It would be difficult to imagine a more irresponsible decision than the US Senate's recent vote against the Comprehensive Nuclear Ban Treaty. This means it has been rejected by the US, the very power which argued for many years that it was essential to maintain order and stability among the main nuclear states and in the wider military balance around the world. Together with changes in several other bulwarks of the international nuclear weapons control regime, the decision signals a dangerous weakening of resolve to regulate them.
In the wake of the decision there have been disturbing indications that US credibility as the world's leading power has been damaged by a vote that has been compared to the refusal of the congress to ratify the Versailles treaty and endorse US membership of the League of Nations after the first World War. It certainly did not help that the decision coincided with the coup in Pakistan, which puts a military finger directly on the new nuclear button there.
President Clinton failed in his attempt to have the vote postponed when it became clear there was no prospect of getting the necessary two-thirds vote in favour. He has been criticised for a scrappy and ill-prepared campaign in support of the treaty, which compares unfavourably with the effort he put into pushing through NATO enlargement and the North America Free Trade Agreement. The test ban treaty is just as important as these. Many believe Mr Clinton never had a realistic chance of winning the vote because of his poisoned relations with the Republican-controlled Congress after the Lewinski affair - "they didn't impeach him on Monica, they impeached him on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty", according to one seasoned observer. It leaves him weakened in the foreign policy domain - even though the fault clearly lies more with the Senate on this occasion.
One way or another the world is less safe as a result. It should be recalled that the last state to refuse signature of the treaty was India in August 1996, on the grounds that the five existing nuclear states - China, Britain, France, Russia and the US - had failed to give categorical undertakings for nuclear disarmament in return for having their existing unequal holding recognised by the international community. The Indians argued it would therefore consolidate the current distribution of international power by preventing other states from testing nuclear weapons. Tests are crucial for threshold states such as India and Pakistan to catch up on miniaturisation technology, which the established states can perfect using computer simulation. One hundred and fifty four states have already signed the treaty but it cannot be ratified until the nuclear-capable ones do so.
This outcome leaves Mr Clinton in a poor position to deliver on some major foreign policy initiatives over the remainder of his term in office. He is keen to see a new world trade round launched next month and is deeply embroiled in rows over genetically-modified food with European states. A Middle East peace settlement would require a heavy financial commitment. The US Senate Republican majority seems quite indifferent about this loss of influence and the consequent erosion of their country's international credibility.