The Defeat of the CTB Treaty

The US Senate Wednesday voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with a 48-51 vote. This is a relatively significant event for several reasons. First of all, this defeat has historical significance. It's the first outright rejection of an international arms control treaty by the Senate since the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and 1920. Also, this is only the sixth time this century the Senate has rejected any treaty, the last time being in 1983. Second of all, there is a great deal of debate as to how the Democrats have handled the defeat of this treaty.

Bill signed this treaty back in 1996. It has since been signed by 150 countries, however, it is not until all 44 nuclear-capable countries ratify it that it will be enforced. Twenty-six of them have including Britain and France. This treaty was to ban all underground testing of nuclear weapons. It would set up 300 monitering stations around the world that would use seismic technology to detect any violations. The treaty would also set up strong international inspection teams.

In the days since the vote, we have seen unusually bitter commentary from the Democrats. They are calling this a partisan attempt to embarrass Clinton and deny him a foriegn policy prize. In fact, in almost every quote I've read regarding the vote, we are seeing a return to the scare tactics the Democrats are so famous for. I have heard nary a constructive comment as to why we need this treaty.

``With this fateful vote tonight, the world becomes a more dangerous place,'' said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat.

``Now, if we ever get a president that's against the test ban treaty, which we may get ... you'll have Russia testing, you'll have China testing, you'll have India testing, you'll have Pakistan testing,'' Clinton said. ``And we will be in a much, much more dangerous world.''

Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press shortly after the treaty was rejected that the Senate's actions was ``breathtakingly irresponsible.''

``The vote last night is a toxic brew of reckless partisanship and dangerous isolationism,'' Lockhart, Clinton's press secretary, said. ``A small number of Republicans influenced and enacted their view over the majority of the Senate.'' It's the first time the U.S. Senate has handled a treaty ``in such a reckless way,'' he said

Come on now! All these comments serve to do is stir up some strong emotions. The Democrats are not interested in convincing America of the academic points to the treaty. This is just another opportunity for them to try to instill a since of fear, in our society, of Republicans. This pyschological campaining has been going on for some time now. Republicans are constantly labeled as hard lined conservatives, right-wing extremists, and crazed religious zealots by the Democrats and the media. Whenever issues regarding affirmative action come up, they want to tell us that the Repulicans are trying to take us back to a time of racial prejudice and invoke a fear of hate related crimes. The news will be full of racially motivated crimes. You'll be told that we are having a crisis involving racsism. Blacks are told that the Republicans are out to take their jobs and that they are a white party. In fact, they went as far as to tell people in a Missouri radio ad that more black churches will burn if they don't rise up and vote against the republicans.

A few years back when Clinton was running against Bush, the news was full of reports about homelessness. They told us we were having a crisis with homelessness and it was being brought upon us by Reagonomics and by Bush's economic policy. They were portrayed as being indifferent to the problem and Republican policy was at the root of the crisis. So we were portrayed as a party of rich and wealthy people who were only trying to get richer at the expense of the poor. Has voting for the Democrats changed anything? Well it has certainly changed the amount of media attention given to the homeless. I can't remember the last report on the subject. This is exactly what happens. Instead of attempting to tell America the truth, they'd rather spend their time stirring up a frenzied emotional response from the people.

This is what is happenning again here with the defeat of the CTB treaty. They are telling us that the safety of our children is now at risk. The defeat of this treaty does not mean the Republicans are against banning nuclear testing or the safety of your children as the Democrats would have you to believe, just against the wording of this particular treaty. I feel they would support such a treaty if it was more effective than the one currently before them. Instead of telling us that we are in eminent danger of nuclear prolifiration, why don't they tell us why Clinton signed this treaty two years ago and has made no effort to promote it. Could it be that he was too busy with his legal problems? Could it be that this was a flawed treaty that was defeated by the constitutional system of checks and balances set up by our forefathers to prevent any one branch of our government from taking to much power? You decide.

A couple things to think about. One, the US has had a self imposed moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992. Two, the treaty did not ban testing of delivery systems.