[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14703-S14706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS REVIEW CONFERENCE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR U.S.
LEADERSHIP
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week representatives of over 50
governments began meeting in Vienna, Austria to discuss proposals to
amend the Conventional Weapons Convention, which contains the first
laws of war limitations on the use of landmines.
Fifteen years ago, the United States played a leading role in
negotiations on the Convention. However, despite lofty rhetoric at the
time, the Convention is so riddled with loopholes and exceptions, as
well as lacking any verification procedures, that the numbers of
civilian casualties from landmines has soared. This is because the
focus of the negotiations then was on reducing the dangers to military
personnel, rather than on the problems landmines cause for civilians.
Today, there are 80 to 110 million landmines in over 60 countries,
each one waiting to explode from the pressure of a footstep.
These hidden killers have turned vast areas of land, in countries
struggling to rebuild after years of war, into death traps. According
to the State Department every 22 minutes someone is maimed or killed by
a landmine. That is 26,000 people each year, most of whom are innocent
civilians.
It would cost tens of billions of dollars to locate and remove the
mines. It is an incredibly arduous, dangerous, and prohibitively
expensive task. There is no way they will be cleared. The world's
arsenals are overflowing with new mines that are only compounding the
problem in every armed conflict today.
Mr. President, the meetings in Vienna began yesterday with dramatic
announcements by two of our NATO allies, France and Austria. The French
Government announced that it would halt all production of antipersonnel
landmines, and begin destroying their stockpiles of these weapons. The
Austrian Government declared that its military would renounce their
use, and destroy their stockpiles.
Earlier this year, Belgium outlawed all production, use and exports
of antipersonnel mines.
I mention this because just a month ago, my amendment to impose a 1-
year moratorium on the use of these weapons passed the Senate 67 to 27.
Yesterday's announcements by our NATO allies go even further, and the
United States should seize this opportunity to support them. These NATO
countries defy the Pentagon's assertion that modern militaries like
ours require antipersonnel landmines. Landmines are a coward's weapon,
that are overwhelmingly used against civilians. If the United States
were to join France, Belgium and Austria it would give an enormous push
toward the goal of ridding the world of these weapons.
Mr. President, I am going to put my full statement in the Record, but
I do want to say this. This conference in Vienna presents the United
States with a tremendous opportunity, an opportunity that must not be
missed.
Fifteen years ago the Conventional Weapons Convention was signed with
much fanfare, but it has turned out to be worth little more than the
paper it was printed on. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of
people dead or maimed by landmines, the very weapon that Convention was
intended to control.
We have seen the immense devastation landmines cause, and continue to
cause, around the world. Each day, another 70 people are killed or
horribly mutilated. The undeniable truth is that antipersonnel
landmines cannot be controlled. They are too cheap to make, too easy to
transport and conceal. They are the ``Saturday night specials'' of
civil wars, and they have become one of the world's greatest scourges.
Last September at the United Nations, President Clinton took a
courageous step, when he called for the eventual elimination of
antipersonnel mines. My amendment was a small step toward that goal.
Its purpose was not unilateral disarmament, as some in the Pentagon
would have one believe, but leadership. Leadership by the world's only
superpower with a military arsenal that dwarfs that of any other
nation, to stop the senseless slaughter of tens of thousands of
innocent people. By setting an example, we can lead others to take
similar action, just as our European allies announced steps yesterday
that we should imitate.
The amendment that won the bipartisan support of two thirds of the
Senate should be a model for our negotiators in Vienna. I only wish
these negotiations were being held in Cambodia, or Angola, where the
one-legged victims of landmines can be seen on every street corner.
I wish the negotiators could experience the constant fear of losing a
leg, or an arm, or a child, simply from stepping in the wrong place.
Instead of weeks of lofty speeches in air conditioned room quibbling
over an elaborate set of unenforceable rules, I think we would see
dramatic progress toward a ban on these weapons.
Let us not repeat the mistake of a decade and a half ago. Let us
finally recognize that there are some weapons that are so
indiscriminate, so inhumane, and so impossible to control, that they
should be banned altogether. Let us finally do what we say, and stop
this when we have the chance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a New York Times article about the French Government's announcement.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows;
[From the New York Times Sept. 27, 1995
Paris to Scrap Some Land Mines In Face of Growing Sentiment
Vienna, Sept. 26.--France announced today that it would
stop production and export of all antipersonnel mines and
begin to destroy its stocks.
Xavier Emmanuelli, the French secretary of state for
emergency humanitarian actions, said at a conference in
Vienna that France was determined to carry on its struggle
against mines, which caused a ``humanitarian catastrophe.''
``To further this end, France has decided to adopt a
moratorium on the production of all types of antipersonnel
mines,'' Mr. Emmanuelli told delegates. ``We shall also halt
the production of these weapons.''
Furthermore, he added, ``France will as of now begin to
reduce its stocks of antipersonnel mines by destroying
them.''
The Vienna conference is reviewing a 1980 convention on
weapons that are deemed to be indiscriminate or excessively
injurious. It will also be discussing laser weapons that
blind people exposed to them.
The United Nations Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-
Ghali, called for a total ban on land mines, which he said
killed or maimed thousands of civilians each year.
He acknowledged that the conference was unlikely to outlaw
land mines completely but urged participating countries to at
least establish an export moratorium.
In a videotaped message, the United Nations chief said
1,600 people would be killed or wounded in mine blasts around
the world during the time the conference was being held. It
ends Oct. 13.
Mr. Boutros-Ghali said several countries had already heeded
a call by the General Assembly to establish an export
moratorium and he urged the conference to back an export ban
to states that had not yet ratified the 1980 convention.
France's move, which does not cover antitank mines, is
likely to increase pressure on countries that are still
exporting mines.
[[Page S 14704]]
The United States banned mine exports three years ago.
Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden backed Mr. Boutros-
Ghali's call for a total ban.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, landmines have been around since at least
the American Civil War, when live artillery shells were concealed
beneath the surface of roads, in houses, even in water wells. They
would explode when a person inadvertently came into contact with them,
whether a soldier or an innocent child. The result was an arm or leg
blown off, or worse. At the time, General Sherman, who is not
remembered as a great humanitarian, called them a ``violation of
civilized warfare.'' Yet despite Sherman's condemnation, landmines have
been used ever since, in steadily increasing numbers.
My own knowledge about landmines dates to 1988, when I met a young
boy in a field hospital on the Honduras-Nicaragua border. He had lost a
leg from a mine that had been left on a jungle path near his home. It
was because of that boy that I started a fund to get artificial limbs
to landmine victims around the world. The war victims fund has been
used in over a dozen countries, including Vietnam.
That boy is one of countless people whose lives have been irreparably
harmed by landmines. We have all seen the photographs of children with
their legs blown off at the knee; their mothers with an arm or a leg
missing; hospital wards filled with rows of amputees. They tell the
gruesome story, yet those people, who face a lifetime of hardship, are
the lucky ones because they survived. There are many thousands of
people like them, and as many others who died from loss of blood before
reaching a hospital.
Civilians are not the only victims of landmines. Landmines have
become a cheap, popular weapon in developing countries where American
troops are likely to be sent in the future, either in combat or on
peacekeeping missions. A $2 plastic antipersonnel mine, hidden under a
layer of sand or dust and practically impossible to detect with a metal
detector, can blow the leg off the best trained, best equipped American
soldier as easily as a defenseless child. If American and NATO troops
are sent to former Yugoslavia to rescue U.N. peacekeepers, they will
face as many as 2 million mines in Bosnia alone.
The social and economic costs of landmines are staggering. The United
Nation estimates that it will cost several tens of billions of dollars
just to remove the existing mines. In each of the past 2 years, about
100,000 mines were cleared at an average cost of several hundred
dollars per mine, while an estimated 2 to 2.5 million new mines are
laid. The United States has spent millions of dollars to develop better
technology for locating and removing landmines, but the most effective
method is still a hand-held probe and metal detector. Kuwait, one of
the few mine-infested countries rich enough to get rid of the mines
left over from the Gulf war, spent over $800 million to clear the
millions of Iraqi and American mines and 84 deminers died in the
process. We are clearly losing the battle.
The cost of caring for the victims is also immense. The medical care,
artificial limbs and lost income for a quarter million amputees over a
lifetime is figured at about $750 million, and another 70 people are
maimed or killed by mines each day.
Three years ago almost no one was paying attention to this global
crisis. The Conventional Weapons Convention had become a distant
memory, in part because it had been such a failure. Then, in 1992, the
U.S. Senate passed my amendment for a moratorium on the export of
antipersonnel landmines. That amendment had one goal--to challenge
other countries to join with us to stop the spread of these hidden
killers.
Since then, and spurred on by a global campaign of 350
nongovernmental organizations in at least 30 countries, public pressure
against the proliferation and use of antipersonnel mines has grown
steadily. To date, 28 countries have halted all or most of their
exports of these weapons.
Then last September, in an historic speech to the U.N. General
Assembly, President Clinton announced the goal of the eventual
elimination of antipersonnel mines. On December 15, the U.N. General
Assembly passed a resolution calling for further steps toward this
goal.
This is the first time since the banning of chemical weapons that the
nations of the world have singled out a type of weapon for total
elimination. It reflects a growing consensus that antipersonnel
landmines are so cheap, so easy to mass produce, so easy to conceal and
transport and sow by the thousands, that they cannot be controlled.
They have become slow motion weapons of mass destruction, and it is
civilians who suffer.
In March of this year, Belgium, a member of NATO, became the first
country to unilaterally implement the U.N. goal, by prohibiting the
production, export, and use of antipersonnel mines. In June, the
Norwegian Parliament did the same thing, and half a dozen other
countries have declared support for a global ban on these weapons. The
European Parliament and the Organization of African Unity have also
adopted resolutions supporting a complete ban.
U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees Sadako Ogata, Pope John Paul II, former President Jimmy
Carter, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, and American Red Cross
President Elizabeth Dole are among the world leaders who have called
for an end to the use of antipersonnel mines.
Yet, despite this progress, the use of landmines continues unabated.
In the past year alone, an estimated 5 to 10 million new mines were
produced and millions have been used in Chechnya, Bosnia, Cambodia,
along the Peruvian-Ecuador border, and in virtually every other armed
conflict in the world today.
President Clinton's announcement of the goal to seek the eventual
elimination of antipersonnel mines was a crucial milestone, because it
defined the ultimate solution to the problem. The administration has
also participated actively in the meetings to prepare for the Vienna
review conference, where it has shown leadership on several important
issues such as the convention's scope and verification. It has also
been the leading contributor to landmine clearance programs in
countries contaminated with mines.
On the other hand, the administration has emphasized eventual rather
than elimination. It has proposed a strategy, developed by the
Pentagon, which aims to promote the export and use of self-destruct
mines which are designed to blow themselves up after a finite period of
time. The theory is that by increasing the availability of these safe
mines, the reliance on long-life mines, which often remain active years
after a conflict ends, will decrease. However, there is no requirement
that governments actually reduce their stockpiles of long-life mines,
and no limit on the number of self-destruct mines than can be used.
In an ideal world this approach might make sense, but the reality is
otherwise. It ignores the intrinsic problem with landmines--no matter
how modern the technology, as long as they are active they cannot
distinguish between civilians and soldiers. It also ignores the fact
that these mines can be scattered over wide areas by the thousands, or
tens of thousands, and even if the failure rate is 2 or 3 percent they
pose a perpetual life-threatening danger to whole societies. Moreover,
there are tens of millions of long-life mines in inventories around the
world. There is little incentive for governments to destroy these
stockpiles simply to pay to replace them with more expensive short-life
mines. Finally, if we treat some mines as acceptable it will be
difficult if not impossible to build international support for the goal
of banning them altogether. The inevitable result will be many more
needless civilian deaths.
My amendment, which passed the Senate on August 4, offers an
alternative approach. But whether the opportunity of the Vienna
conference will be seized is the question, and I am not optimistic.
Despite notable progress on some issues, the four meetings to prepare
for the conference were disappointing since there was little support
for a complete ban on antipersonnel mines. Instead, it seems clear
that, at best, we can expect an increasingly elaborate set of rules and
procedures which are exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to
monitor and enforce.
[[Page S 14705]]
Although probable, such an outcome is not inevitable. To begin with,
there is a proposal for consideration at the review conference to
prohibit the use, development, manufacture, stockpiling, or transfer of
antipersonnel landmines. The administration should support this
proposal, especially considering this week's announcements by the
French and Austrian Governments, coming on the heels of the Belgian
Government's. It is fully consistent with the President's goal, and
with my amendment. Even a halt to production, as our NATO allies have
done, would be a major step beyond where we are.
Unfortunately, the Pentagon continues to insist that it needs
antipersonnel landmines until viable and humane alternatives are
developed, and is therefore certain to reject such an approach despite
the administration's own rhetoric. Although the Pentagon is spending
millions of dollars to develop more advanced mines, there is little
evidence that it is seriously engaged in developing alternatives.
Instead, the administration will probably support proposed hortatory
language that the restrictions and prohibitions in this protocol shall
facilitate the ultimate goal of a complete ban on the production,
stockpiling, use, and trade of antipersonnel landmines. Although
constructive, this language would have no operative effect and could
easily be construed to be consistent with the administration's safe
mine approach.
Even if governments fail to adopt the complete ban on antipersonnel
mines which I and many others would prefer, the conference can produce
important progress toward that goal and the United States should seek
the strongest possible limits on antipersonnel landmines.
The convention, like other laws of war agreements, contains limits on
use, as opposed to production, stockpiles, and transfers. My amendment,
which also limits use, offers a useful model, and the administration
should incorporate elements of it into the U.S. negotiating position.
Rather than encourage the widespread use of self-destruct mines, my
amendment seeks to severely limit the use of all antipersonnel mines,
and thus move unambiguously toward a complete ban. But it falls
significantly short of a ban, since it permits their use along
international borders and in demilitarized zones which is a paramount
concern of countries with hostile neighbors. It exempts antitank mines.
It exempts command detonated munitions which are effective for
protecting a perimeter and are not indiscriminate. And, it does not
take effect for 3 years.
Although my amendment differs substantially from the administration's
current policy, it has the distinct benefit of being simpler to
implement and far easier to verify. And while overcoming the
considerable resistance to such a significant change in international
practice would depend on the amount of public pressure that could be
amassed to convince governments to agree, it has the added advantage
that it might actually work.
While I believe the above recommendations are reasonable and
necessary under the circumstances, I fully recognize that, at best,
they are likely to receive only passing consideration. However, short
of that, there are several other areas of discussion where strong U.S.
leadership could determine whether the review conference achieves
meaningful results.
I am encouraged that there is near agreement on expanding the scope
of the convention beyond international conflicts. This is crucial,
since the widespread use of landmines in recent years has been in civil
wars. The administration has strongly supported this modification, and
it should advocate for final agreement on application of the convention
in all circumstances, so there is no ambiguity about its universal
application.
There is a proposal that any antipersonnel mine that is not placed in
a marked and guarded minefield must contain a self-destructing device.
However, self-destruct mines are often disbursed by aircraft and
artillery in huge numbers over wide areas making it extremely difficult
to accurately map their location. Instead, all mines, including self-
destruct mines which as noted above are as indiscriminate as other
mines, should be required to be located in marked and monitored
minefields to ensure the exclusion of civilians. In addition, given the
large number of self-destruct mines that failed to self-destruct in the
Persian Gulf war, it is essential that the United States advocate
strongly that such mines also contain a self-deactivating device, such
as a battery which loses power after a finite time.
A proposal tabled by Russia would establish an exception to the self-
destruct and marked and monitored minefield requirements in situations
where direct enemy military action makes it impossible to comply. Such
an exception would virtually negate the effect of these requirements,
and the administration should strongly oppose it.
The time period within which a self-destruct mine must self-destruct
or self-deactivate remains a subject of discussion. There are proposals
ranging from 2 to 365 days. Indeed, at least one government has
reportedly proposed that there be no time limit. Most U.S. mines are
designed to self-destruct within 24 to 48 hours, and to self-deactivate
within 60 days. The administration should advocate strongly for this
short time period.
One of the most frequent criticisms of the Conventional Weapons
Convention is its lack of verification and compliance procedures. The
administration has proposed factfinding and compliance procedures
which, while not nearly as intrusive as the verification and compliance
procedures in the Chemical Weapons Convention, could significantly
enhance the effectiveness of the Conventional Weapons Convention. In
contrast, a proposal advocated by several nonaligned governments would
provide for only transparency requirements, whereby governments would
have to disclose certain information about their use of mines. This
would be woefully inadequate. If the review conference is to have any
hope of producing meaningful results the convention must include
effective verification procedures and at least the possibility of
sanctions for nonratification and noncompliance.
It is encouraging that there appears to be agreement that
antipersonnel mines must be detectable with common electronic metal
detecting equipment. To avoid confusion and foreseeable problems, there
needs to be a requirement of a specific amount of metal to ensure easy
detection. This requirement should be extended to cover antitank mines
as well. This is very important for the safety of deminers.
The administration has proposed to prohibit antihandling devices on
anti-tank landmines, as well as on antipersonnel mines. Unfortunately,
this has not received support from other countries. The administration
should continue to advocate for such a prohibition, since an antitank
mine with an anti-handling device is an antipersonnel mine. This could
also could help reduce the danger to deminers.
Finally, given the U.N. General Assembly's adoption of the goal of
eventually eliminating antipersonnel mines, the utter failure of the
convention, and the fact that the results of the Vienna conference are
likely to be quite modest, the administration should seek frequent
reviews of the convention. Rather than every 10 years, there should be
some form of annual technical review, and a formal review at least
every 5 years. In addition to identifying problems, frequent reviews
could help bring additional States on board.
Like any weapon, landmines have a military use. But it needs to be
weighed against the immense, long-term human and economic damage they
cause. Solving the landmine crisis will take years, possibly
generations. The Vienna conference is a beginning. Our aim should be to
build an international consensus that like chemical and biological
weapons, antipersonnel mines are so indiscriminate and inhumane that
they do not belong on this Earth. They are not weapons we depend on for
our national security. They are most often used against the
defenseless.
Ultimately, it is a moral issue, as has been so eloquently stated by
South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He has spoken about the 20
million landmines in Africa that have already destroyed so many
innocent lives:
Antipersonnel landmines are not just a crime perpetrated
against people, they are a sin. Why has the world been so
silent about
[[Page S 14706]]
these obscenities? It is because most of the victims of landmines are
neither heard nor seen.
Mr President, I want to also speak briefly about another issue that
will be debated in Vienna, blinding laser weapons.
In recent years, military forces have come to rely on lasers for
range finding, target designation and other modern technology. These
technologies have helped to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of
U.S. weapons, and are widely accepted as legitimate uses in warfare.
However, as the technology has advanced, various governments have begun
to move from these non-weapon laser systems to the development of
tactical laser weapons that are either intended or have the potential
to destroy eyesight. Such laser weapons now exist in prototype form,
and some are small enough to be mounted on a rifle.
A recent report identified 10 different U.S. laser weapon systems, 5
of which have apparently been fielded in prototype form. The Pentagon
has acknowledged that two of the systems were deployed, but not used,
in the Gulf war, and that one system was deployed, but not used, in
Somalia. Other governments that have been mentioned in the press as
developing blinding laser weapons include China, Russia, other former
Soviet republics, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Israel. China
attempted to market its ZM-87, a portable laser weapon system, at an
arms exhibition this spring. Its promotional literature openly states
that one of the weapon's main purposes is to injure eyesight.
Alarmed by the obvious potential for widespread abuse by terrorists,
rogue states, insurgent groups and common criminals if antipersonnel
laser weapons are developed and allowed to proliferate, several years
ago the international committee of the Red Cross initiated a campaign
against battlefield laser weapons. This led to a Swedish proposal to
add a protocol to the convention to prohibit the use of laser weapons
for the purpose of causing permanent blindness as a method of warfare.
Over 20 governments including many of our closest allies, as well as
the European Parliament and the Organization of African Unity, have
expressed support for such a protocol.
The possibility of hundreds or thousands of American servicemen and
women returning from combat to face the rest of their lives without
eyesight is sufficiently horrifying that I sought the Pentagon's
opinion on the Swedish proposal. Although the Pentagon concedes that
there is no military requirement for weapons that are used to destroy
eyesight, I found the Pentagon strongly opposed to the Swedish proposal
for several somewhat contradictory reasons:
I was told that a prohibition is unnecessary since there is no plan
to develop blinding weapons. At the same time, I was told that they are
easy to develop and indeed already exist.
I was told that there is no point in investing in such weapons since
they are ineffective in inclement weather and thus unlikely to receive
widespread use.
I was told that a prohibition would not prevent their development or
use by civilians; that blinding is preferable to death; that a
prohibition would be difficult to enforce because of the legitimate
uses of lasers in warfare and, even worse, that it would deter
legitimate uses; and that negotiation of such a protocol would divert
attention from the more immediate and pressing issue of landmines.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The Pentagon maintains that its
laser weapons systems are intended not to blind, but to disrupt enemy
optical and electro-optical battlefield surveillance systems. The
Pentagon has also conceded, however, that in some circumstances the
laser weapon performs its antisensor function by damaging the eyesight
of the enemy user. A laser weapon beam directed at a simple optic such
as a binocular or gunner's sight does not destroy the optical lens, but
instead magnifies and shoots back into the human eye, causing damage
and probable permanent blindness. The most advanced U.S. laser weapon
system, the Laser Countermeasure System [LCMS], which is mounted on an
M-16 rifle, reportedly fires a beam powerful enough to destroy a human
retina from a distance of 3,000 feet.
The fact that a prohibition would not directly apply to civilians is
hardly a reason not to limit their use as a method of warfare,
particularly since a prohibition would certainly inhibit their
development and use by terrorists and common criminals. Blindness may
be preferable to death, but blindness is permanent and weapons used to
blind would be used in combination with, not instead of, other deadly
weapons.
As for the Pentagon's argument that a prohibition on blinding could
deter legitimate uses of lasers, it should not be difficult to
distinguish between the use of nonweapon lasers for target designation
and range-finding versus tactical laser weapons that can blind. During
the Gulf War, there were many thousands of uses of nonweapon lasers by
the United States and other nations, and only one or two known
instances of eye damage.
In any event, this problem is certainly solvable, and is by no means
unique to the laws of war. A prohibition should prohibit blinding as a
method of warfare, as well as the development, production, transfer,
and use of laser weapons the primary purpose or effect of which is to
cause blindness.
Some violations would be difficult or impossible to prove, but that
is true with other laws of war violations such as the deliberate
targeting of civilians. The burden of proof is on the person alleging
the violation.
As a strong proponent of limits on the use of landmines, I certainly
do not want negotiations on laser weapons to divert attention from the
landmine issue. However, given the brevity of the Swedish proposal, its
support among other governments and the unique opportunity presented by
the Vienna conference, this is too important an opportunity to miss. I
have urged the administration to delay the development or production of
any antipersonnel laser system until the issue has been fully
considered in Vienna.
Unfortunately, in June the Pentagon made an ill-advised decision to
go forward with a limited production of 75 LCMS systems, while
deferring a decision on full production of 2,500 units until early
1996. While I am relieved that a decision on full production was
delayed, even limited production will complicate the negotiations on a
prohibition. The administration should reverse this decision and
postpone any further research, development, or procurement of tactical
laser weapon systems until after the Vienna conference.
To its credit, the Pentagon recently announced that it has revised
its policy on lasers, to prohibit the use of lasers specifically
designed to cause permanent blindness. This is an important step, but
it is not enough to prohibit only lasers designed to be used against
personnel, since virtually any laser can be used to destroy eyesight if
used for that purpose.
It is not too late to act to prevent the widespread proliferation of
these weapons. Like exploding bullets and other weapons that have been
banned as excessively cruel, the administration should actively support
an international prohibition on blinding as a method of warfare. U.S.
leadership, even at this late date, would virtually assure agreement.
Mr. President, again, the Vienna conference is a unique opportunity.
On both landmines and laser weapons, U.S. leadership is urgently needed
and vital to save lives and prevent the proliferation of these inhumane
weapons.
____________________