![[Cover]](back.gif)
By: J Truman
September 13, 1996
On Tuesday September 10, 1996 by an overwhelming vote of 158-3 the full United Nations General Assembly endorsed the Test-ban Treaty that had been vetoed at the Conference of Disarmament (CD). The action by the General Assembly formally places the treaty on the table for signing by individual countries. Signing is expected to start on September 24 when many world leaders, including President Clinton, will be in attendence at the U.N.
The three "NO" votes were cast by India, Libya, and Bhutan. Five other nations, Cuba, Lebanon, Mauritius, Syria and Tanzania abstened. All five major nuclear weapons states, The United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France voted in favor of the Treaty.
In spite of the near total global support for the Test-ban the U.N. vote doesn't end the treaty's potential problems and does not insure it will ever enter into force. Of the three "NO" votes cast against the treaty the vote of India poses serious implications. India is one of 44 nations that "MUST" under Article 14 --Entry Into Force (EIF) provisions of the treaty text, not only sign the text, but formally ratify it before the treaty can enter into force and become permanent international law. In voting against India also made clear once again that it would never sign what it considers an unfair and fraudulent text stating, "not now, not later". In addition Pakistan which voted in favor quickly added that it too would not sign the treaty until India had done so first. Like India, Pakistan is one of the 44 nations that must sign and ratify the treaty before it can enter into force.
It has been the firm and steadfast opposition to the text of the just approved treaty by India that has kept the Test-ban in crisis since early this summer. The Indian position was that unless the EIF text of the treaty was changed to allow it to decide on its own if it would sign or not, instead of being required to for the treaty to take effect, India would never agree to sign and would formally veto the treaty. Despite international pressure India refused to change its mind and on August 20 vetoed the treaty at the CD Talks preventing its adoption by consensus as required before the CD could forward the text on to the U.N for signing.
Under the provisions of the CD which required consences of all members it appeared that India's actions might be the death knell of the Test-ban, at least for 1996. Immediately the five nuclear weapons states and their allies began joint efforts to by pass India's veto and to take the treaty directly to the floor of the United Nations General Assembly when it opened on September 9. Australia agreed to take the leadership point, with strong backing from the United States and to request the matter be quickly brought up for a vote. The Australian request was co-sponsored by 121 fellow U.N members and was quickly granted once the General Assembly opened September 9. After less than two full days of debate the matter was voted upon and new plans were made to begin formal treaty signing on September 24.
The U.N. vote was met with considerable celebration around the world. In the United States where President Clinton had made securing a Test-ban before the November election a major goal the Administration was bubbling with praise and joy for the UN action. Department of Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, whom many credit with selling the Test-ban to the nation's weapons labs and for convincing the President to remain firm on the issue reacted with pleasure. In a statement released to the media following the vote
Secretary O'Leary said
the Test-ban was;
"a major advancement in the vital international effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and reduce the global nuclear danger." And she said President Clinton's signing of the treaty later this month, "will be a giant step toward a more secure future and away from the nuclear weapons competition that defined the Cold War."
Campaigning in Kansas City, Missouri a happy President Clinton said in remarks released by the White House Press Secretary, that the vote by the United Nations had brought the world to;
"the verge of realizing a decades-old dream, that no nuclear weapons will be detonated anywhere on the face of the Earth....With this treaty we're on the verge of realizing a decades-old dream, that no nuclear weapons will be detonated anywhere on the face of the Earth....We're taking the next crucial step to lift the dark cloud of nuclear fear that has hung over the world for 50 years now."
Overlooked in the rush to celebrate the U.N. vote was the fact that the Test-ban is not a done deal by any means. There are two critical obstacles standing in the way that independently of each other could very well doom the treaty to the role of worthless paper no matter how many nations sign it. The first is of course the fact that both India and Pakistan have stated they will not sign, nor ratify it. Without the signing and ratification of both these nations under the EIF provisions of treaty Article XIV the treaty can never totally go into force.
Should this occur it will be three years before those signing it can come together and try and address the problem by altering the text -- some thing they have so far refused to even consider. The response is that over time the United States and others feel they can change India's mind. The problem with this and the key question is will global support, especially among the nuclear weapons states hold during the three year waiting period and through a new negotiating session at the end of the three years, or will this become a convenient excuse to pull out of the treaty all together in the meantime?
The other serious potential problem for the Test-ban rests not with India but with United States domestic politics, and the Senate in particular where the treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 vote. Less that 48 hours after the U.N. vote to ban worldwide nuclear testing the United States Senate all but killed ratification of the Chemical Weapons Treaty. Designed to accomplish the same thing with another weapon of mass destruction, the Chemical Weapons Treaty requires 68 nations to have ratified it to enter into force. Presently 62 nations have and among the remaining few needed are the United States and Russia. Needless to say a rejection of ratification by either would spell the end for the treaty.
It was at this critical junction that Senate Republicans, egged on by Presidential Candidate Bob Dole decided to play politics and try to kill the treaty. The Clinton Administration was forced to pull the Chemical Treaty at the last minute delaying any ratification vote until next year.
The situation that befell the Chemical Weapons Treaty does not bode well for the recently approved Test-ban. The Chemical Weapons Treaty was signed by Clinton's predecessor George Bush and had appeared to enjoy widespread support among the Senate. The problems and opposition it ran into was totally unexpected. The Test-ban on the other hand is officially opposed by the Republican Party, and its opposition is part of its 1996 platform adopted in San Diego at its convention. In addition in June Senator Kyl (R) Arizona introduced legislation allowing for resumption of nuclear testing, and has promised to attempt it again. Kyl was one of the leaders of the opposition to the Chemical Weapons Treaty
In view of the official Republican opposition to the Test-ban and their hold on the Senate, it is far from certain the Senate will have the 2/3 votes needed to ratify the treaty any time soon, if at all. Rejection by the United States would without doubt destroy any chance for the Test-ban ever entering into force. Given this fact, and the fact of the opposition from the Republican camp, it is unlikely any of the major nuclear weapons states will rush to ratify the treaty until they see what the U.S. Senate will do first. The recent fiasco with the Chemical Weapons Treaty will likely insure that.
Faced with the problems of India and Pakistan refusing to sign the Test-ban and the Republicans likely to try and kill it in the Senate, President Clinton must ponder some of his own statement following the U.N. vote when he travels to the U.N. on September 24;
"this is a big plus today. We're a lot closer today than we were yesterday toward realizing the dream of a comprehensive nuclear test ban.Clinton may be right, but unless the same zeal, domestic and international, is applied to bringing the Test-ban into force and having it ratified by the U.S. Senate, it will likely remain as it always has, just that, a dream.