[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6498-S6499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY AND U.S. SECURITY

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 26 years ago, the Senate provided its 
advice and consent to ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty [NPT]. In considering the treaty, Chairman Fulbright prevailed 
on the Members of the Senate to ratify the NPT, because without it, the 
world would face a wide array of potential nuclear horrors--such as 
developing nations acquiring nuclear weapons to elevate their status or 
national power; regional powers resorting to the use of nuclear weapons 
to settle their differences; or ethnic or religious differences being 
settled with nuclear weapons. He foresaw a world where major powers 
like the United States might be held hostage by small, poor countries 
who possess a few nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, or, 
become drawn into a nuclear confrontation brought about by these small 
nations through a miscalculation or an accident.
  At the time the NPT was negotiated there were relatively few 
countries who had tested or possessed nuclear weapons. Those countries 
were the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China. 
They became known as the nuclear weapons states. All other states who 
did not possess or had not tested nuclear weapons became known as non-
nuclear weapons states.
  Back in 1969, when the Senate voted to provide its advice and consent 
to ratification of the NPT, I was one of the 15 members who voted 
against ratification of the treaty. I voted against it because I had 
grave reservations about the treaty's goals and whether they could be 
achieved. I was concerned that if the United States ratified the NPT, 
it would be unable to fulfill its NATO responsibilities and 
commitments. I feared that the NPT would also foreclose the ability of 
NATO members to participate fully in the operations of the Alliance. 
Lastly, I was concerned that the nuclear weapons states, and in 
particular, the United States, would bear the huge costs of 
transferring nuclear technology for peaceful uses to the non-nuclear 
weapons states.
  Mr. President, the overall goal and purpose of the NPT is to stop the 
spread of nuclear weapons, and to prohibit the transfer, or acquisition 
and manufacture of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear weapons states. 
However, there are no enforcement mechanisms to prevent a non-nuclear 
weapons state from becoming a nuclear weapons state in the NPT. There 
are no sanctions for violations of the treaty. While the NPT requires 
the parties to pursue negotiations to end the
 nuclear arms race and bring about nuclear disarmament, the NPT cannot 
force an end to the race for nuclear weapons, nor can it force the 
destruction of all nuclear weapons.

  For that matter, the NPT cannot ensure that parties to the Treaty, 
whether nuclear weapons states or non-nuclear weapons states, do not 
withdraw from the Treaty if they decide they wish to acquire or develop 
a nuclear arsenal for their own national security reasons. In fact, the 
NPT has a withdrawal clause.
  The NPT only covers countries that have ratified the Treaty. For 
example, take the so-called threshold states which have developed 
nuclear weapons, 
[[Page S6499]] or nuclear weapons technology. These countries, India, 
Pakistan, and Israel, are not parties to the Treaty. Even if these 
countries signed the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states, there is no way 
to ensure that these countries will ever stop development of, or 
destroy, their nuclear arsenals.
  Mr. President, in the 26 years of its existence, the NPT did not free 
the world from the threat of nuclear weapons, and it will not do so in 
the future. It did, however, establish a global norm for nations to 
limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and it has enjoyed the 
widest adherence of any arms control agreement. It is for this reason, 
that I rise today in support of extending the NPT. Let me qualify my 
statement of support of the Treaty by saying that I take no position on 
whether the Treaty should be indefinitely extended, or, extended only 
for a fixed period of time. I am concerned that the United States did 
not make any efforts to improve the NPT and make it a more viable 
agreement by strengthening its enforcement and inspection mechanisms.
  I went back and reviewed the Senate floor debate on the ratification 
of the NPT. Mr. President, despite wide adherence to the NPT, the world 
still faces the potential horrors of a nuclear exchange between 
regional states. The risk of the use of nuclear weapons by countries to 
suppress governmental factions, or settle old ethnic and religious 
disputes still exists today, as it did 26 years ago.
  Representatives of the international community have been gathered in 
New York City at the United Nations for the past month to determine the 
future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Clinton 
administration supports indefinite and unconditional extension of the 
Treaty, while representatives from the non-aligned member states, led 
by Indonesia, Iran and Egypt, oppose indefinite extension.
  On March 16, a majority of Members of the Senate expressed
   their support for the administration's position of indefinite and 
unconditional extension of the NPT. They also expressed concerns that 
the NPT would be seriously undercut if it is not indefinitely extended, 
dealing a major below to global nuclear nonproliferation regimes. Mr. 
President, the treaty can be undermined at any time regardless of its 
duration because there are no enforcement mechanisms or automatic 
sanctions.

  I remind my colleagues that as a non-nuclear weapons state to the NPT 
and member in good standing, Iraq, developed an illegal nuclear weapons 
program under the guise of a peaceful nuclear program, and it has been 
determined that Iran, under the guise of peaceful use of nuclear 
technology is pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons program. Likewise, 
North Korea, a non-nuclear weapons state to the NPT was determined to 
have violated the NPT. Of course, it was never determined to be a 
member in good standing of the treaty. Lastly, even though not members 
of the NPT, India, Pakistan, and Israel, were able to secretly develop 
nuclear weapons programs.
  Representatives and leaders of a number of developing countries, or 
nonaligned member states, do not support indefinite and unconditional 
extension of the treaty. They cite as reasons for their lack of support 
for the U.S. position, the lack of progress in concluding a 
comprehensive test ban. They claim that the nuclear weapons states have 
not fulfilled their nuclear disarmament obligations. They believe that 
the Treaty is discriminatory and that it sanctions the five nuclear 
powers' rights to hold on to their nuclear weapons and keep the non-
nuclear weapon states as nuclear weapons ``have-nots''.
  Mr. President, I reject the rationale offered by the non-aligned 
states for not supporting extension of the Treaty. For the past decade, 
the United States and Russia have made unprecedented reductions in 
their nuclear forces--beginning in 1985 with the Intermediate Range 
Nuclear Forces Treaty and more recently reducing strategic forces under 
START. Both President Clinton and President Yeltsin have agreed to 
discuss even further reductions to their nuclear weapons programs once 
START II is implemented. Prior to START entering into force, President 
Bush and President Gorbachev implemented unilateral reductions of 
United States and Russian tactical weapons. Since 1992, a testing 
moratorium has been in place in the United States, and the United 
States along with the other nuclear weapons states and members of the 
Conference on Disarmament have been negotiating a comprehensive test 
ban treaty.
  Last month, the United States and the other four nuclear weapons 
states restated their support of negative security assurances in the 
United Nations. Additionally, negotiations will begin soon on a global 
ban on the production of fissile material for military purposes in the 
Conference on Disarmament. If these steps do not indicate a good faith 
effort on the part of the United States and other nuclear weapons 
states toward nuclear disarmament, I am not sure what else can be done.
  Representatives of the non-nuclear weapons states who want to poke 
the United States in the eye by not supporting indefinite extension of 
the Treaty, because they believe we have not reduced our nuclear 
arsenals to zero, or completed the negotiations on a comprehensive test 
ban, would do well to focus attention on their own efforts at reducing 
the threat posed by nuclear weapons. How have they worked with their 
neighbors, and other countries, to build more positive relationships 
and confidence so that threat of attack and annihilation are reduced 
and countries do not feel compelled to acquire nuclear weapons for 
protection?
  The Clinton administration and other NPT signatories should stop 
wringing their hands over the period of time for which the Treaty 
should be extended. Instead they should be focused on using this month-
long conference to enhance the viability of the NPT by making it a 
living document which enables and ensures multilateral enforcement of 
the Treaty's provisions. Parties to the NPT should have confidence that 
its members will comply with the provisions of the Treaty, be 
supportive of its goals and that the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
and nuclear technology is eliminated. And, when a determination of a 
violation has been made by the international monitoring agency through 
its inspections and the United Nations Security Council has been 
notified, meaningful and appropriate actions or sanctions should be 
undertaken immediately.
  Mr President, once again, I rise to say that I support extension of 
the NPT. I only regret that the administration did not believe the NPT 
was important enough to strengthen it to make it a more viable and 
effective arms control agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________