KYL-REID AND THE GOP.

U.S. politics threaten Test-ban ratification if one is signed at U.N..

By: M. Bright
August 20, 1996

While world media and Test-ban Treaty supporters' attention has been focused on the breakdown of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) talks, and the firm opposition waged by India, a bigger and potentially much more deadly threat to final implementation of a Test-ban Treaty has been building. It has been assumed that if, and when a solution could be found to cut around India's veto and take the Treaty to the full United Nations the problem would be solved and the battle would be won. Little attention has been paid to internal domestic politics of the Treaty's main proponent, the United States, could well kill any Treaty concluded and signed at the United Nations. In fact, U.S. ratification of a completed Test-ban is far from certain, and could well become a major election issue.

Starting in June with attempts to amend the Defense Authorization Act to allow resumption of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site, and culminating in an official plank opposing a Test-ban in the Republican Party Platform adopted at its recent San Diego Convention, the domestic political support needed to insure Senate ratification of a Test-ban has steadily eroded. Should a Treaty emerge from the U.N. after a messy debate and without the support of such threshold nuclear states as India and Pakistan, and potentially China as well, there is little chance the U.S. Senate will ratify it. Without U.S. ratification the Treaty would never go into force.

KYL-REID AMENDMENT -- RESUME TESTING SEPTEMBER 30

The first sign of major trouble with political support for a Test-ban in the U.S. Senate came on June 17 when Senators Kyl (R) Arizona and Reid (D) Nevada circulated a "Dear Colleague Letter" among members of the Senate proposing an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill changing the terms of the current moratorium on nuclear testing. Their proposed amendment would give the President the ability to resume nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) after September 30 if there was no Test-ban Treaty completed. It also would allow for the British to conduct up to two nuclear explosions at the NTS during the course of a year. (All British nuclear testing has taken place at the NTS since March, 1962)

While trying to downplay their amendment as simply a necessary correction of existing language, it would have paved the way for U.S. resumption of full scale testing should efforts to secure a Test-ban fail. Both Senators, especially Nevada Senator Harry Reid, received considerable flack from the media, national and international, as well as from Test-ban proponents. Never the less they continued to push for their amendment even though it was causing problems for the on going talks in Geneva.

After direct intervention from the Clinton White House and extensive work by thousands of Test-ban supporters, the KYL-REID amendment was tabled by the Senate on June 26 by a vote of 53-45. While killing the amendment the vote does not end the controversy. Both Kyl and Reid hinted they planned on offering similar amendments to other key bills coming up this fall. More importantly is the numbers of the vote itself. With 45 votes in support of the amendment, and thus a possible resumption of testing, it makes plain that the support is not present in the Senate to ensure ratification of a Test-ban Treaty should one ever be submitted this year, especially when a two-thirds vote will be required.

THE GOP -- MAKING TESTING A POLITICAL ISSUE

As the summer wore on and the Clinton Administration worked feverishly to save the Test-ban talks, first cutting deals with Russia and China, and continuing to pressure India, back home steps were being taken by Clinton's political foes to make nuclear testing an issue in the upcoming elections.

Even before the Republican National Convention started in San Diego, opposition to the current testing moratorium and calls to resume underground testing were being injected into the Republican Party's political agenda. On August 7 two members of the Republican platform panel from Nevada, Hal Furman, and Nevada State Senator Kathy Augustine, successfully offered, and had accepted, a platform plank calling for a resumption of testing at the Nevada Test Site. They faced little if any opposition from rank and file party members.

That proved to be just the starting point for a formal rejection of a Test-ban Treaty as not being in the national security interests of the U.S. by the Republican Platform itself. Along with a call for the U.S. to develop a national missile defense system, the finished platform expressly rejected any Test-ban Treaty as not being in U.S. interests. Thus opposition to the current Test-ban effort supported by the Clinton Administration became official Republican Party policy. This action could set the stage for the Test-ban to become a major foreign policy issue in the upcoming U.S. Presidential elections. Worse it casts serious doubt that Clinton could muster the two-thirds vote necessary to win Senate ratification should the Treaty make it out of the United Nations.

Finalizing and signing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996 has been a major foreign policy goal of President Bill Clinton. He has staked much on his ability to obtain one, and to do so before the November elections. This drive to get a Treaty has helped to prevent re-opening of negotiations on the Treaty text to try and win support from such hold outs as India. It has driven the aggressive diplomacy by U.S. Administration officials as much as has Clinton's apparent commitment to ending testing. Now with the CD talks over, ending in a dismal failure to reach agreement on a formal treaty, and a potential nasty debate looming in the United Nations in September as the Administration tries to save the Test-ban, the real possibility exists that nuclear testing could be made a major election issue.

The Republican's can, and no doubt will attacked Clinton over the failure of his efforts to force a Treaty out of the CD Talks, using it as an example of his failure in foreign policy. Likewise without a quick and complete victory at the U.N. any protracted debate over the Treaty will do little more than provide fuel for that fire, allowing the political fallout to escalate as November approaches. Worse will be the situation should the U.N. accept and sign a Test-ban without the support and acceptance of India, Pakistan, and China, providing an excuse to label such a Treaty as a meaningless joke.

The lasting result of injecting the Test-ban into the Presidential race could well be even more serious. Should it become a loud and nasty debate lingering feelings could well insure that even if Clinton is re-elected and has a Treaty to submit to the Senate for ratification, partisan sentiments and spite could easily lead to its defeat. No matter the outcome of the November elections there is little chance of Clinton's party reaching a solid two-thirds majority in the Senate. Without that and with the Republicans moving to make testing an issue the likelihood 34 "NO" votes remains.

It is very possible U.S. efforts can rescue the Test-ban out of the United Nations despite growing opposition among non-aligned nations, and then to see the hard-fought victory turn to defeat at home with a Senate that won't ratify it. It therefore is just as important for Test-ban proponents to watch ever vigilantly the domestic scene at home in the U.S. as it is to watch remarks of India and others. In the end perhaps it might not be India who will be labeled the spoiler, but the United States Senate!

For more information: