[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E225]]
                     1998: THE YEAR OF ARMS CONTROL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 25, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' 
attention a recent op-ed by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., entitled Let 
1998 Be the Year of Arms Control. The excellent article appeared in the 
Christian Science Monitor on February 23, 1998.
  I ask that this article be printed in the Congressional Record.
  The article follows:

          [From the Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 23, 1998]

                  Let 1998 Be the Year of Arms Control

                       (By Joseph R. Biden, Jr.)

       An increasingly chaotic world demands US leadership across 
     a wide front. From NATO enlargement to Bosnia to Iraq to the 
     Asian economic crisis to the United Nations, the US carries a 
     heavy load.
       But those aren't the only problems we face. Arms control 
     has become the forgotten stepchild in foreign policy. We face 
     grave threats to the safety and well-being of the American 
     people. To meet them, the president and Congress should give 
     higher priority to critical arms control initiatives this 
     year.
       First, we should implement the Chemical Weapons Convention. 
     Last April, the US ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention 
     outlawing poison gas. Russia, China, India, Iran, and many 
     others also joined. China and India admitted for the first 
     time to having chemical weapons and related facilities, which 
     must be destroyed under the treaty.
       But the US is now in violation of the treaty because 
     Congress has failed to enact legislation needed to bring us 
     into compliance. The national security consequences are 
     serious. Until we come into compliance, for example, the US 
     cannot effectively demand that Iran declare and destroy all 
     its chemical weapons facilities--which potentially threaten 
     US forces in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.
       Second, we should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 
     Treaty. CTBT will inhibit nuclear powers from developing new 
     classes of nuclear weapons and make it extremely difficult 
     for non-nuclear countries to develop sophisticated nuclear 
     weapons at all. Limiting other countries' nuclear efforts 
     will enhance our deterrent posture, which remains vital to 
     world security. It is no accident that the chairman of the 
     joint chiefs of staff and his four immediate predecessors 
     have all endorsed ratification of this treaty.


                        Backing nonproliferation

       The non-nuclear states consider CTBT an act of good faith 
     by the nuclear powers, in return for their agreeing to 
     permanent nuclear nonproliferation. If we were to reject CTBT 
     and resume testing, as treaty opponents have urged, the 
     nuclear nonproliferation regime could well collapse.
       Third, we should ratify the START and ABM Treaty 
     ``strategic package.'' After the Russian Duma ratifies START 
     II, President Clinton will submit to the Senate a package of 
     modifications to the START treaties and the Anti-Ballistic 
     Missile (ABM) Treaty. These needed modifications will pave 
     the way for further control of strategic missiles and nuclear 
     warheads under START III and safeguard our ABM research 
     programs.
       Some Republicans would kill the ABM treaty outright. That, 
     in turn, would kill the START process: Russia will not give 
     up its dangerous multiple-warhead missiles if the US moves 
     to build nationwide missile defenses. Scuttling START 
     would be costly and harmful to US national security and 
     would undermine continued adherence to the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Treaty by non-nuclear states.
       Rejection of the ABM treaty succession agreement would also 
     alienate Ukraine and Kazakhstan. These two nations view the 
     ABM agreement as validating their sovereignty vis-a-vis 
     Russia. If we reject the treaty, they might seek nuclear 
     weapons for protection, thus increasing the risk of a nuclear 
     war in Europe.
       Fourth, we should ratify an Anti-Personnel Landmine 
     Protocol. Landmines have produced carnage from Angola to 
     Bosnia, from Afghanistan to Cambodia. The Ottawa Convention 
     banning these mines is controversial. As an alternative, the 
     Senate can and should approve the amended landmine protocol 
     to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, which would limit 
     their use, require safety features, establish an obligation 
     to clean up minefields, and extend the law to civil wars, as 
     well as international ones.
       The protocol, which is supported by many powers that would 
     not sign the Ottawa Convention, could save innocent lives 
     while we work to make a worldwide ban feasible for all 
     countries.


                         Include light weapons

       Fifth, we should seek to control light weapons. We limit 
     weapons of mass destruction, but there are few if any 
     restraints on the most pervasive weapons. From border wars to 
     civil wars to drug wars, the weapons of choice are the 
     military assault rifle, the grenade, and the mortar. American 
     tourists, students, missionaries, and business people have 
     already fallen victim to these weapons. It is in our national 
     interest to control them. The US supports voluntary bans on 
     arms sales to the warring parties in Afghanistan and should 
     explore the potential for other embargoes. The most effective 
     short-term approach may be embargoes on ammunition. But this 
     will work only if other light-arms producers join in. As a 
     first step, Congress should urge US discussions with our 
     European allies on a joint policy.
       Arms buy-back programs can also work, if we help protect 
     people who turn in their arms and offer them a decent 
     livelihood. The US assisted a successful buy-back program in 
     Mali, and Congress should fund more such efforts.
       This ambitious wish-list will not be completed in a single 
     year. But these issues affect the safety and lives of our 
     citizens, and we should start addressing them.

     

                          ____________________