Now that it seems fairly certain that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty cannot get the 67 votes in the Senate needed for passage, it has become a political tool for congressional leaders and the White House. But like the nuclear weapons it seeks to defuse, mishandling of the treaty could have explosive effects that would be felt worldwide.

That’s why, tempting as it is for some Senate Republicans to hand a significant defeat to treaty supporter President Bill Clinton, the overriding interest for the United States and its international partners is to withdraw it from consideration, perhaps until the next administration. The required unanimous consent of the Senate is possible if moderate voices speak clearly on the issue.

Whatever the perceived flaws in the treaty — verification is chief among them — Congress must be keenly aware of the message the United States would send if it were to reject it. Russia, the next largest nuclear power, is looking for signs from the United States on the level of readiness its military would be required to meet. India and Pakistan have an arms race of their own that is far from concluded and could continue with nuclear testing as a show of strength.

The United States is the world’s leader in nuclear arms and its reluctance to in any way diminish that position is understandable. If the Senate turned merely on this point, then a yes-or-no vote on the treaty would be justified. But as both Democrats and Republicans agree, this is about much more than military power.

President Clinton, awkwardly and belatedly, has made the treaty part of what he hopes is his legacy. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, after experiencing the disapproval from his party over his support of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Treaty, has the burden of demonstrating that he has the influence to kill this treaty. Balancing both sides is the potential embarrassment that would come from the United States rejecting the treaty and hindering a movement to quell nuclear politics, not to mention nuclear war.

President Clinton has indicated that he is willing to delay a vote on the treaty; Majority Leader Lott needs help from fellow Republicans to similarly agree. They can help by loudly announcing their desire to put this issue off for another day. They could say accurately and honestly that the politics around the treaty have overwhelmed its contents, making a clean vote now on it impossible.

GOP presidential candidate George Bush Jr. last week suggested that some congressional Republicans had allowed Beltway interests take precedence over the broad-minded ideals of the party. The treaty provides an excellent chance to prove him wrong, and to take up the debate at another time, when the politics aren’t superheated.