[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 130 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S9984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               LANDMINES

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many have asked whether the 
Department of Defense has so involved itself in the landmine debate 
that they have even changed definition to win in their opposition to 
joining the majority of nations seeking a ban.
  An article from September 24, 1997, the Washington Post answers the 
question and I ask that it be printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

           Clinton Directive on Mines: New Form, Old Function

                            (By Dana Priest)

       When is an antipersonnel land mine--a fist-sized object 
     designed to blow up a human being--no longer an antipersonnel 
     land mine?
       When the president of the United States says so.
       In announcing last week that the United States would not 
     sign an international treaty to ban antipersonnel land mines, 
     President Clinton also said he had ordered the Pentagon to 
     find technological alternatives to these mines. ``This 
     program,'' he said, ``will eliminate all antipersonnel land 
     mines from America's arsenal.''
       Technically speaking, the president's statement was not 
     quite accurate.
       His directive left untouched the millions of little devices 
     the Army and Defense Department for years have been calling 
     antipersonnel land mines. These mines are used to protect 
     antitank mines, which are much larger devices meant to 
     disable enemy tanks and other heavy vehicles.
       The smaller ``protectors'' are shot out of tanks or dropped 
     from jets and helicopters. When they land, they shoot out 
     threads that attach themselves to the ground with tiny hooks, 
     creating cobweb-like tripwires. Should an enemy soldier try 
     to get close to the antitank mine, chances are he would trip 
     a wire, and either fragments would explode at ground level or 
     a handball-sized grenade would pop up from the antipersonnel 
     mine to about belly height. In less than a second, the 
     grenade would explode, throwing its tiny metal balls into the 
     soldier's flesh and bones.
       In the trade, these ``mixed'' systems have names such as 
     Gator, Volcano, MOPMS and Area Denial Artillery Munition, or 
     ADAM.
       These mines, Clinton's senior policy director for defense 
     policy and arms control, Robert Bell, explained later, ``are 
     not being banned under the president's directive because they 
     are not antipersonnel land mines.'' They are, he said, 
     ``antihandling devices,'' ``little kinds of explosive 
     deices'' or, simply, ``munitions.''
       Not according to the Defense Department, which has used 
     them for years.
       When the Pentagon listed the antipersonnel land mines it 
     was no longer allowed to export under a 1992 congressionally 
     imposed ban, these types were on the list.
       And when Clinton announced in January that he would cap the 
     U.S. stockpile of antipersonnel land mines in the inventory, 
     they were on that list too.
       At the time, there were a total of 1 million Gators, 
     Volcanos and MOPMS, as well as 9 million ADAMs. (Only some 
     ADAMs are used in conjunction with antitank mines, and those 
     particular devices are no longer considered antipersonnel 
     land mines.)
       The unclassified Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing charts used 
     to explain the impact of legislation to Congress this year 
     explicitly state that Gators, Volcanos, MOPMS and ADAMs are 
     antipersonnel land mines.
       So does a June 19 Army information paper titled ``US Self-
     Destructing Anti-Personnel Landmine Use.'' So does a fact 
     sheet issued in 1985 by the Army Armament, Munition and 
     Chemical Command.
       As does a recent Army ``Information Tab,'' which explains 
     that the Gator is ``packed with a mix of `smart' AP 
     [antipersonnel] and `smart' AT [antitank] mines.''
       And when Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, vice chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed reporters at the White 
     House on may 16, 1996, he said: ``Our analysis shows that the 
     greatest benefit of antipersonnel land mines is when they are 
     used in conjunction with antitank land mines. . . . If you 
     don't cover the antitank mine field with antipersonnel mines, 
     it's very easy for the enemy to go through the mine field.''
       A diplomatic dispute over the types of antipersonnel land 
     mines Ralston was describing then and arms control adviser 
     Bell sought to redefine last week was one of the main reasons 
     the United States decided last week not to sign the 
     international treaty being crafted in Oslo, Norway.
       U.S. negotiators argued that because these mines are 
     programmed to eventually self-destruct, they are not 
     responsible for the humanitarian crisis--long-forgotten mines 
     injuring and killing civilians--that treaty supporters hoped 
     to cure with a ban, and therefore should be exempt from the 
     ban.
       Also, because other countries had gotten an exemption for 
     the type of antihandling devices they use to prevent soldiers 
     from picking up antitank mines--which are actually attached 
     to the antitank mines--U.S. negotiators contended that the 
     United States should get an exemption for the small mines it 
     uses for the same purpose.
       Negotiators in Oslo did not accept Washington's stance. 
     They worried that other countries might seek to exempt the 
     types of antipersonnel mines they wanted to use, too, and the 
     whole treaty would soon become meaningless.
       The administration was not trying to deceive the public, 
     Bell said in an interview yesterday, bristling at the 
     suggestion. Given the fact that the U.S. devices are used to 
     protect antitank mines, ``it seems entirely common-sensical 
     to us'' to call them antihandling devices.
       Said Bell: ``this was not a case of us trying to take mines 
     and then define the problem away.''


                  How One `Antihandling Device' Works

       When President Clinton spoke of eliminating antipersonnel 
     land mines, he left out of his directive devices such as the 
     Gator antipersonnel mine. The Gator mine prevents soldiers 
     from disarming antitank mines. It works like this:
       1. Gator mines grouped in a cluster bomb are dumped from 
     planes onto the ground surrounding antitank mines.
       2. When the mine lands, gas from a small squib forces 
     spring-loaded tripwires to be released.
       3. Tension on the tripwire sets off the fuse, sending low-
     flying fragments in all directions.

                          ____________________