January 2006
·
2 Reads
The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, had made it clear that the senate would not simply “rubber stamp” any treaty. In subjecting the INF Treaty to detailed scrutiny, the senate was carrying out its constitutional duties in a responsible manner. The specific remedies that it requested and which necessitated an additional post-signature negotiating session with the Soviets are another question. In any event, it became apparent early on in the hearings process that some senators were going to “put their mark” on this document, as was their duty. However, once the Senate had openly raised doubts about the accuracy of the administration’s contention that U.S. and Soviet negotiators shared the same understanding of the meaning of specific words and phrases in the treaty, the senate’s concern became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The public raising of such doubts by the legislative branch made it imperative that the United States obtain Soviet reconfirmation, lest the meaning of the treaty be cast into question as a result of the expressed doubts and loopholes thereby opened.