Senate Rebuffs Clinton, Rejects Treaty to Ban Nuclear Testing

WASHINGTON —  The Senate, openly defying President Clinton, refused Wednesday to ratify a global treaty to ban nuclear testing, crippling the 152-nation accord that was the centerpiece of the administration’s foreign policy agenda.

Defeat of the controversial Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which came on a mostly party-line vote of 51 to 48, is expected to have broad ramifications for both U.S. diplomatic initiatives and global efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

Under the Constitution, it would have taken a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, for the Senate to ratify the treaty.

Although foreign policy analysts said the rejection of the treaty isn’t likely to touch off a global arms race, they said it almost certainly will undermine U.S. leadership in the global arena and hasten the unraveling of the arms control policies the United States has pursued since the Cold War began.

President Clinton, who telephoned Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) just before the vote in a last-ditch attempt to head off the balloting, reacted angrily to the Senate’s decision and vowed to conduct a vigorous public campaign for lawmakers to reconsider it.

“This is a political deal, and I hope it will get the treatment from the American people that it deserves,” he said of the Senate decision. “Never before has a serious treaty involving nuclear weapons been handled in such a reckless and ultimately partisan way.”

Although the Senate could reconsider its decision and ratify the treaty, most analysts consider that scenario highly unlikely unless Democrats regain control of the Senate or a Republican wins the presidency and embraces the accord.

Wednesday’s vote, which reflects significant political miscalculations by Clinton’s Democratic allies, the White House and the Senate’s Republican leadership, marks the first time in nearly 80 years that the Senate has rejected a major international treaty. In 1919 and again in 1920, the Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, thus rejecting U.S. membership in the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations.

The nuclear treaty has been controversial almost from its start. Opponents questioned the accord’s ability to effectively monitor weapons testing by developing nations, and they warned that the United States would be unable to maintain and modernize its nuclear arsenal, leaving it more vulnerable to potential foes.

But proponents characterized the treaty as essential to the future of arms control, warning that a defeat would derail nuclear nonproliferation efforts and encourage “rogue” states such as Iraq to try to develop nuclear weapons.

Spurgeon Keeny, director of the Arms Control Assn. in Washington, called Wednesday’s vote “a tragedy and a disaster for America’s long-standing efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.” He predicted that it would spur countries such as Pakistan and India to resume nuclear testing soon.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a chief Senate supporter of the treaty, called the vote “disastrous” and said it heralds “a fundamental U-turn in America’s 50-year policy of seeking global arms control.”

Biden said the United States will find it difficult to negotiate other arms control treaties, including the proposed START III pact with Russia. “This isn’t about one single treaty,” Biden told the Senate. “This is about ending the regime of arms control.”

The treaty would prohibit the testing of nuclear weapons worldwide and strengthen existing test-monitoring systems to detect violations. It has been signed by 152 countries, including the United States, since it was negotiated in 1996. To take effect, however, it requires ratification by the legislatures of all 44 nuclear-capable countries; so far, only 26 have done so, and few others are likely to join in without U.S. participation.

Wednesday’s rebuff is certain to intensify partisan warfare within Congress and between the White House and Republican leaders.

The vote followed days of negotiations pitting the White House and Senate Democrats against Senate Republicans over Clinton’s last-minute plea that lawmakers postpone the scheduled vote and shelve the treaty temporarily.

On Monday, Clinton acceded to one of the Republicans’ two major demands when he formally asked the Senate to put off the vote. But he, along with Senate Democrats, balked at a second GOP condition that would have required him to agree in writing not to bring the treaty up for the rest of his term.

Republicans were wary that, without an ironclad promise, Clinton would be able to use the vote postponement against them in the 2000 election. But Clinton feared that making such a pledge would tie his hands in the event of a diplomatic emergency.

Lott and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) hammered out a tentative compromise Tuesday, but a small group of GOP conservatives refused to go along. On Wednesday, the two leaders gave up and agreed to go ahead with a vote, the outcome of which was in line with expectations.

California’s senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, joined other Democrats in voting to approve the pact.

Only four Republicans--Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, James M. Jeffords of Vermont and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon--voted to support the treaty. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) voted present.

The rejection of the accord reflects political misjudgments by all three sides in the negotiations.

In July, Senate Democrats launched an aggressive campaign to prod Republicans to wrest the treaty out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, apparently oblivious to the fact that it didn’t have enough support to pass.

Last week, Lott, eager to call their bluff, abruptly reversed course and scheduled the pact for a floor vote with only a few days’ notice, forcing the White House to scramble--unsuccessfully--for additional votes.

Critics say the White House erred by failing to lobby adequately for the treaty over the past two years, and by not taking Republicans’ objections seriously enough.

Although Clinton said he would have “no objection” to letting the treaty languish until after he left office, his remark wasn’t enough to assuage a handful of Republican conservatives who opposed the pact vehemently.

Under Senate rules, averting the floor vote would have required the unanimous consent of all 100 senators, and conservatives refused to go along with it.

Rejection of the treaty is likely to produce shock waves around the world. The leaders of Britain, France and Germany had publicly urged the Senate to ratify the pact.

One question facing policymakers is how to reshape the global effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons now that the test-ban treaty has been dealt a potentially fatal blow.

Analysts said the rejection of the treaty is likely to make developing countries less enthusiastic about participating in a separate Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which comes up for international review next year.

Although most of the major nuclear powers, including the United States, already have announced moratoriums on nuclear testing, ratification of the test-ban treaty was seen by developing nations as a necessary commitment that the big powers would not resume testing.

*

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this report.

*

POLITICS

Conservative Republicans show they can play offense. A13