All because of a blue stained dress.

Thursday, October 14, 1999--HONG KONG (APJ/www.gelken.com)--I don't think it would be an overstatement to say that the Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has seriously undermined any right the United States may believe it has to take the high moral ground on just about any subject relating to its foreign relations. In fact, I believe as time passes, my opening comment may even come to be considered an understatement. Failure to ratify this treaty is going to be the stick that foreign governments, regimes and juntas will use to beat the United States whenever the American administration dares to criticise the policies of others.

Assertions by President Bill Clinton that the United States will still maintain its own moratorium on nuclear testing will ring as a rather empty promise to emerging nuclear states. Regardless of the sincerity of Clinton's statement, they will doubtless 'choose' to view it with misgivings and distrust. Basically, if a moratorium is worth living with, it is worth marrying. Fear of marriage suggests a lack of commitment.

The history of mankind is a paper, papyrus and chiselled rock trail of broken treaties. By ratifying the CTBT the United States could have clung to its self described moral leadership. In practical terms, the treaty would only have been valid and binding until someone decided to break it. With its obvious technological lead, I doubt if the weakest link in the CTBT chain would have been the United States. Once emerging nuclear states began testing again, the U.S. could have announced its own withdrawal from the treaty--for national security reasons--while still maintaining the high moral ground. And who knows, the damn thing might have worked. Now we'll never know.

The Republican-dominated Senate had the chance to ratify what had the potential to be a win-win treaty in favour of lose-lose partisanship. They've done American foreign policy a major disservice and handed a foreign policy 'get out of jail free' card to regimes from Pyongyang to Islamabad. Way to go. I can't help but be convinced the Republicans were motivated more by a desire to exact revenge on Clinton for surviving the impeachment than they were concerned for U.S. national security.

My own government in Britain ratified the treaty and appealed to the Senate to follow suit. The British have the same concerns about security and the same doubts expressed by the Republicans on the ability to monitor and police the treaty. But they also recognised the opportunity it presented--and for the Blair administration it was a rare demonstration of their insight and ability to get something right. The French appealed to the Senate. The Germans appealed to the Senate. Disappointment has been expressed by democratically elected leaders as far away as New Zealand. The Republicans turned their back on their allies and friends, rejecting a global security treaty in a fit of pique over losing a petty domestic quarrel.

If a Republican gets elected in 2000, not only would it be a triumph of stupidity over good sense as far as the American voting public is concerned, it would also be a signal to start digging bunkers and learning the 'duck and cover' drills all over again. The Republicans have edged America out towards the the diplomatic cold and destroyed years of carefully cultivated 'moral' leadership. And all because of a blue stained dress.