News: Will Dole Make a Difference? -- 4/23/97
The Chemical Weapons Convention Web site The Henry L. Stimson Center's Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project The Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute Web site The Chemical Manufacturers Association's News and Issues page
Heritage Foundation policy papers opposing the pact Senate Should Reject the Chemical Weapons Convention -- Phyllis Schlafly Column -- August 1, 1996 Statement of the Cato Institute's Roger Pilon before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee
CQ: Five Amendments To Dominate Debate CQ: Senate Passes Domestic Version of Ban CQ: Chemical Arms Ban's Chances Put at 50-50 in Senate Full text of The Chemical Weapons Convention Full text of the 1925 Geneva Protocol
Senate Vote On Chemical Weapons Treaty Still Unclear -- (4/10/97) Clinton Urges Senate To Act On Chemical Treaty -- (4/04/97) |
What are the arguments against the pact?
The treaty's critics say it is less than worthless, because it will lull the U.S. into thinking that the chemical weapons threat is over, while the countries thought most likely to use the weapons against U.S. troops, including Iraq and North Korea, have not signed on. "Six of the fourteen countries that are suspected by the United States of possessing chemical weapons have not even signed the CWC," said Helms in March. "Yet (five of) these countries -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and North Korea -- are the ones the intelligence community has identified as having the most aggressive chemical weapons program." They also say it will be impossible to adequately verify compliance, because it takes so little space and technology to manufacture some chemical weapons. Pact opponents argue that while the inspections will fail to find all they should abroad, they are sufficiently intrusive domestically to violate constitutional protections against search and seizure. The Chemical Weapons Convention is seen as yet another example of Clinton's penchant for international cooperation in areas where, some would argue, unilateral U.S. efforts would be better. Finally, treaty opponents contend that the U.S. needs to retain the ability to retaliate against chemical weapons attacks in kind, which the convention would bar. |
Copyright © 1997 AllPolitics All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this information is provided to you.