Ready for Debate

By a 16 to 1 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week approved without reservations the nuclear test ban treaty and sent it to the Senate floor for debate, tentatively scheduled to begin Sept. 9.

The lopsided committee vote was not so decisive as it seemed. Several Senators who voted to send the treaty along to the floor pointedly reserved their right to change their minds when actual ratification came up. And the lone committee dissenter, Louisiana Democrat Russell Long, insisted that if certain doubts were satisfied, he would probably vote for ratification.

The committee action came as strong doubts about the treaty were being voiced. One influential doubter was former President Dwight Eisenhower, who wrote to the committee from Gettysburg endorsing the treaty but adding one hard reservation--"that in the event of any armed aggression endangering a vital interest of the U.S., this nation would be the sole judge of the kind and type of weaponry and equipment it would employ, as well as the timing of their use."

Down with the Wall. Three old military men--two former chairmen and one ex-member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--expressed stronger reservations: "From a military standpoint," said Air Force General Nathan F. Twining, "the treaty is not in the best interests of our national security." Said Admiral Arthur Radford: "I join with many of my former colleagues in expressing deep concern for our future security." Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, former Chief of Naval Operations, expressed "grave misgivings as to whether this will be a step toward peace."

From Arizona's Republican Senator Barry Goldwater came the strongest dissent of all. "If the Soviets want this treaty," he said in a Senate speech, "and if they are interested in steps toward easing tension, should we not talk here and now about some proof in Cuba? There are Soviet troops in Cuba whose removal would speak louder than conference-table words." Similarly, argued Goldwater, let the Russians speak in Berlin. "They want this treaty. We want that wall to come down. Let the Wall come down, and the negotiation over this treaty might make some common sense. Let us try, and withhold our approval of the treaty until we have tried to get from the Soviet--here and now--demonstrations of their real intentions."

And another voice that could yet stir up a hornet's nest was that of Washington's Democratic Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, a New Frontiersman and an influential member of the Armed Services Committee. Although he will probably vote to ratify the treaty, Jackson remained worried about the possibility of a Soviet doublecross.

Lighting the Darkness. To satisfy critics, the Administration outlined plans for new underground tests and threw in some late-arriving endorsements from supporters, the most renowned of whom was Dr. Albert Schweitzer, writing from Lambarene in Gabon "A ray of light appears in the darkness," said he. "This is one of the greatest events in the history of the world."

The Administration strategy is to push the treaty through without any reservations whatsoever--since they would mean renegotiation with the Russians and the British. The Administration seemingly has the votes to do this. But the Administration may yet have to issue a statement, before ratification, that will cross some t's and dot some i's over the assurance that the Senate's doubters want.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.