|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| TESTING THE TREATY | |
 October 11, 1999 
|
||
|
|
After a background report, two experts discuss the upcoming Senate vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and President Clinton's attempt to delay a decision. |
|
Brent Scowcroft, earlier in her testimony, Secretary Albright said she didn't want to ban the bomb, just the bang. What's wrong with that? |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Banning the bomb or the bang? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
BRENT SCOWCROFT: I think what's wrong with it is that most of the arguments about test ban, it really doesn't do that much in substance. It's mostly a... a gimmickry, but in fact the situation we are in now, we have signed a treaty, we have been leaders for it. To now defeat a treaty and back away will do grievous damage to American leadership in the world. RAY SUAREZ: You are not a supporter of the treaty as written?
RAY SUAREZ: Thomas Graham, you were not a fan of the idea of delay yourself. THOMAS GRAHAM: Definitely not. I think that we've had considerable delay already. This treaty has long been seen as the litmus test of the commitment of nuclear weapon states to their nonproliferation treaty obligations, and it was a central part of the price that we paid for indefinite extension of the treaty making it permanent in 1995, something we very much wanted. We should follow through on this bargain. If we fail to ratify, either by a rejection of the treaty or postponement without any kind of commitment to take the treaty up again say early next year, then I think we are seriously undermining the nonproliferation treaty regime and opening the door down the road to widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. RAY SUAREZ: But the critics have returned again and again to the idea of problems with verification. The CIA said that it couldn't necessarily monitor tests around the world. And doubt was cast on the ability of this new international mechanism to monitor compliance.
RAY SUAREZ: We haven't been testing for several years already, Mr. Scowcroft. BRENT SCOWCROFT: That's correct. RAY SUAREZ: What seven years or so? BRENT SCOWCROFT: About that, yes. RAY SUAREZ: And we already have the largest stockpile in the world by some great margin and we've had a thousand tests since 1945. BRENT SCOWCROFT: That's right. RAY SUAREZ: Doesn't that build in a margin to take away some of those worries, some of those concerns? BRENT SCOWCROFT: It does build in a margin and for right now we're all right. But we don't know what happens for sure to nuclear weapons in storage -- how they may degrade, how the characteristics may change. And it's when you get out into the future that the uncertainties arise. We don't know what the nuclear age is going to develop into. I don't think we should rule out for all time and eternity building new types of nuclear weapons if the need arises. It's not there right now. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Testing without explosions? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
THOMAS GRAHAM: Well, the three lab directors have said in testimony that they are confident that the stockpile stewardship program will keep the nuclear stockpile safe and reliable for the indefinite future. My understanding is that there's not any chance of a significant problem with the stockpile for ten years or so or more. And by that time the stockpile stewardship program will have been proven. If for some reason it doesn't work out, we do have the withdrawal clause under the treaty, the supreme interest withdrawal clause, which the President stated as part of the overall compromise affecting this treaty that he would use, if necessary. BRENT SCOWCROFT: Well, there's no hurry to ratify right now. There's nothing going to happen. Only 23 of the 44 nations that have to ratify before the treaty can come into effect are saying we have time we have time to figure out now whether the stockpile stewardship program in fact will work. There are lots of uncertainties. The thing is way behind in its funding even. There's no rush right now. RAY SUAREZ: But to the United States as the world's leading nuclear power, I mean, you've been an arms control negotiator. You understand about confidence building - BRENT SCOWCROFT: Absolutely. RAY SUAREZ: Is it necessary for the United States to not be like the Congo and Belgium and wait around waiting to see what the rest of the international community is doing but instead say we as the number one power are taking this step down a road that we've already been seven years?
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| The political question | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAY SUAREZ: Well, it sounds like there's a political question intervening in the form of whether or not the President is promising to take it off the table altogether. The Senate wanted some assurance that if the President withdrew the ratification bill, that it would be for the rest of the 106th Congress. It sounds more like a political question than a national security one. THOMAS GRAHAM: Well, it appears to be very much a political question. And this treaty should be addressed on the merits, not the domestic politics thereof, although one can't escape from that entirely. I'm not sure I entirely agree with General Scowcroft that there's no rush here. I'm not saying the treaty has to be ratified tomorrow or next week, but time is passing, and it's been three years since this treaty was signed. And this is the essential commitment we made for a permanent NPT - a permanent nonproliferation treaty in 1995. We can't expect that regime to hold together forever if we don't deliver on commitments that we make. And I think that this treaty ought to be brought up for consideration early next year beginning with a lengthy series of hearings to examine all these questions. RAY SUAREZ: But there were Senators today who came on to the floor and in the body of their questions made the point that we haven't necessarily been able to keep a good eye on North Korea, that even during the UNSCOM days, inspectors on the ground weren't able to verify what Iraq was doing, and here was a treaty that they couldn't be sure built in the necessary safeguards. How would you reassure a Senator who has those serious misgivings?
RAY SUAREZ: A brief response, Brent Scowcroft? BRENT SCOWCROFT: Look -- North Korea, Iraq, they're not going to be dissuaded by any comprehensive test ban treaty. They've ignored the nonproliferation treaty. They're going to do whatever they want. What we're doing right now is playing politics. And both sides are playing politics for advantage. The Republicans, if they're going to have to vote, want to vote this year, not next year in an election year. So I think the prudent thing is to have both sides agree we will not take it up until after the U.S. elections. RAY SUAREZ: Brent Scowcroft, Thomas Graham, thanks for being with us. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
RAY
SUAREZ: We take up the treaty debate with Brent Scowcroft, who served
as national security adviser to Presidents Ford and Bush, and with Thomas
Graham, who served as acting director of the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency in the first year of the Clinton administration, and later served
as the President's special representative for arms control, nonproliferation,
and disarmament. 
BRENT
SCOWCROFT: Not on its substance. I would be much more comfortable with
it if it had a sunset provision. We don't know what's going to happen
in the nuclear age out five years, ten years. We're fine right now.
Whether we will be in the future, whether the stockpile stewardship
program will work and so on, there are so many unknowns that to sign
a treaty in perpetuity I think is a mistake. 
THOMAS
GRAHAM: I believe the treaty is verifiable. The one kiloton and below
level of tests has always been recognized as difficult to verify, but
tests that small are not of significance to advanced nuclear powers.
And so-called rogue states attempting to acquire nuclear weapons can't
control tests sufficiently to be sure they could have a test that low.
I agree with what the president of France, the prime minister of England
and the chancellor of Germany said about the international monitoring
system in their op-ed. They said, "we believe it will work."
RAY
SUAREZ: How about the idea that we can test in other manners without
actually blowing up the bombs? 
BRENT
SCOWCROFT: I think we do need to be leaders. And that's the thing that
troubles me a great deal. But if we vote, like tomorrow or in the near
future, we're going to defeat the treaty. That, to me, is the worst
possible outcome. I would rather delay, until we can see if these things
work, until we can resolve some of the verifiability problems that trouble
a lot of people sincerely, then we're better off not voting. Defeat
is the worst possible outcome. And the two sides now, the Republicans
and Democrats are jockeying for domestic political advantage now. And
it's a serious mistake. The treaty ought to be pulled until at least
this election is over. 
THOMAS
GRAHAM: Well, obviously one has to go into the technology at some depth.
I personally am confident that this treaty is effectively verifiable,
that is, verifiable to the point where U.S. national security is fully
protected. But that is a subject that requires in-depth discussion and
testimony by experts and hearings so that Senators and the public can
fully understand this issue. It is an important issue. And with respect
to Iraq and North Korea and countries like that, it seems to me what
has happened in the last few days is a very negative situation in the
Senate, the President requesting an indefinite delay in the treaty.
That's going to be read overseas as tantamount to a U.S. rejection,
which will be long-term catastrophic to our interests and that's the
last thing we want to do. 
