n e w s of t h e w e e k Failure to ratify would not only "diminish U.S. national security [but] jeopardize jobs in the chemical industry," Lugar explains. "Our chemical companies will be disadvantaged in exporting to countries that do ratify it." In a letter to Lott last week that tipped the balance, GOP presidential contender Robert J. Dole did not explicitly oppose the treaty, but said he could only support a global, verifiable accord. In a separate letter to Lott, Cabinet offigan destroying its 30,000-metric-ton chem- cials from the Reagan and Bush Adminisical stockpile. A 1985 congressional man- trations argued that the treaty was not date obligates the U.S. to destroy most of global, effective, or verifiable. They arits chemical arsenal by the end of 2004. As gued that countries of concern—Iraq, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), a senior Syria, North Korea, and Libya—have not member of the Foreign Relations and In- signed the treaty, and they said Russia, telligence Committees and the accord's which has signed, may not ratify it. These former GOP officials feared the chief Republican sponsor, points out: "The [treaty] would require other coun- treaty would "create a massive new UNtries to destroy their chemical weapons style international inspection bureaucracy" as the U.S. is already doing." The treaty, costing U.S. taxpayers up to $200 million per year. "It [would] he argues, "offers us jeopardize U.S. citizens' an important tool to constitutional rights by help reduce the threat requiring the U.S. govposed by chemical terernment to permit rorism and warfare." searches without warJust days before the rants or probable scheduled Senate decause." bate, President Clinton Helms insists the insisted the treaty's treaty "will increase ac"trade controls will cess to chemical weapdeny terrorists easy acons by rogue states, it will cost taxpayers billions in new foreign aid [to help the Russians destroy their massive chemical arsenal], and in the process it will devastate American businesses with new regulations, inspections, and loss of trade secrets." He says up to 10,000 businesses are likely to be affected by the accord's reporting and inspection provisions. However, CMA, which helped to negotiate and test the treaty, says Helms's claims are wrong. CMA President Frederick L. Webber says the treaty will obligate only 2,000 commercial facilities to report their activities. "More than 90% of Lugar (top) was a chief GOP sponsor; Helms (bottom) led opposition to those facilities will only need to file a chemical weapons treaty. simple two-page form, once a year with the government," he notes. "A second, cess to the ingredients they seek." He smaller group of 200 facilities will have noted that these controls aren't perfect more detailed reporting requirements, but "by tying the U.S. into a global verifi- and may be subject to on-site inspeccation network and strengthening our in- tions." These latter facilities will be able telligence sharing with the international "to negotiate how inspections are concommunity, this treaty can be an early ducted," and will be able "to protect warning that is essential for combating sensitive trade secrets." terrorism." Lois Ember
CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY BLOCKED Senate Republican opposition casts pall over pact
U
nder a unanimous consent agreement reached in June, the Senate was poised last week to finally vote on ratification of a treaty to outlaw chemical weapons. But on Sept. 12, the Clinton Administration asked—and the Senate leadership agreed—to set aside the agreement. There was no debate, no vote on ratification, and no new date for a vote. An accord negotiated by three Republican Administrations and signed in January 1993 by President Bush was sidetracked, despite its GOP pedigree, by a determined group of conservative Republicans. This group, led by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, apparently garnered enough votes to prevent ratification by the required two-thirds vote and forced the Administration to request postponement of the vote. No vote is expected before the November elections. The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America—whose member companies are most affected by the treaty— strongly backed ratification and rapid passage of legislation to implement the accord. Now, says Michael P. Walls, a key CMA staffer shepherding the treaty, "The treaty is on the brink of entry into force and the U.S. isn't there. CMA is deeply disappointed." The treaty—the product of nearly 30 years of negotiations—bans development, production, possession, and transfer of chemical weapons. It requires countries that ratify the pact to destroy their chemical weapons and production facilities, subject to international on-site verification, within 10 years after the treaty enters into force. Ratification by 65 nations is needed for the pact to take effect. It has already been ratified by 63 countries—including most NATO nations and the European Union, but not Russia, the largest holder of such weapons. Five years ago, the U.S. unilaterally be6
SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 C&EN
