[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.
____________________