Angie Craig: “Madam President, the Chemical Weapons Convention has such far-reaching domestic and national security implications that…”

“Madam President, the Chemical Weapons Convention has such far-reaching domestic and national security implications that it deserves the most thorough and thoughtful examination the Senate can give it. I have given this matter a careful review and would like to reiterate some of the conclusions I have reached. If I thought supporting this treaty would make chemical weapons disappear, and give us all greater security from these heinous weapons, I would not hesitate in giving my support. Unfortunately, the facts do not demonstrate this; indeed, implementing this treaty may actually increase danger to U.S. citizens and troops. The convention has been signed by 160 nations and ratified by only 74--less than 50 percent. Five countries who are thought to have chemical weapons are not even signatories of the convention: Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. Another six nations have signed, but not ratified the convention: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, and Russia. In short, this convention is not global in scale. Even if it were true that this treaty had been signed and ratified by 160 nations, serious problems would remain. Compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention cannot be assured because it is not effectively verifiable.”