[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 64 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2776-H2778]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     STOP THE SCOURGE OF LANDMINES

  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to ask my colleagues 
and the President to support an immediate and complete ban on 
antipersonnel land mines.
  According to the Department of State, a limb or a life is lost every 
22 minutes as a result of land mines. Over 5 million land mines are 
produced annually. Over 50 percent of them are deployed. With only 
100,000 land mines being removed each year, villages, fields and paths 
are turned into death traps. Ninety percent of the victims are 
civilians. In 70 countries around the world, more than 100 million land 
mines continue to fight battles that ended months, years and even 
decades ago.
  The years of conflict in Central America have left landmines in the 
paths of school children. The United States sold over 102,000 land 
mines to the Salvadoran army. Thousands more were planted by guerrilla 
forces. I have seen firsthand the damage they have caused to the 
salvadoran children and young soldiers now maimed for life.
  Mr. Speaker, in January I nominated the grassroots based 
International Campaign to Ban Land Mines for the Nobel Peace Prize 
because I believe the time has come for the international community to 
sign a treaty to eliminate this scourge once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record several items related to 
banning land mines, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, April 3, 1996]

                  An Open Letter to President Clinton

       Dear Mr. President: We understand that you have announced a 
     United States goal of the eventual elimination of 
     antipersonnel landmines. We take this to mean that you 
     support a permanent and total international ban on the 
     production, stockpiling, sale and use of this weapon.
       We view such a ban as not only humane, but also militarily 
     responsible.
       The rationale for opposing antipersonnel landmines is that 
     they are in a category similar to poison gas; they are hard 
     to control and often have unintended harmful consequences 
     (sometimes even for those who employ them). In addition, they 
     are insidious in that their indiscriminate effects persist 
     long after hostilities have ceased, continuing to cause 
     casualties among innocent people, especially farmers and 
     children.
       We understand that: there are 100 million landmines 
     deployed in the world. Their presence makes normal life 
     impossible in scores of nations. It will take decades of 
     slow, dangerous and painstaking work to remove these mines. 
     The cost in dollars and human lives will be immense. Seventy 
     people will be killed or maimed today, 500 this week, more 
     than 2,000 this month, and more than 26,000 this year, 
     because of landmines.
       Given the wide range of weaponry available to military 
     forces today, antipersonnel landmines are not essential. 
     Thus, banning them would not undermine the military 
     effectiveness or safety of our forces, nor those of other 
     nations.
       The proposed ban on antipersonnel landmines does not affect 
     antitank mines, nor does it ban such normally command-
     detonated weapons as Claymore ``mines,'' leaving unimpaired 
     the use of those undeniably militarily useful weapons.
       Nor is the ban on antipersonnel landmines a slippery slope 
     that would open the way to efforts to ban additional 
     categories of weapons, since these mines are unique in their 
     indiscriminate, harmful residual potential.
       We agree with and endorse these views, and conclude that 
     you as Commander-in-Chief could responsibly take the lead in 
     efforts to achieve a total and permanent international ban on 
     the production, stockpiling, sale and use of antipersonnel 
     landmines. We strongly urge that you do so.
         General David Jones (USAF, ret.), former Chairman, Joint 
           Chiefs of Staff; General John R. Galvin (US Army, 
           ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; General 
           H. Norman Schwarzkopf (US Army, ret.), Commander, 
           Operation Desert Storm; General William G.T. Tuttle, 
           Jr. (US Army, ret.), former Commander, US Army Materiel 
           Command; General Volney F. Warner (US Army, ret.), 
           former Commanding General, US Readiness Command; 
           General Frederick F.

[[Page H2777]]

           Woerner, Jr. (US Army, ret.), former Commander-in-
           Chief, US Southern Command; Lieutenant General James 
           Abrahamson (USAF, ret.), former Director, Strategic 
           Defense Initiative Office; Lieutenant General Henry E. 
           Emerson (US Army, ret.), former Commander, XVIII 
           Airborne Corps; Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. 
           (US Army, ret.), former President, National Defense 
           University President, Monterey Institute of 
           International Studies; Lieutenant General James F. 
           Hollingsworth (US Army, ret.) former I Corps (ROK/US 
           Group); Lieutenant General Harold G. Moore, Jr. (US 
           Army, ret.), former Commanding General, 7th Infantry 
           Division; Lieutenant General Dave R. Palmer (US Army, 
           ret.), former Commandant, US Military Academy, West 
           Point; Lieutenant General DeWitt C. Smith, Jr. (US 
           Army, ret.), former Commandant, US Army War College; 
           Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN, ret.), former 
           Commander, US Second Fleet; and Brigadier General 
           Douglas Kinnard (US Army, ret.), former Chief of 
           Military History, US Army.
                                  ____


        Fact Sheet--The U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines, May 1997


achieving a comprehensive landmines ban: the ottawa process versus the 
                       conference on disarmament

       Clinton Administration officials have said that they 
     support a ban on antipersonnel landmines, but have indicated 
     that the appropriate diplomatic venue for securing such a ban 
     is at the Geneva-based U.N. Conference on Disarmament, which 
     has been in session since January of this year. 
     Notwithstanding the United States' desire to consider a ban 
     in this forum, the Conference on Disarmament has refused to 
     take up the issue of antipersonnel landmines. There are 
     several reasons why this is the case.
       First, the Conference on Disarmament, which operates by 
     consensus, has not agreed upon a ``work program'' for this 
     year. With the exception of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the 
     CD participants have not agreed to work on anything for the 
     past several years. The most optimistic projection for 
     agreeing on a work program is August, 1997, but the deadlock 
     could easily continue well into next year. The deadlock is 
     attributable, in part, to a fundamental disagreement among 
     states about the balance between considering nuclear 
     disarmament and conventional weapons disarmament. The CD can 
     not address the issue of landmines (or anything else) until 
     the overall work plan has been approved.
       Second, even after the work plan has been approved, in 
     order to begin work on a landmines ban the CD would have to 
     appoint a committee and approve a mandate for it. This is a 
     significant hurdle, since China and Russia, both members of 
     the CD, have made it very clear that they do not support a 
     comprehensive ban. And even when there does exist a consensus 
     to begin work in a particular area, the progress moves 
     extremely slowly. For example, the CD agreed to work on a 
     fissile materials ban in March of 1995, and the CD has yet to 
     even establish a committee.
       Third, if by some miracle the CD should agree to establish 
     a committee to consider a landmines ban and agree on a 
     mandate for that committee to consider a comprehensive ban, 
     negotiations can go on for many years. It took 16 years to 
     realize the Chemical Weapons Convention, including four solid 
     years of negotiations on the text of the Convention itself. 
     The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was a 23-year proposition: 
     20 years to establish the terms of the negotiations, and 3 
     years to negotiate the treaty itself. Such timetables are 
     absolutely unacceptable when dealing with a humanitarian 
     disaster like landmines. Even if the CD were to move at 
     its fastest pace, landmines will claim hundreds of 
     thousands of new victims during its years of negotiations.
       The Ottawa process, in contrast, is moving forward at a 
     very brisk pace and has garnered significant international 
     support in the six months since Canadian Foreign Minister 
     Lloyd Axworthy announced that Ottawa would host a treaty 
     signing for a comprehensive ban on landmine use, production, 
     stockpiling, and export. Over sixty nations (including over 
     half of NATO) have indicated support for the treaty and the 
     Ottawa process. Nine core nations (Germany, Austria, South 
     Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, Switzerland, Belgium, 
     Canada, and Norway) have drafted a ban treaty, and 120 
     nations met last month to consider verification issues 
     relating to it. In June, pro-ban nations will meet to issue a 
     declaration of support for the Ottawa process and for the 
     Austrian draft treaty. And the core group hopes to finalize 
     the treaty at meetings in Oslo in late September and early 
     October.
       The Clinton Administration has defended its decision to 
     pursue a ban at the Conference on Disarmament on the grounds 
     that an international forum which includes opponents of a 
     landmines ban, such as Russia and China, is the only means of 
     bringing them aboard.
       The U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines is concerned about such 
     governments' participation, but believes that the Ottawa 
     process offers the best means of putting pressure on them to 
     eventually support a comprehensive ban. The treaty signing in 
     Ottawa, set for December of this year, will indicate very 
     clearly those governments who are the troublemakers and 
     abusers of this cruel and indiscriminate weapon. The large 
     numbers of countries which will adopt a ban at that time will 
     set an international norm on antipersonnel landmines, and 
     they will help stigmatize and isolate those who refuse to 
     join.
       Interestingly, when Secretary of State Albright testified 
     in favor of U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Treaty 
     on April 8, she adopted precisely this argument, stating that 
     American support would serve to pressure other nations to 
     join: ``Over time, I believe that--if the United States joins 
     the CWC--most other countries will, too--but the problem 
     states will never accept a prohibition on chemical weapons if 
     America stays out, keeps them company and gives them cover. 
     We will not have the standing to mobilize our allies to 
     support strong action against violators if we ourselves have 
     refused to join the treaty being violated.''
       The U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines has no principled 
     objection to the Conference on Disarmament. but the very 
     vulture of the Conference is such that negotiations are long 
     and protracted. Such lengthy deliberations, when dealing with 
     weapons (such as chemicals or nuclear warheads) which are not 
     in use is one thing. But when negotiating an end to a weapon 
     which creates 26,000 casualties per year, such a process is a 
     disaster. If it took as long to consummate a ban on landmines 
     as it did to achieve ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban 
     Treaty, there would be another 5,598,000 victims (assuming 
     current levels of civilian casualties.) This is an 
     unacceptable proposition. There is no reason that the United 
     States's efforts to achieve a ban at the CD should prevent 
     them from joining the Ottawa initiative today.
                                  ____

                                                  January 9, 1997.
     Mr. Geir Lundestad,
     Director, The Norwegian Nobel Committee, Drammensveien 19, 
         0255 Oslo, Norway.
       Dear Mr. Lundestad: With this letter, I would like to 
     nominate for consideration for the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, 
     the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and its 
     Coordinator, Ms. Jody Williams.
       The ICBL was initiated at the end of 1991 by Ms. Williams 
     for the Vietnam Veterans of American Foundation, Washington, 
     DC, and Medico International, Frankfurt, Germany, and has 
     grown dramatically in size and influence. The ICBL, with its 
     steering committee of nine international organizations and 
     national landmine campaigns, now includes more than 725 non-
     governmental organizations working in over 40 countries 
     around the world with the common goal of the total 
     elimination of antipersonnel landmines (APMs).
       Your consideration of this nomination for 1997 is of 
     particular timeliness: intense negotiations have begun toward 
     the signing of an international treaty to ban APMs at the end 
     of 1997, and Norway will be hosting one of the negotiating 
     sessions in October 1997. The ICBL has been instrumental in 
     bringing about this unprecedentedly rapid change.
       When the ICBL began, mostly as an idea in late 1991, scant 
     attention was being paid to the real killers in the world's 
     armed conflicts--antipersonnel landmines and other light 
     weapons. While the world focused on the nuclear threat during 
     the Cold War, tens of millions of landmines were being sown 
     throughout much of the developing world, resulting in global 
     contamination of epidemic proportion. As you surely are 
     aware, thousands of children and adult civilians are being 
     killed and maimed each month by landmines.
       With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the 
     nuclear threat, the ICBL has been able to capture the 
     imagination and energy of hundreds of NGOs around the world 
     and dramatically challenge--and change--decades-old 
     assumptions about the conduct and consequences of armed 
     conflict by focusing international attention on one small 
     weapon that graphically symbolizes the long-term impact of 
     armed conflict: the antipersonnel landmine.
       The NGOs that have come together in the ICBL represent a 
     unique coalition effort, which has successfully merged 
     humanitarian and disarmament concerns. Nongovernmental 
     organizations representing a broad spectrum of interests such 
     as human rights, development, refugees, arms control, the 
     environment and emergency relief have, for the first time, 
     worked together in a coordinated effort with one goal in 
     mind: to ban APMs. That the ICBL is a powerful expression of 
     the will of civil society is demonstrated by the truly 
     impressive gains resulting from the work of the ICBL. The 
     Campaign has successfully promoted anti-APL policies and 
     positions at the national, regional and international levels. 
     The Campaign has also called for support of programs to 
     promote and finance landmine awareness, clearance, and 
     eradication worldwide, and for victim assistance.
       When the ICBL began its work, no organization or agency was 
     actively campaigning to ban landmines. Its goal, a total ban 
     of antipersonnel landmines, was considered utopian. But 
     through the coordinated work of the ICBL membership in more 
     than 40 countries, the world has seen tremendous change in an 
     unprecedentedly short period of time. From ground zero, we 
     have seen the following movement in the past 4 years: some 50 
     countries have prohibited exports of APMs, 15 countries have 
     begun or completed destruction of stockpiles, 30 countries 
     have

[[Page H2778]]

     banned or suspended their use, and 20 have announced no 
     production.
       In 1996, the UN General Assembly passed by a vote of 156-0, 
     with 10 abstentions, a resolution calling upon states ``to 
     pursue vigorously'' an international treaty banning APMs ``as 
     soon as possible.'' The world now boasts two ``mine-free 
     zones''--Central America, in a joint declaration by its six 
     Foreign Ministers to ban the weapon throughout the region, 
     and the CARICOM states. Additionally, both the OAS and the 
     OAU have passed resolutions calling upon their member states 
     to make their regions mine-free.
       This momentum has also brought other change. After pressure 
     from the ICBL, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons 
     (CCW) was reviewed from 1994-96. The two and a half year 
     process of review of the CCW is widely held to have brought 
     minimal change to the flawed treaty. But through the focus of 
     attention on the process, the pro-ban movement gained 
     tremendous momentum and has moved rapidly beyond the limits 
     of the CCW. It was in the review sessions themselves that the 
     ICBL helped to ignite a true governmental ``pro-ban 
     movement'' by hosting the first meetings of pro-ban states. 
     This series of meetings led the Canadian Government to call 
     for a strategy conference of pro-ban governments in October 
     of last year in Ottawa. The conference was attended by 50 
     pro-ban states and 24 observer nations.
       At the conclusion of the Ottawa conference, Canada's 
     Foreign Minister closed the conference with the dramatic 
     invitation to states to return to Canada in December of 1997 
     to sign a treaty banning AP mines. The conference chairman, 
     in close cooperation with the ICBL, had prepared an ``Action 
     Plan'' that would lead to that goal. A series of preparatory 
     meetings are now scheduled in 1997 with a target of a ban 
     treaty by the end of the year.
       While the Landmine Campaign never saw its goal as utopian, 
     it did not envision such change in so short a period of time. 
     Governments and individuals around the world, including 
     former Secretary General of the United Nations Boutros 
     Boutros Ghali, have recognized that it is the work of the 
     ICBL that has made the difference. One UN official, speaking 
     at the Ottawa Conference, noted that this change has come 
     about because of the original impetus and ongoing coordinated 
     work of the ICBL. He called the coalition the ``single most 
     important and effective exercise by civil society since the 
     Second World War.''
       The goal is in sight. There remains a huge amount of work 
     to ensure its fruition. The ICBL, which initiated this 
     movement, will continue to work in close cooperation 
     throughout the year--and beyond--with pro-ban states to rid 
     the world of this indiscriminate weapon.
       The ICBL represents a dramatic expression of the will of 
     civil society to change international norms. That is why I 
     nominate Ms. Williams and the International Campaign to Ban 
     Landmines for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997. An award to them 
     of the Peace Prize in this critical year would send a 
     powerful signal that such models for social change are 
     recognized as critical and important as we move into the next 
     century.
           Yours respectfully,
                                                   James McGovern,
     Member of Congress.

                          ____________________