Clinton wins chemical ban victory
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.President Clinton appeared to be on the verge of a major political victory last night as a series of Senate votes indicated that the United States would agree to join a global ban on chemical weapons.
The cliff-hanging final vote was expected to approve ratification of the international convention on chemical weapons by the two-thirds majority needed, if by the narrowest of margins.
Voting came at the end of a ferocious two-day debate which had been punctuated by much public and private arm-twisting by President Clinton and his supporters. As late as yesterday morning, Mr Clinton sent a letter to the leader of the Republican majority in the Senate, Trent Lott, promising to withdraw the US from the treaty if it resulted, as some of its opponents predicted, in the proliferation of chemical weapons.
That letter swung Mr Lott's potentially casting vote in the President's favour. The previous day, Mr Clinton had gathered together the military top brass and senior politicians, in front of a forest of flags, to hear a series of authoritative defences of the treaty.
Yesterday morning, the Senate met for two hours in a rare closed-door session to hear intelligence assessments. The convention comes into force on 29 April, regardless of whether the United States joins because more than the necessary 65 states worldwide have already ratified it. Advocates of the treaty argued that the US would be seen to be aligning itself with countries such as Libya and Iraq if ratification failed to pass the Senate. They also argued that a ban would make it less likely that US troops would face chemical weapons in combat.
The US signed the treaty five years ago, but it was only 10 days ago that the Senate debate was scheduled, after the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Jesse Helms - a Republican who led the anti-treaty faction - dropped some of his objections.
Senior members of the US administration, including the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, had stressed that ratification of the treaty had become a test of Mr Clinton's ability to steer foreign policy and, as such, a test of his authority as President.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments