|
|
 | |
 |  |
| SENATE VOTE FALLOUT | |
 October 14, 1999 
| ||
|
|
|
| MARGARET WARNER: Now, two ambassadors and two
U.S. Senators explore the likely international fallout from yesterday's vote.
The ambassadors are Naresh Ambassador Chandra, today the President in particular called on India and Pakistan not to take this vote as a green light to step up your nuclear weapons program. How do you read it?
MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about the big five nuclear powers? NARESH CHANDRA: Nuclear powers. So we have said that we will try reach an understanding so that we don't stand in the way of the treaty going into force. MARGARET WARNER: All right. But are you saying, one, that India will continue to adhere to your own sort of voluntary ban on testing? NARESH CHANDRA: That's true. MARGARET WARNER: And what about signing this treaty, which India has not done? NARESH CHANDRA: Well, we are in the stage of evolving a consensus inside India. And this process has got delayed because we had a general election, which lasted a long time. The new government has taken oath of office yesterday, and it's a priority for them to determine their approach now and the future on the signing on the CTBT. |  | ||||||||||||||||||
| Other nonproliferation pledges | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Ambassador Guelar, what's the reaction from your capital and from you? DIEGO RAMIRO GUELAR: Of course we have to MARGARET WARNER: Now, the President... we didn't run this part in our tape, but the President expressed concern that countries like yours that had -- were nuclear-capable probably -- but had suspended their programs and signed the nonproliferation treaty would now perhaps have second thoughts if they thought that the nuclear powers farther down the track were not committed to an end to testing. I mean do you see any danger? DIEGO RAMIRO
GUELAR: Well, not related to countries like Argentina and Brazil. We declared
two years ago South America as, and specifically Mercosur with the immigration
process, as a peace zone. We are very proud of that, and in any way that is going
to affect us. But of course... MARGARET WARNER: So that's not going to change? DIEGO RAMIRO GUELAR: No, in any way. But of course by sure, unfortunately, that is going to alter the dialogue among the nations that didn't sign or ratify already the treaty. MARGARET WARNER: Senator Levin, it doesn't sound like we're hearing there's going to be a tremendous stampede suddenly to begin testing or step up nuclear programs from this vote. SEN. CARL LEVIN: Well, I'm not sure you're going to hear a stampede,
but our fear is that, in fact, this will be used by countries that are inclined
to test or not to sign the treaty as the reason not to. We have lost our MARGARET WARNER: Senator Lugar, what do you expect in the way of international fallout from this? SEN. RICHARD
LUGAR: Well, I think the President made clear that we would not test. You've heard
from the Indian ambassador they don't plan to test. My own judgment is that countries
have been determined to test, for instance, India and Pakistan when it met their
interests and probably will continue to test if it meets their interest. Likewise,
North Korea or Iraq if they ever got free to do so, maybe even Iran. I'm not certain
how many other countries there are. I'm not certain the world is either |  | |||||||||||||||||||
| Moral authority lost? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| MARGARET WARNER: Ambassador Chandra, what about the point -- or how do you respond to the point that Senator Levin made; that is, setting aside perhaps India for a moment, but that it is difficult for the United States to have the moral authority now to call on other countries either not to test or to sign or ratify the treaty when the U.S. hasn't done the latter? NARESH CHANDRA: Well, there are two
aspects: One is the treaty ratification. The other is the U.S. policy as enunciated
by the President and executed. It is true MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry. In what way? NARESH CHANDRA: When we consider about signing the CTBT, the debate in the Senate, the observations which have been made will be very carefully taken into account. But the ultimate test, whether we sign or not, there is only one criteria, and that is the national security interests of the Indian people. It is on that test that parliament and government of India will decide whether to sign the test ban treaty or not. MARGARET WARNER: How do you see, Ambassador, how do you see the ability of the U.S. now to continue to exercise leadership in this area? DIEGO RAMIRO GUELAR: Well, we have to recognize a very important precedent is that, from 1992 during a Republican administration, during President Bush administration, there was the first strong decision to stop nuclear tests, and that has been followed by President Clinton and personally I hope that that is going to be the same policy that is going to be followed by the next President of the United States. MARGARET WARNER: But I mean is America's ability to -- is its credibility undercut as many of the supporters of the treaty said?
MARGARET WARNER: Can you expand on that a little? DIEGO RAMIRO GUELAR: Well, there is no doubt that the role of leadership of the United States played with a major role to get the unanimous decision that we need. You know that for the ratification of this treaty, you need 51 votes and you need the full 44 nations that have nuclear power. MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about the four nuclear-capable powers all have to sign before it goes into effect, or ratify it? DIEGO RAMIRO GUELAR: Yes. And that's of course a campaign in a way to persuade the 44 were leaded by the United States. This vote of course changed that possibility, at least for a while. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Treaty: Still a work in progress | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Senator Lugar, what about that?
MARGARET WARNER: Senator Levin, I'll turn the tables and raise with you what the Indian ambassador just said and Senator Lugar, which is in the end, every country makes these decisions based on their own national interests, not on what the U.S. Senate does. SEN. CARL LEVIN: Well, that's clear that people will act in their own national interests. Our top military leadership from Secretary Cohen, Secretary of Defense, to General Shelton, who's the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said it is clearly in our national security interest to approve this treaty. They urged us to approve this treaty. It was in our interest to approve this treaty and it is our interest to try to persuade other nations that it is in their interest to ratify the treaty and to sign it. But that effort to get other nations to join in the effort against proliferation of nuclear weapons is severely weakened, in my judgment. We are set back, we ought to acknowledge this. The President wasn't the one who rolled the dice. The U.S. Senate decided to roll the dice even though 60-plus Senators said in a letter that they thought we should delay the vote. Nonetheless, the vote proceeded, the majority was determined to proceed with this vote and the gamble, which it seems to me should not have been taken, and many people are responsible for that gamble, but nonetheless, that gamble should not have been taken. We had a chance to avoid that gamble yesterday, and we blew that opportunity. MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Ambassador Guelar - oh, I think that's your phone - I was going to ask you a question here. Finally, let me ask you about something the President said about the reaction that he had had last night from three other ambassadors. I gather neither one of you were the three ambassadors. DIEGO RAMIRO GUELAR: No. MARGARET WARNER: Which was that a certain -- and he said he shared it, that there was a kind of new isolationism in the Senate. He particularly mentioned the Republicans. When you look at the American body politic right now and you report back to your capitals, do you see that? DIEGO RAMIRO GUELAR: No, I don't think so. I really think that of course what happens nowadays in Washington or in the Senate or in the House have global effect, there is no doubt that the role of the United States, it's a global role, not only an internal nation or a national entity; it has this impact in worldwide events, but there is no doubt that this is not a close debate and through democracy and through the normal functioning of the Congress, this is going to be re-debated in the Senate.
|  | |||||||||||||||||||
| A new American isolationism? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| MARGARET WARNER: Do you see,
Mr. NARESH CHANDRA: I would put it this way: In every democracy, both points of view are present in the national parliament or in the Congress. And it depends on which point, what point of view prevails because politics is essentially local, and nobody can blame elected representatives from keeping a sharp eye on what the voters' interest is. So it's a case of a balance. I think in the national parliament, people expect that a much broader view is taken. So there is a balance between isolationists' view and the world view. MARGARET WARNER: Senator Levin, how do you see this new isolationism that the President talked about -- briefly because we're just about out of - SEN. CARL LEVIN: I think there is some evidence of it -- some of the language, the rhetoric relative to our relationship with Russia -- it seems to me -- is needlessly divisive. On the other hand, we have some awfully good people in this Senate, including Senator Lugar, who's sitting here with me, and I have confidence that the cooler heads, the more moderate heads in the Republican Party at least will have a chance at prevailing. I hope so because we know that there are people who are internationalists still in the Republican Party, and we hope that that particular wing will have a greater influence on politics and that Democrats will work on a bipartisan basis. And we have an obligation to do that with those Republicans who want to continue to be engaged in the new threat -- against the new threats, which are the threats of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. MARGARET WARNER: So Senator Lugar, do you share that, that even internationalists like yourself, you might have voted against the treaty, but isolationism isn't just washing over the U.S. Senate? SEN. RICHARD
LUGAR: No, it's not. And I would say that my colleague, Carl Levin, in fact, had
a dinner last evening that I attended, Senator Biden attended, Senator Smith and
Senator Dodd and others, and we really talked very frankly about how we pull together,
a very strong MARGARET WARNER: All right, well, thank you, Senators, and thank you, Ambassadors, very much. |  | |||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
Chandra
of India. His country exploded a nuclear weapon last year and has not yet signed
the test ban treaty. And Diego Ramiro Guelar of Argentina, whose country renounced
nuclear weapons nearly a decade ago and has signed and ratified the treaty. The
Senators are Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana and a member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, who voted against the treaty; and Carl Levin, Democrat of
Michigan and member of the Armed Services Committee, who supported it.
NARESH
CHANDRA: Well, we have already made an announcement at prime minister's level
that we have taken a decision not to test anymore. In fact, the announcement was
made on the 13th of May '98, by my government. And the prime minister of India
reiterated our approach to CTBT in the UN General Assembly and also in Parliament.
We don't oppose and we have said that we are working to reach arrangements with
our friendly powers, including the P Five - in order not to -
respect
a decision from the American Congress, but I have to admit that expectation was
in terms of the approval or the ratification. In our case, Argentina ratified
the treaty in 1998, and our neighbor and close partner, Brazil, did the same.
We have been working during the last seven years together in a common agency based
in Rio de Janeiro and our both highly developed nuclear programs are concentrated
in specific uses of that energy.
leadership
role here. How can the United States urge Pakistan to test no more, to sign a
treaty? How can we plead with the Indian parliament that is not decided yet whether
to sign the treaty to sign this treaty and test no more? How do we urge China,
for instance, to ratify the treaty? They have signed it but not yet ratified it.
How do we urge Russia to ratify this treaty when with we ourselves as a Senate,
at least at this point, have rejected ratification? So I think it significantly
weakens us. I think as a result, the effort against proliferation has been significantly
set back. Our leadership has been set back and the world is a lot more dangerous
as a result of the Senate action, in my judgment. That doesn't mean that the Senate
will not return to this treaty -- hopefully in a much more deliberative way after
hearings -- with the possibility of amendments and understandings being considered
by the Senate. That was not allowed under the unanimous consent agreement, which
we were operating under. 
safer or unsafer. What clearly happened was a surprise to the rest of the world,
but it was a surprise to President Clinton and to the Democratic administration,
because to have a roll of the dice when very clearly the votes were not there,
either it means they have not been visiting with the Senate recently or did not
understand how these treaties are ratified; namely, with a run-up often of months
or years with an armed control observer - by bipartisan effort to educate people.
And when the President said this afternoon that you only do these things after
hearings begin, the President obviously doesn't understand how a treaty gets ratified
here and gets 67 votes in a bipartisan way. So I think the rest of the world will
all understand our politics better and the fact that there is still a moratorium
on testing and we can continue to urge countries in their own self-interest not
to test. 
that
non-ratification will have a bearing on the strength that the U.S. administration
would have had in persuading other powers to their point of view. At the same
time, the fact that the President has indicated that his policy of non-testing
and continuing commitment to the treaty would lend them some weight there. As
far as India is concerned, for us the debate in the Senate is a very important
input for our deliberations. But as I mentioned, once earlier... 
DIEGO
RAMIRO GUELAR: Without any doubt it is undercut. It's very clear and that was
clearly explained by President Clinton, I have to agree, that there is an impact
without any doubt, a negative impact in the world related to this decision. 
SEN.
RICHARD LUGAR: Well, I think that the Indian ambassador has pointed out that the
national will and security of India will governor them. The Argentine ambassador
has indicated he thinks we've been undercut, but if so, it was clearly a roll
of the dice by the President that did not work out. The next President, as he
points out, the ambassador does, may take a different point of view. I would just
say this is a treaty that is still a work in process. The stewardship stockpile
situation is years away from certainty. So are setting up all of the monitors
for verification and very clearly what we would do if there was a violation. These
are still things to be worked out and to be matured, and they will be during coming
months. And all of the ambassadors will see that debate and that preparation.
Ambassador,
a United States that's disengaging from the world at all?