Foreign Policy Blogs

CTBTO to Holdouts: Seriously?

CTBTO to Holdouts:  Seriously?
As the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty continues to languish in Senate purgatory, the rest of the world keeps reminding us – along with the other slackers – to get with the program. Its been fifteen years and its starting to get embarrassing. For reals.

So, the Comprehensive Test Ban Organization (CTBTO), the group charged with administering the treaty, held its seventh conference last week in New York to promote entry into force. The “Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)” was convened to “examine how hold-out States can be brought in to sign and ratify the Treaty for it to come into effect [and brought] together representatives of ratifying States, States Signatories, and States that have not yet signed or ratified the Treaty.”

To remind, 182 countries have signed the Treaty, 155 of which, to date, have also ratified it. This includes three of the P-5: France, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. Yes, that’s right folks. The Duma beat the Senate in making this thing happen. Maybe oligarchies aren’t such a bad thing?

In addition to the P-5, 42 other nuclear technology holder countries must sign and ratify before the CTBT can enter into force. Besides the U.S. and China, seven others are lacking: Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. India, North Korea and Pakistan haven’t even signed yet. Oh, and by the way, since the last convocation of this sort, the Treaty was signed by one more State – Trinidad and Tobago – and ratified by four – the Central African Republic, Ghana, the Marshall Islands and Trinidad and Tobago. Sigh.

So, here we are, in the company of China, Iran and North Korea as CTBT hold-outs. This sends an unfortunate message to the world about the seriousness of the U.S. to officially, categorically and unflinchingly stop testing nuclear weapons. Never mind that we haven’t tested since 1992 and that, in practice, we are observing the test ban. Semantic silliness. As I am an unabashed supporter of multilateral commitments and treaties, it is no surprise that I am totally on board with ratification. The unapologetic pushback by Senator Kyl and others, even after military advisers and all manner of techies and scientists have come out in support of ratification, is getting really tired and frankly, inexcusable. To treaty skeptics, I would say this: there is an “out” clause in just about every treaty out there, including this one. And as for the need to continue to test in order to ensure the reliability of the existing stockpile? Honey, please.

For fun, here's former Congresswoman and current Undersecretary Ellen Tauscher’s statement at this shindig. The U.S. tap-dancing (so as not to seem pathetic) part of the statement:

“…we have begun the process of engaging the Senate. We like to think of our efforts as an ‘information exchange’ and are working to get these facts out to members and staff, many of whom have never dealt with this Treaty. We know that this is a very technical agreement and we want people to absorb and understand the science behind it. There are no set timeframes and we are going to be patient, but we will also have to be persistent.

Of course, we do not expect people to be in receive-only mode, so we are eager to start a discussion. It is only through discussion and debate that we will work through questions and concerns about the Treaty and eventually get it ratified.”

The image of Richard Gere as Billy Flynn “tap-dancing for his life” in the film version of “Chicago” comes to mind. As a USG rep, I’d be mortified to show my face at this meeting. The ratification process was handled poorly the first time around in 1999. It hasn’t really even been on the table since then.

 

Author

Jodi Lieberman

Jodi Lieberman is a veteran of the arms control, nonproliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear safety trenches, having worked at the Departments of State, Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. She has also served in an advisory capacity and as professional staff for several members of Congress in both the House and Senate as well as the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Jodi currently spends her time advocating for science issues and funding as the Senior Government Affairs Specialist at the American Physical Society. The views expressed in her posts are her views based on her professional experience but in way should be construed to represent those of her employer.