Voting Down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Student Perspective

Last week the United States Senate voted down an international treaty banning underground testing of nuclear weapons. Many see this as not only a decisive defeat of one of President Clinton's major foreign policy goals, but as a setback for efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear arms. Molly Wallace '00, a self-designed peace and conflict studies major, offers this assessment.

Had the United States Senate voted to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) last week, it is likely that Russia, China, and Pakistan might have followed suit. The Senate's action means that there is a greater chance that these countries will see no reason why they should not resume nuclear testing, thus sparking an invigorated arms race in a volatile region. If the country with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world finds it necessary to retain its right to underground nuclear testing, why should countries with less advanced nuclear arsenals feel compelled to relinquish theirs?

The Senate's 51 - 48 vote against the treaty last week raises important questions about both the role of the United States as a leader in shaping international norms and this country's definition of its national security. The United States has often enjoyed holding itself up as a moral standard for all the world to follow. In addition, its political and economic power on the international stage means that it can usually maneuver to get what it wants by exerting pressure on bodies that go against its wishes.

Most members of the international community have come to realize that this country's support of a particular policy means that the policy will have force, whereas its rejection means that it will be ineffective. By voting down a treaty to which it wants other countries to adhere, the United States fails on both accounts: it loses its moral force (an important tool in gaining international respect and support), and it sends a message to the rest of the world that the CTBT will be an ineffective treaty and is not worthy of further ratification.

These effects have disastrous implications for international security, implications that many United States senators did not take into account when assessing what was best for this country's security. Too often, United States policymakers fail to make the connection between this country's interests and those of other countries. Rather, their policies reflect a short-sighted vision of immediate military and economic gain--and a lack of recognition that a policy decision that reaffirms American military might could do damage to the United States in the long run.

This country is at the point in its economic, political, military, and cultural hegemony that it does more harm than good to increase its show of power. Widespread resentment has started to take hold around the world in response to American domination, and the Senate's decision last week will only fan the fiery criticism that is already rampant. The United States might think that its mass arsenals and unbridled ability to test nuclear weapons make it immune to discontent abroad, but we need only look as far as the United States Embassy bombings two summers ago to see that American security is not guaranteed by such toys of power.

We need to come to terms with the fact that acting in the interest of other countries (by quelling the United States nuclear threat through ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), is ultimately acting in our own interest (the results of United States ratification being passage of the treaty by other countries, prevention of another arms race in Asia, and allaying further provocations of anti-American sentiment). Only then, will the United States and the rest of the world be truly secure.