Displays of French arrogance do not usually get rounds of applause around here. Yet, there was a moment, back in the fall of 1995, when the French defied the world and proceeded with a set of nuclear tests beneath a remote Pacific atoll, when one felt like clapping. At the time, President Jacques Chirac defied the collective indignation of the governments of Europe, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. French exports like red wine, camembert and ladies' bloomers suffered serious setbacks.

Then there was the flotilla of protesters to be faced surrounding the atoll of Mururoa, led by Rainbow Warrior II, a ship owned by the environmental group Greenpeace, whose predecessor, the original Rainbow Warrior, had been blown up by French agents in the harbor of New Zealand in 1985. That incident generated a fair amount of negative publicity, and 10 years later the French navy merely hauled away the motley crew so testing could go ahead. The French government argued very reasonably that the tests were needed for new generations of nuclear warheads.

These fond thoughts of French élan were prompted by a New York Times report last week that congressional Democrats are getting ready for a major push, initiated by the White House, to achieve Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the first weeks of the new session. The Clinton administration is ambitiously trying to pull a 'three-fer' tying the CTBT with other arms-control treaties, i.e., U.S. Senate ratification of revisions to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and Russian Duma ratification of the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II).

The urgent push for ratification is dictated by the calendar. As suggested by the president's above comment, the CTBT and the other arms-reduction and nonproliferation efforts are all part of a final push for the Clinton legacy project. Time is running out as Mr. Clinton becomes more and more of a bit player on the political scene. Furthermore, an international conference to evaluate the CTBT is coming up in October. If the United States has not ratified the document by then, the U.S. administration, which has pushed it harder than anyone, will look pretty foolish.

But at least we will not be alone. Of the major nuclear powers, only England and France (having completed its own tests) have ratified the treaty, neither Russia nor China, our most likely adversaries, have ratified.

The administration's strategy is to apply maximum pressure to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jesse Helms, who fortunately is not a man who responds well to pressure. So far, Mr. Helms has wisely refused to hold hearings on the CTBT. The next few weeks could see a battle royal reminiscent of the fight over the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) during which Mr. Helms staunchly manned the ramparts, only to find that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had struck a deal with the White House to let the treaty come to a vote.

The difference is that the criticism leveled at Mr. Lott from conservative Republican quarters over the CWC was so stinging that he reportedly has no inclination to repeat the experience. Both Mr. Helms and Mr. Lott would do us all a favor if they allow the CTBT to remain in whatever back room it happens currently to be collecting dust.

In essence, what we have here are two opposed views of the national security of the United States, falling roughly into a Democratic and a Republican position -- and they relate to a lot of the different arms-control treaties stuck in Senate ratification limbo. Democrats tend to believe that security is a collective international concern, to be settled through the signing of treaties. By voluntarily giving up the right to nuclear tests, for instance, the United States would encourage others to follow suit, staunch the production of such weapons in rogue states and bring down the level of danger and tension worldwide.

From a Republican point of view this is wrong-headed, dangerous even. The belief is here that treaties do not stop other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons or developing new generations of weapons -- and while we tie our hands, China, Iran or Russia may proceed to test in secret. Indeed, even if we detected all tests, we would still not be able to prevent them. Security, therefore, lies in keeping up a credible nuclear deterrent and producing a missile shield to render other countries' weapons ineffectual against us. This view is often derided by Democrats as "isolationist," which it is not, since we might well choose to share missile defense technology with friendly and allied nations.

It may be, as the administration likes to point out, that 80 percent of Americans favor the CTBT -- but did the pollsters actually ask them if they know what it is? It would be particularly egregious to sacrifice American national security to the dictates of the election calendar. Republican Senate leaders have no justification for bending to Democratic pressure this time.

Helle Bering is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. She may be contacted at helle.bering@washtimes.com

Home Page