CWC Opponents Succeed in Delaying Senate Vote

By Pfeiffer, Tom | Arms Control Today, September 1996 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

CWC Opponents Succeed in Delaying Senate Vote


Pfeiffer, Tom, Arms Control Today


OPPONENTS OF the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) succeeded at the 11th hour in derailing the long-awaited Senate vote on the accord, forcing supporters to remove the treaty from the Senate calendar on September 12 to avoid the possible defeat of the treaty or the adoption of "poison pill" amendments to the resolution of ratification that would have effectively blocked U.S. ratification. Senate consideration of the CWC, signed by President George Bush in January 1993, will now be delayed until the 105th Congress convenes in January 1997, when the treaty will once again be subject to committee review.

Although the two-thirds Senate majority required to approve the resolution seemed assured in the weeks leading up to the September 14 Senate voting deadline, opposition to the treaty-led by Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Jon Kyl (R-AZ)-appeared to gain momentum after the August congressional recess and quickly coalesced in early September.

On September 9, Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration defense official and the CWC's most vocal critic, circulated a letter signed by 40 former national security officials-including former secretaries of defense Caspar Weinberger and Richard Cheney-urging rejection of the treaty "unless and until it is made genuinely global, effective and verifiable." CWC opponents argue that the treaty will not address the chemical weapons programs of those states that remain outside the convention, and that despite its unprecedented verification and inspection regime the treaty will not be able to detect all violations.

Under the terms of the unanimous consent agreement introduced by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) on June 28 that scheduled the CWC vote in the Senate, the majority leader, or his designee, could introduce two amendments to the resolution of ratification. Treaty opponents reportedly were going to propose amendments mandating that U.S. intelligence certify the CWC could be verified with high confidence and that the deposit of the U.S. instrument of ratification be contingent on prior ratification by Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria. Although these amendments were never formally presented, CWC supporters considered their probable formulation would ensure the United States could never deposit its instrument of ratification.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

CWC Opponents Succeed in Delaying Senate Vote
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?