DATE=12/17/1999
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=YEARENDER: TEST BAN TREATY
NUMBER=5-45037
BYLINE=ANDRE DE NESNERA
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

INTRO: This past year, the Senate handed President 
Bill Clinton a major foreign policy defeat by failing 
to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  In this 
year-end report, National Security Correspondent Andre 
de Nesnera looks at the treaty, the Senate vote and 
what ramifications it has had  - and still may have - 
overseas. 

TEXT: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - or C-T-B-T - 
prohibits nations from carrying out nuclear 
explosions, including those to test nuclear weapons. 

President Clinton signed the treaty in 1996 and made 
Senate ratification one of his administration's top 
foreign policy priorities during his second term. But 
in mid-October, the Republican-dominated Senate 
rejected the treaty. This was the first time the upper 
house of Congess voted down an international pact 
since an isolationist Senate rejected the 1919 
Versailles Treaty that included rules setting up the 
League of Nations.

Opponents of the C-T-B-T said the pact was 
incompatible with U-S national security needs.  They 
said the United States - which has stopped nuclear 
testing since 1992 - must be able to test its nuclear 
weapons to guarantee their reliability. 

Those in favor of the Test Ban Treaty say nuclear 
weapons testing is not needed since a sophisticated 
simulation system can get the same results. And they 
reject the notion the treaty is unverifiable, saying 
the pact calls for creating an international 
monitoring system and on-site inspections. 

Defense analysts are debating what the Senate 
rejection means for the U-S leadership role in the 
arms control field - and are asking what sort of 
message the vote sent internationally.

Paul Beaver is a senior analyst with the British 
publication "Jane's Defense Weekly." He says Europeans 
are distressed about what they perceive to be an 
increasingly inward-looking U-S Congress. And he says 
Europeans are also concerned that the United States 
government may not have a unified foreign policy. 

            ///  BEAVER ACT ///

      We have a President on the way out. We do not 
      know what direction the people of America will 
      vote the next time around. And there is, I 
      think, a feeling that there are several 
      different forms of foreign policy. The State 
      Department has different foreign policies: there 
      are Madeleine Albright's own ideas and there are 
      the State Department's ideas. We see people 
      jostling for position for the future. We know 
      that there is the U-S military, the Defense 
      Intelligence Agency, the C-I-A - all have their 
      own policies. The White House has its own 
      policies. Europeans are a bit worried about 
      America and think that America is going to be in 
      some sort of limbo for the next 12 to 18 months.

            /// END ACT /// 

Mr. Beaver says it is important for the United States 
to ratify international treaties if Washington is to 
continue to have a leadership role in such areas as 
arms control. 

Nuclear weapons expert George Perkovich (with the "W. 
Alton Jones Foundation" in Charlotesville, Virginia) 
says when the (1969) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
comes up for review next April, countries may vent 
their anger at the United States for the Senate vote 
rejecting the C-T-B-T. 

            /// PERKOVICH ACT ///

      The reason for that, of course, is that when the 
      Non-Proliferation Treaty was extended forever in 
      1995, the central bargain - the key deal - that 
      was made there was that the United States and 
      the four other recognized nuclear weapons states 
      (France, Britain, China and Russia) - would sign 
      a test ban treaty. And that was part of the 
      package that induced others to extend the N-P-T 
      indefinitely. Now if that is in doubt - and 
      certainly from the U-S point of view that was 
      put into doubt, there will be a lot of anger, 
      saying: "You guys made a promise. You guys made 
      a deal with us and now you've pulled back your 
      side of it and you are still expecting us to 
      keep our side of the deal?" That's not the way 
      to lead the world.

/            /// END ACT ///

But not all analysts believe the Senate rejection of 
the Test Ban Treaty sends a negative message 
worldwide.

Baker Spring - a nuclear expert with the conservative 
(Washington-based) "Heritage Foundation" says the 
Senate vote strengthens the U-S role regarding its 
allies.

            /// SPRING ACT ///

      Despite the complaints that have come from some 
      nations around the world, I think the message 
      that goes out is ultimately positive. And that 
      is that the United States is going to maintain 
      its nuclear deterrent, is going to protect its 
      national interest and is going to stand by its 
      allies who also depend on the U-S deterrent for 
      their security. So I ultimately think it sends a 
      positive message regarding the United States and 
      its role in the world.

            /// END ACT ///

Following the Senate rejection of the Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty a few months ago, President Clinton 
said the United States will continue to abide by its 
1992 moratorium on nuclear tests. And Democrats say 
they will make the rejection by the Republican-
dominated Senate a key issue during the upcoming 
presidential campaign. (Signed)

NEB/ADEN/KL



17-Dec-1999 13:59 PM EDT (17-Dec-1999 1859 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America
.