[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3805-S3807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               WE NEED THE CWC TO CONFRONT ROGUE NATIONS

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, with the active participation of the 
President and his National Security Council and other foreign policy 
and national security representatives, Senator Biden, the Foreign 
Relations Committee ranking Democratic member and his staff have worked 
diligently to remove as many of the objections and doubts about the 
Chemical Weapons Convention held by a number of Republican Senators as 
they possibly could remove. Working together, they sought to do this by 
providing official data and information about the convention, about 
Defense Department plans, and about intelligence sources and methods; 
by obtaining official commitments from the President; and by 
negotiating conditions to the treaty. This negotiating effort centered 
on Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Helms and his staff and Senate 
Majority Leader Lott and his staff as well as other Senators who have 
voiced major concerns about the treaty.
  I believe the evidence is unassailable that the effort to negotiate 
conditions acceptable to both treaty proponents and opponents produced 
great progress--in fact, a degree of progress few thought was 
attainable when the process began. As a result, this afternoon the 
Senate has unanimously agreed to 28 conditions that address a sweeping 
range of treaty facets.
  One measure of how successful this effort has been is that yesterday, 
former Senate majority leader and 1996 Republican Presidential nominee 
Bob Dole announced that, given the assurances and insurance those 28 
conditions provide, he now supports the convention and believes it is 
in our Nation's national security interest to ratify it and participate 
in its ongoing efforts to eliminate chemical weapons from this Earth.
  Senator Dole was clear in noting that the treaty remains imperfect in 
his mind, a fact that comes as no surprise to treaty proponents but 
still is loudly professed to be a shocking fact by some treaty 
opponents.
  But despite the herculean effort that has resulted in agreement on 28 
conditions to the treaty, Senator Helms and some other Senators have 
been relentless in insisting on 5 other conditions. While the stated 
purpose of each of these conditions appears on the surface to be 
laudable, and that stated purpose could be readily embraced by 
virtually every Senator if not every Senator, ranging from stalwart 
treaty proponent to stalwart opponent, the practical effect of four of 
these conditions in the form in which their drafters insist on them 
would be to prevent the United States from ratifying the CWC, even if 
the Senate were to vote 100 to 0 for ratification with any of these 
conditions attached to the resolution of ratification the Senate 
approved.
  For that reason, Mr. President, these proposed conditions to which 
treaty proponents could not possibly agree, which are contained in the 
substitute resolution authored by Senator Helms along with the 28 
conditions to which the agreement of both treaty proponents and 
opponents was secured, have come to be known among treaty proponents as 
the killer amendments.
  This afternoon, under the terms of the unanimous-consent agreement 
that governs Senate action on the CWC, the Senate will take up these 
disputed conditions one at a time. Treaty proponents will move to 
strike each of them, and the Senate will vote on each of those motions 
to strike.
  It is not possible to overemphasize the importance of these motions 
and the vote on them, Mr. President. Because regardless of what is said 
about the rationale for insisting on these disputed conditions, Mr. 
President, the fact is that the United States will be unable to ratify 
the CWC now or any time in the immediate future--and quite possibly 
never--if the effort to strike any one of them from the resolution 
fails. That is the gravity of what we will be doing on the Senate floor 
for the next 5 or 6 hours.

  The first of the disputed conditions that we will take up is 
Condition 30, titled, somewhat antiseptically, Chemical Weapons in 
Other States. The text of this condition is quite short. Let me quote 
it verbatim:

       Prior to the deposit of the United States instrument of 
     ratification, the President, in consultation with the 
     Director of Central Intelligence, shall certify to the 
     Congress that countries which have been determined to have 
     offensive chemical weapons programs, including Iran, Iraq, 
     Syria, Libya, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 
     China, and all other countries determined to be state 
     sponsors of international terrorism, have ratified or 
     otherwise acceded to the Convention.

  Now let me translate that text into simple English. Under the terms 
of that condition, were it to be attached to the resolution of 
ratification and the Senate were to pass it in that form, regardless of 
how many votes the resolution receives, and regardless of the strong 
support of the President of the United States for ratification, the 
United States could not formally ratify the Convention or be a part of 
its efforts to remove chemical weapons from the Earth until and unless 
the President could and did certify to the Congress that all the rogue 
nations of the Earth had first ratified the Convention or formally 
agreed to abide by its provisions.
  Mr. President, I certainly applaud those who drafted this condition 
for the objective they seek. There is no Senator who more fervently 
wishes than this Senator that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, 
China, Cuba, and Sudan--and, in fact, all nations on the Earth--will 
ratify the CWC and fully abide by all its provisions. Were that to be 
the case, Mr. President, the world would be a far, far safer, 
healthier, and more stable place for the human race.
  Indeed, were that to be the case, the effect would be so profound 
that the CWC probably would no longer be needed, because we would have 
reached the unreachable, achieved the unachievable. We would have 
reached a near-Utopia.
  But the hard, cold fact, Mr. President, is that while one or two or 
even more of these nations, some of which are often referred to as 
rogues, may ratify the CWC, and, if they do, we certainly hope and 
expect they will abide by its terms and destroy their chemical weapons 
arsenals and foreswear the production of any more chemical weapons, it 
is a safe bet that several of these nations will not ratify the 
Convention in the foreseeable future.
  That absolutely cannot come as a surprise to anyone in this Chamber. 
I do not believe a single Member of the Senate could look me in the eye 
and make a genuine claim that he or she is surprised to learn that most 
close observers of these nations do not believe that several of them 
will ratify the CWC anytime soon.
  Indeed, much of the 10 years during which the Reagan administration 
and Bush administration negotiating teams spent in exhausting and 
exhaustive negotiations to develop this treaty was spent to structure 
sanctions that will apply to trade in chemicals conducted by nations 
that do not ratify the CWC, in the full expectation that some if not 
all of these very nations will not ratify it. Think about it, and it 
will be painfully apparent. The CWC was not carefully negotiated and 
crafted to apply principally to those nations that ratify it and 
genuinely want to rid the Earth of all chemical weapons, though, of 
course, we must hold all nations accountable. It was negotiated and 
crafted to apply the pressure of world opinion, diplomatic pressure, 
and economic pressure on recalcitrant nations whose

[[Page S3806]]

leaderships flaunt the civilized norm and equip themselves with these 
horrific weapons, and where even this pressure does not attain reformed 
behavior, to make it as difficult as possible for those nations to 
carry on their deadly efforts--to isolate them in all possible ways.

  The Senator from North Carolina is absolutely correct when he says 
the rogue nations, or at least some of them, have these materials. In a 
number of cases, I am convinced they will continue to produce them, 
Chemical Weapons Convention or no Chemical Weapons Convention. But the 
issue before the Senate is how can we best try to pressure them to 
reform their behavior. How do we make it as difficult as possible for 
them to continue to do that? It is not, I assert, by means of this 
condition. It will not directly have that effect. And, more 
destructively, it will prevent U.S. participation in the CWC, period.
  Plainly, Mr. President, the authors of this condition know that if 
the condition we now are debating is not defeated, they have succeeded 
via the backdoor when they could not succeed through the front door in 
preventing U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. That 
is an outcome that must not be permitted.
  This condition has other destructive consequences. Let me note a few 
of them.
  First, this condition places control of a critical U.S. foreign 
policy and national security decision wholly in the hands of other 
nations, and not just any other nations. It places total control of 
whether the United States will ever ratify the CWC and participate in 
its vital efforts to rid the Earth of chemical weapons in the hands of 
the very group of nations that are led by those who are our avowed or 
de facto adversaries--our enemies if you will. What kind of sense does 
it make to give control of this key U.S. decision to any other nation, 
much less to any one of these nations? And yet this is the unintended 
consequence of action by Senators who in every other circumstance most 
vehemently insist that U.S. sovereignty must never be weakened or 
trampled.
  Second, this condition either fails to recognize or ignores the 
reality that at midnight next Tuesday--April 29--the Chemical Weapons 
Convention takes effect with or without U.S. participation. The 
question of whether the Convention is the best that can be designed is 
not the salient question at this point. The principal question now 
relevant is whether the United States, its people, and its security 
interests are better served by being a part of the Convention and 
working from within its organization to pursue abolition of the world's 
chemical arsenals, or to remain outside the Convention, which already 
has been ratified by 74 nations and is sure to be ratified by others of 
the over 160 signatories.

  If we fail to ratify, which emphatically will be the result of 
failing to strike this killer condition, guess which nations the 
company of which the United States ignominiously will join? Mr. 
President, in bitter irony, the United States, which under Presidents 
Reagan and Bush initiated, animated, and led the effort to negotiate 
this Convention, will join the company of precisely the group of 
nations this condition identifies as the world's villains and rogues. 
Rather than continuing to provide global leadership and rallying the 
world's community of nations to establish a new standard of behavior 
which proscribes all chemical weapons and engineers effective movement 
toward reducing them dramatically and ultimately, we hope, eliminating 
them entirely, we turn a sharp 180 degrees in the opposite direction, 
and refuse to be a part of this critical effort. In my judgment and the 
judgment of other people, U.S. prestige and respect around the world 
will be tragically tarnished. The ability of the United States to 
effectively lead the community of nations in myriad ways will be 
severely damaged. Our national credibility will suffer a serious blow.
  Third, those who insist on this killer condition have claimed that 
they cannot countenance U.S. participation in the CWC because they are 
certain that some nations will not participate in it or, if they do 
ratify it, they will not abide by its terms--notably, they believe, 
including the nations listed in this condition or at least some of 
them. As the Senator from Delaware noted earlier, as he quoted 
Secretary of State Albright, this is analogous to saying that we should 
have no laws because we are certain that some people will break them.
  Mr. President, I want to note what three of our most respected voices 
in this country with respect to national security affairs have said in 
agreeing that the United States should ratify the Chemical Weapons 
Convention and specifically addressing the linkage of our actions on 
the CWC to those of the outlaw states that is made by Condition 30.
  Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of United States and coalition 
troops in Desert Storm, said, ``I am very, very much in favor of the 
ratification of that treaty,'' referring, of course, to the CWC. ``We 
don't need chemical weapons to fight our future warfares. And frankly, 
by not ratifying that treaty, we align ourselves with nations like 
Libya and North Korea, and I just as soon not be associated with those 
thugs in this particular manner.'' I think that is a pretty strong 
statement about precisely what this condition would do.
  Gen. Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who 
served in that role during the Bush administration and during the 
Desert Storm operation, has already been quoted by my colleague. He, 
too, made it very clear that we should insist on this linkage.
  Former Assistant to President Reagan and Secretary of State James A. 
Baker III said:

       [S]ome have argued that we shouldn't commit to the treaty 
     because states like Libya, Iraq, and North Korea, which have 
     not signed it, will still be able to continue their efforts 
     to acquire chemical weapons. This is obviously true. But the 
     convention, which . . . will go into effect in April 
     whether or not we have ratified it, will make it more 
     difficult for these states to do so by prohibiting the 
     sale of materials to non-members that can be used to make 
     chemical weapons. . . . It makes no sense to argue that 
     because a few pariah states refuse to join the convention 
     the United States should line up with them rather than 
     with the rest of the world.

  Mr. President, that is not company that I want our Nation to be in. 
It would be a step that would have precisely the opoposite effect of 
that sought by its authors. Our failure to ratify the CWC will give any 
nation in the world all the cover it needs to fail to ratify. One need 
not have a great imagination to know what will result. When those 
nations that have ratified seek to point the finger of opprobrium at 
nonparticipants, very few will fail to respond that the United States 
has determined that it does not support this treaty or what it is 
designed to accomplish.
  Accepting this killer condition is playing right into the hands of 
the rogue nations that want no limits on their macabre chemical 
activities. I would think that reality would send shivers up and down 
the spines of all who recoil at the idea of troops from one or more of 
these rogue nations employing an instantly fatal gas against American 
troops, or an aerosol compound that leads to the slow, wretched, 
excruciating death of thousands of American service men and women.
  If we in the Senate do not remove this killer condition, we will be 
knowingly driving a stake through the heart of the first successful 
effort in human history to declare that manufacture or possession of 
chemical weapons is illegal under international law and to put 
unremitting pressure on those nations. Over time, if the United States 
puts its full weight behind the CWC effort as an active participant, 
the nations that refuse to participate will be shut out of the market 
for many dual use chemicals that can be used to make both chemical 
agents and commercial products as harmless as writing ink. Such nations 
will find it considerably more difficult to produce or acquire chemical 
weapons. This will produce cumulative pressure to join the community of 
nations by ratifying the treaty and living up to its requirements.
  To those who say that is not sufficient, or that it will happen too 
slowly, or that there will be cheaters in the treaty as well as 
nonparticipants, I say what is your alternative that will work more 
surely or more rapidly? The reality is that those who are insisting on 
this killer amendment have no alternative, much less one that will work 
more surely or rapidly.

[[Page S3807]]

  It must be remembered that currently it is not even illegal to make 
or stockpile chemical weapons, and there is no other effort on the 
horizon to make these actions illegal or to effectively halt them. If 
the United States chooses not to ratify this treaty after leading the 
world to it, you can rest assured the community of nations will not be 
running to us to seek our leadership in some new effort to do that.
  In addition to all the reasons I have cited for rejecting this killer 
condition, it is both appropriate and accurate to add every reason 
advanced by dozens of Senators of both parties during yesterday's and 
today's sessions for ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention. Because 
the only practical effect of this condition is to make it impossible 
for the United States to ratify. Everything else that is said to 
justify accepting this condition is eyewash, window dressing, 
camoflage.

  Only one thing about this condition matters, I say to all my 
colleagues. If this condition is not defeated, the ratification of the 
Chemical Weapons Convention is.
  There can be no hiding from this central truth. Reasonable people can 
differ on substantive or policy grounds. Some Senators, albeit for 
reasons I believe are not meritorious or even logical, may conclude 
that they do not believe the United States should ratify the CWC. 
Presumably those Senators, whose number I hope is very, very small, 
will vote against the resolution of ratification. But no Senator can 
claim with veracity that he or she wants the United States to ratify 
the CWC now or in the foreseeable future, and participate in its vital 
activities to rid the world of chemical weapons, while voting to retain 
this condition. The two are mutually inconsistent, mutually 
incompatible. To place it in the vernacular, that does not compute.
  I urge all my colleagues to consider and understand the gravity of 
the vote we are about to take. Those who support the CWC must vote to 
strike this condition.

                          ____________________