ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, August 29, 1996 TAG: 9608290029
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
BECAUSE A world bristling with weapons of mass destruction is safe for no one, Americans should not forget that the Cold War's collapse didn't eliminate the threat of nuclear proliferation or nuclear war. Nor did it end the need for U.S. leadership in the international arena.
A case in point is the weighty but largely neglected effort to negotiate a comprehensive ban on nuclear-weapons testing. On again, off again, diplomats have been working on a ban for more than 40 years. For the past three years, representatives of 61 nations have met in Geneva to try to complete a treaty. They've gotten close, but final agreement has proved elusive.
The Clinton administration, to its credit, has bargained hard to try to achieve an enforceable test ban. But now an historic opportunity to help prevent the development of new weaponry and stem nuclear proliferation is about to be squandered - sacrificed to public indifference, national vanity and global lethargy.
This shouldn't be allowed to happen.
The immediate problem is that India, one of the first countries to call for a test ban in 1954, is balking because it doesn't want to close off its nuclear options. India reportedly would like to be able to acquire sophisticated warheads on missiles capable of striking China. To do that, it would need to refine the nuclear device it tested in 1974. It couldn't, under a comprehensive test ban.
So, as a condition for signing the treaty, India has insisted that the declared nuclear powers agree to end their nuclear monopoly by approving concrete steps toward disarmament. That's not happening.
Of course, if India doesn't sign, neither will Pakistan. And at this impasse, other nations are becoming reluctant to sign. Under the bargaining arrangements in force in Geneva, the treaty cannot be formally enacted without India's signature.
What to do? The best option may be to sidestep the Geneva process, and take the verification and enforcement procedures now in the treaty language to the United Nations, for approval by all countries willing to go along.
A completed and signed treaty that does not become universal law is still better than no treaty at all. It would be binding on the signatories. Sustained international pressure could be applied on India in hopes that it eventually will go along.
Australia has initiated such an effort to revive the test ban's prospects. The United States should get behind it.
However, to gain widespread agreement on a ban, America and Australia still will need the support of developing nations. Many of them share India's frustration with the declared nuclear powers' failure to further reduce their nuclear arsenals.
A successful exercise of U.S. leadership must follow two tracks. The Clinton administration should aggressively promote a comprehensive test ban ratified by as many nations as possible. It should also help set up a process that promises future progress toward nuclear disarmament.
LENGTH: Medium: 57 linesby CNB