editorial(Denver Post)
Bush errs on bio weapons
Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - President Bush has set U.S. foreign policy on a path that future generations may lament.
By rejecting the treaty to curb biological weapons, Bush has surrendered any moral high ground that America might have claimed on the issue, and undermined genuine attempts to rein in the spread of these terrible weapons of mass destruction.
The current biological weapons treaty was conceived during the Cold War and lacked enforcement provisions because few diplomats believed any responsible nation would use such arms. However, Saddam Hussein proved both during his war against Iran and the Persian Gulf conflict that he would do so. After the Gulf War, diplomats reconvened to negotiate ways to enforce the biological weapons ban.
The problem with enforcing treaties, of course, is that the agreements must honor national sovereignty. So for the past seven years, negotiators have walked a fine line between crafting a pact that will stop the spread and use of biological weapons, and continuing to respect a nation's right to run its own internal affairs.
Our closest and most trusted allies believe the new protocols, which would be attached to the existing treaty, accomplish those goals. But without the protocols, the world would still be stuck with a Cold War document that doesn't reflect new realities. The protocols are thus essential to preventing biological warfare.
The Bush administration said it worried that the enforcement provisions would be unworkable or expose U.S. companies to industrial spying. The White House and State Department could have offered constructive criticism and suggested modifications to make the protocols work better. Instead, Bush and his advisers flatly declared that he would not support the pact at all.
This unilateral move carved a chasm of distrust and disgust between Washington and our closest allies: distrust, because the United States long has been a champion of international accords to curb weapons of mass destruction. And disgust, because the United States appears unwilling to assert the moral leadership incumbent on the world's sole superpower.
Bush has said he instead prefers a series of pacts with individual nations over a broad, multilateral treaty. However, he could find it even more difficult to strike agreements with other countries one by one, especially since he already has turned his back on the document that most other nations supported.
Finally, Bush said he thought that the U.S. Senate would not approve the new protocols as written. But his job as the nation's chief executive includes cajoling and persuading the legislative branch to embrace his policies and decisions. The quality is called leadership. And on international matters, Bush is wasting both his personal store and the nation's standing. |
