Blocking the Unthinkable

As a practical matter, an enforceable global treaty against chemical- and germ-warfare weapons may be more important than marginal cuts in the nuclear arsenals of America and the Soviet Union. That being so, Moscow’s seeming desire to conclude an agreement outlawing chemical weapons is an extremely important step forward.

Reversing its previous position, the Soviet Union agreed last month to compulsory checks by foreign inspectors of suspected chemical-arms sites or production facilities on 48 hours’ notice. There would be no right of refusal. The new Soviet position, offered at the 40-nation Geneva disarmament conference, comes close to U.S. proposals that Moscow had originally rejected.

The United States has not produced any chemical weapons since 1969. But the Soviet Union never followed the American example. According to expert estimates, Moscow currently has an offensive stockpile several times as large as this country’s, with many thousands of troops who are routinely trained in the use of chemical weapons and chemical-warfare defense. The United States, in response, is preparing to resume production unless there is agreement on a ban.

The specter of the great powers turning to the use of chemical and biological weapons against each other is horrible in itself. Western strategists believe that the stand-by war plans of the Soviets contemplate the use of chemical and biological weapons against rear-area headquarters and staging areas in the event of a war in Europe. In the opinion of some experts, the elimination of medium- and short-range nuclear weapons, if it happens, would make the use of chemical weapons all the more likely. An enforceable “zero-zero” agreement would therefore make an important contribution to security and stability in Europe.

If the major powers can agree among themselves on an enforceable ban on chemical and biological weapons, they will be in a better position to prevent the spread of such weapons among Third World nations.

Chemical arms are easily produced, and can be used by just about anybody. Both sides in the Iran-Iraq war are accused of employing such weapons. In the absence of effective global restraints, virtually any country anywhere could use chemical or biological bombs not only against a regional enemy but also against one or both major powers.

It is in the interest of both the United States and the Soviet Union to control the proliferation of chemical and biological arms. Fortunately, that common interest has manifested itself at Geneva.

When the negotiations began, the Soviet Union would not even admit that it possessed chemical or biological arms. As the talks went on, however, the Russians acknowledged possession of chemical weapons, volunteered that they were building a site to destroy such weapons, and agreed to the idea of compulsory on-site inspections.

The Soviets have accepted a U.S. invitation to visit a chemical-arms site in Utah to observe procedures for destroying such weapons. They also have invited Americans to the Soviet Union for a similar purpose.

The drafting of the text for an international treaty is to begin in November. Conference Chairman Pierre Morel of France, although optimistic, warns that many details remain to be worked out. The task will be infinitely easier, however, if Moscow and Washington are truly working on the same side of the street.