Rumsfeld and Weinberger for this latest
in a long line of real contributions to
the national security and commends their
article to all those who will be affected
by or responsible for this fatally flawed
accord.