Baker says some Republican opponents object to the weapons treaty because it makes no provision for "rogue" states-- those non-signers who are likely to acquire such weaponry no matter what good-intentioned treaty-signers do. These rogues include Libya, Iraq, and North Korea. But the treaty, Baker insists, has already been endorsed by 68 nations and will be signed by them whether the U.S. signs on or not. It is senseless, says Baker, to side with rogue-nation-non-signers, clouding negotiations for an anti-chemical weapons stance by the rest of the world.

Though no verification systems can be considered air-tight, the United States would be better situated, as a signer, to keep a close eye on non-signers, inasmuch as nations who sign the treaty would share intelligence they gather possibly pinpointing those rogue states clandestinely creating the outlawed weaponry.

The overwhelming power of U.S. weaponry is sufficient, says Baker, should any rogue state loose the forbidden chemicals. Nuclear weaponry especially remains sufficient, he believes, as a deterrent. Chemical weaponry, cheap and easy to produce, has become the poor man's sword, attractive to only a few impoverished nations that can't afford updated military shields. Baker believes such nations would be foolish to attack any of the more powerful nations. He invokes, on behalf of the chemical treaty, the names of two former presidents: Ronald Reagan and George Bush, both Republicans. Each president helped initiate and approve the chemical weapons treaty that its Republican opponents now decry.

Since signing the treaty automatically marshals international support for keeping watch on possible violators or non-signers, insists Baker, our failure to ratify such an agreement may also find us hamstrung when we attempt to muster support for treaties banning even more horrifying weapons, especially biological ones.

"Failure to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention," writes Baker, "would send a message of American retreat from engagement in the world." Even the American chemical industry supports the ratification, he explains, because American chemical goods would then be subjected to scrutiny by signer-nations regarding non-signer-nations as suspicious. If the treaty were in place, America's chemical suppliers would be saved overwhelming expense.