For the past fifty years, the United States has been at the forefront of major international activity to improve the lot of the world in arenas of human rights and armed conflict. Although our actions and motives were frequently obfuscated in the name of the Cold War, most Americans believe that we’ve done much more good than harm on the world stage. At the very least, this is how we wish to see ourselves.

During the 106th Congress, two major steps backward have been taken. First, we first worked to weaken, then refused to sign, the International Criminal Court treaty, despite the fact that it was American initiative — dating back to the Nuremberg trials — that largely brought the ICC to its present state. We are now in the company of such great nations as Iraq, North Korea, and Libya as nonsignators.

Now, this week, the U.S. Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. England, France, Germany, China, and Russia — normally not bedfellows — called on us to ratify it. The vote was nineteen votes shy, not even close.

Special consideration goes to Senators John Chafee, James Jeffords, Gordon Smith, and Arlen Specter, for breaking party ranks to vote for the treaty. Awards for Shame to John McCain for taking a break from principle and integrity, and Robert Byrd for voting “present,” the lone Democrat to do so.

Both parties claim that they wish to continue abiding by the terms of the treaty. We have no plans to test nuclear weapons, or to undertake any other actions that would violate the treaty that we have not signed. Congressional testimony against the treaty states that we have no need to do so until the year 2030 (discounting the possibility that other technologies may preclude the need for testing by then). By defeating the treaty, we have given up the ability to ask other nations not to develop and test nuclear weapons, and the creation of international monitoring bodies to prevent nations from covertly doing so.

Are we so willing to trade our security for the sovereign power to do things we don’t want to do?

October 13, 1999 Update

This morning’s Washington Post has two articles above the fold on the front page: negotiations in the Senate to postpone the vote on the CTBT rather than have it voted down, and the military coup in Pakistan.

Pakistan, for those of us joining us late, became a member of the nuclear “club” last year, and with India is felt to have the highest potential for actually getting involved in a nuclear shooting war. The two nations are involved in active conflict over the disputed Kashmir region, and the flight time for nuclear missiles between the two capitals is measured in minutes. This means that during false warnings about launches, each military has a reaction time of about 15 seconds before they decide whether to retaliate.

Partisan politics are important, but the Senate is literally risking the future of the world on their meaningless squabbles. Contact your Senator today and tell him or her that you want the CTBT passed. The phone number for your Senator can be found here.

October 5, 1999

Readers will be excused if they’ve mistaken recent news reports about the 1966 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as a retrospective. A treaty signed by the United States over thirty years ago, and still not ratified by the Senate, just seems too far-fetched to contemplate.

Welcome to Washington.

I won’t make a comprehensive case for the Comprehensive treaty here, as that’s been done before me by several former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, military strategists (both inside and outside the U.S. military), and the Secretary of Defense—whom, lest we forget, was formerly known as the Republican Senator from Maine.

However, the need for this treaty is so blindingly obvious, only the willfully blind would miss it. If you believe in the support and maintenance of international law as a means of preventing international conflict, the CTBT is a good idea as it ensures that fewer nations will have access to nuclear weaponry, within the framework of recognized international organizations. Fewer nukes, fewer triggers, and a safer world.

On the other hand, if you distrust international organizations and you prefer the U.S. to maintain its military superiority ad infinitum, the CTBT removes one of the sole remaining threats to the United States mainland. Nuclear weapons are a much cheaper method than conventional armaments to catch up with the world’s great military powers; why then are we delaying the creation of an international system that would prevent other nations from catching up?

The Republican argument against the treaty, and forgive me if I paraphrase: “This is a bad treaty because it might sometimes be broken, and it might sometimes be imperfectly enforced.” Oddly enough, that’s not what you hear them saying when they’re talking about drug laws, but I digress. The alternate argument boils down to the usual vague fears that signing any international treaty somehow hobbles the mighty American colossus. Far better, I suppose, to live in chaos with the rule of “might makes right?”

The CTBT comes up for vote on October 12. A two-thirds majority is needed, and we’re still several votes shy. Contact your Senators and tell them that you care whether you live in a saner world.