Selected Statements on the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

In Favor of the CWC

"This treaty (CWC) is very much in our interests. It was a treaty that was signed by President Bush. It is something that is in our interests from my perspective. First of all, we have to keep in mind that Ronald Reagan determined when he was president that we would eliminate all of our chemical weapons. So whether we ratify this treaty or not, we're getting rid of all of our chemical weapons by the year 2003 or '04, and so we'll have none in our stockpile. So whether it's ratified or not, we're out of the business. Secondly, if we don't ratify this particular agreement, it's still going forward. It's going forward without our participation. We'll have no role in the formulation of the protocols of inspection, we'll have no role as far as inspection is concerned, and we'll be worse off, as far as the American people are concerned, about trying to gain control over the proliferation of chemical weapons throughout the world. So I see it as in our interests of ratifying this. I know that President Bush feels very strongly about it, Brent Scowcroft, Jim Baker, and others who were intimately involved, and to keep in mind, we no longer will have chemical weapons. Other nations will, and we'll be at a great disadvantage in not being able to try to control the spread of them in the future."
--U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, on NBC's Meet the Press, Sunday, March 9, 1997.

*

Opposed to the CWC

"As long as I'm around, there's not going to be a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that rubber-stamps dumb and dangerous arms control treaties while sending blank checks to the United Nations and embracing (Cuban President) Fidel Castro."
--US Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, referring to the CWC, Saturday, March 8, 1997, to Conservative Political Action Conference, as reported by Associated Press.