Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

Continued Fallout from Test-Ban Defeat

Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

Continued Fallout from Test-Ban Defeat

Article excerpt

The United States Senate's failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on Oct. 13 marks a disturbing step backward from American engagement in today's world.

Hans Bethe, a Nobel Prize physicist who assisted in the development of the first nuclear bomb, wrote in The New York Review of Books that "the failure to ratify will have serious consequence for American foreign policy for years to come."

The impact on arms control is but one kind of fallout. Perhaps even more serious is what the Senate decision says about the ability of the US to influence events in an increasingly fractured, multidimensional world.

The germ of the test- ban treaty began in the Eisenhower administration and has been negotiated by US and foreign diplomats in good faith over many years. In each administration, whether Democrat or Republican, the process included consultations with relevant congressional committees.

The treaty's opponents use various arguments: It is flawed, they say; it will not prevent rogue states from violating the ban; it would keep the US from maintaining a viable nuclear deterrent. Why should Washington close out its options?

Supporters have insisted that by establishing extensive global monitoring, the treaty will greatly improve the capability to detect violators. Computers can provide the means to maintain the deterrent. A ratified treaty offers an internationally recognized basis for mobilizing official pressure and public opinion against violators.

If the treaty is flawed, the response should not be rejection, but an examination of the problems and efforts, through further negotiation, to resolve them. Some in Congress are now proposing just this. But they encounter among their colleagues a deep-seated distrust of negotiators and of negotiation - a strange attitude in a country of traders and poker players.

But, at the base of opposition to the treaty is the idea that the US has the power unilaterally to deter any threat - that neither this treaty nor any other is necessary.

Three other recent developments further accent this "go-it- alone" attitude. Pressure for a missile defense system is already creating serious problems in US relations not only with the Russians, but with allies. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.