Long-Delayed Chemical Weapons Treaty Makes Progress

WASHINGTON —  Senate opponents of a long-stalled treaty that would ban the use of chemical weapons softened their resistance Tuesday, raising prospects that the accord could move to the floor for full debate next week.

Although Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) insisted that no agreement had yet been reached to schedule a vote on the controversial Chemical Weapons Convention, he confirmed that he will meet with leading Democrats today in “hopes that we can get an agreement.”

For the United States to take part in administering the convention, including being represented on international teams that would inspect for possible violations, the Senate must vote to ratify the treaty by April 29. Signed by 161 countries and already ratified by 70, the treaty, which also would ban the development, possession and transfer of chemical weapons, will take effect on that date with or without U.S. ratification.

“I do think we’ve got a chance to get it up and considered and have a vote in that time frame,” Lott said.

The treaty was signed by former President George Bush in 1993 and has been the subject of committee hearings in the Senate on 13 occasions. But it has never come to a full Senate vote.

Lott’s comments came only hours after his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), threatened to tie up the Senate if Republicans failed to move the treaty from the Foreign Relations Committee, where it has languished since the current congressional session began in January.

Winning ratification of the treaty has become a major second-term foreign policy priority for the Clinton administration, which believes that the treaty, while not perfect, will make the world safer and provide the United States with an effective tool for inspecting possible weapons programs in suspect countries. If the United States does not ratify the treaty, U.S. chemical companies will be subject to international sanctions, administration officials noted.

Tuesday was a full day of Foreign Relations Committee hearings that displayed just how divisive the treaty has become.

During the first two hours of testimony, the committee heard comments opposing ratification from four former defense secretaries who served in the Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan and Bush administrations. James R. Schlesinger, who served under Ford, claimed that the treaty would prohibit production of relatively benign crowd-control chemicals, such as tear gas, used by civilian police authorities in the United States and also inhibit Defense Department efforts to develop suitable defense systems against chemical weapons.

In a letter submitted to the committee, Bush administration Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney called the convention flawed and warned that it would give Americans a false sense of security if ratified.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the Senate’s most outspoken critic of the convention, also reiterated his criticism Tuesday, labeling the treaty “dangerous and defective.” He has claimed that inspections permitted under terms of the treaty are so intrusive that they would be unconstitutional in the United States. Helms also wants guarantees that no citizens of a so-called rogue state, such as Iran or Iraq, would be allowed to serve as inspectors.

In an afternoon session, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argued forcefully for ratification.

“From those of us who believe it’s a tool to get insight and control over what’s going on in countries, it seems mighty strange for us to deprive ourselves of an opportunity to check up on what others are doing,” she said.

“We’d all like to have the perfect treaty but this isn’t possible,” she added.

“If we turn our backs on the Chemical Weapons Convention after so much effort by leaders from both parties, we will scar America with a grievous and self-inflicted wound.”