News: Will Dole Make a Difference? -- 4/23/97

globe Ratification Map



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

Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses

Full text of the 1925 Geneva Protocol


Related Stories

Senate Vote On Chemical Weapons Treaty Still Unclear -- (4/10/97)

Clinton Urges Senate To Act On Chemical Treaty -- (4/04/97)

Navigation

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.

Return To The Questions


home | news | in-depth | analysis | what's new | community | contents | search

Click here for technical help or to send us feedback.

Copyright © 1997 AllPolitics All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this information is provided to you.