As a result, a foolproof ban on the capability to manufacture chemical weapons would require the virtual dismantling of the global chemical industry. There are other problems as well. Some are simply bizarre. For example, the Clinton Administration has interpreted the CWC as prohibiting the use of tear gas to drive off non-combatants who might be threatening a downed pilot. Also, the interpretation of which Messrs. Scowcroft and Kanter are properly critical is contained in the Lugar Resolution of Ratification that the Senate will be considering shortly.
Some problems are serious.
To be sure, both the Post and the two senior Bush Administration officials conclude that these admitted problems do not outweigh the perceived benefits of the treaty. And that is precisely the sort of function the United States Senate is supposed to perform with respect to treaties under the our Constitution. The Bottom Line Participants on both sides of this debate are to be commended for having, to date at least, conducted the debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention in a manner befitting such a solemn Senate responsibility. With its long, if not always happy, experience with past Senate deliberations on arms control agreements, the Center has been delighted that the present one has remained remarkably focussed on the substantive issues. The Center believes it does not.