Chemical Weapons Convention is Dangerous Poison

One of the greatest threats to American freedom is the continual danger that United Nations treaties (usually called "conventions") will be ratified by the Senate. Many people in positions of influence in our nation promote the false idea that treaties supersede our Constitution (we’ll cover that misconception in a later column). Thus, it is likely that our government would act as if that were the case and enforce treaty provisions that conflict with rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

In his recent State of the Union address, our Hypocrite in Chief called for Senate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This treaty would ban the manufacture, possession, and use of specific chemical weapons by any nation. Included in the ban would be the CS "gas" that the current administration used on men, women, and children in their assault on the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is currently considering the treaty. Senator Helms (R. North Carolina), chairman of the committee, opposes ratification. Senator Lugar (R. Indiana), a member of the committee, is the Senate’s main proponent of the treaty. As a confirmed internationalist, Senator Lugar is often found leading the charge in favor of sovereignty-destroying treaties.

The CWC looks, at first glance, like a shoo-in. Who, after all, favors the use of poison gas in warfare? Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to rid the world of these pernicious substances? We usually think of Iraq (which used poison gas on the Kurds) or the communists in Southeast Asia (who used the Soviets’ infamous "yellow rain" to exterminate villagers) in connection with chemical weapons. We should be on record as opposing such atrocities.

The problem with treaties like the CWC is that they are more than the humanitarian gestures that most Americans think we are getting. The provisions of the treaty would apply to all countries, not just rogue states like Iraq and Syria. That would open up our US manufacturers to intrusive, warrantless searches, lasting several days at a time. The president who tried to conduct warrantless, apartment to apartment searches in our own big cities is hardly likely to hold the treaty enforcers to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.

It would also force companies to reveal manufacturing secrets to foreign competitors, including those in enemy states. They would be subject to international reporting requirements at least as expensive as those imposed by federal regulators of various kinds.

Treaty proponents point out that the Chemical Manufacturers Association supports the CWC. If international regulation is so bad, why do they favor the treaty? The large chemical companies in the CMA have the resources to tolerate the inspectors. Their smaller competitors, always a thorn in the side of the huge multi-nationals, are much less prepared to deal with these intrusions, piled on top of the other regulations they now live with. Support for extra regulation is a typical anti-competitive tactic of large companies.

What would we get in exchange for this loss of civil liberties? Wouldn’t we at least be free of the fear that terrorist states might attack us or our allies with chemical weapons? Unfortunately, the CWC is also unenforceable. After years of very aggressive searching by international inspectors in Iraq, it is still widely believed that they have secret caches of chemical and biological agents. It is possible to manufacture some deadly chemical weapons at the rate of many tons per year in a space not much bigger than a walk-in closet.

If we want to lead the way in eliminating chemical weapons, we could start by destroying our own stocks. They are not needed as a deterrent against use by other countries. Our other military capabilities are more than enough to fill that need. Meanwhile, Americans should urge their Senators to oppose ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.