[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 136 (Friday, October 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10315-S10317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A LANDMINE IS A LANDMINE
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for those who are planning schedules, I do
not expect to take long, but I will speak about an issue that I have
talked about many times, the issue of landmines, something, I must
admit, I think about in waking hours and sometimes in my dreams.
There was an ad in yesterday's Roll Call newspaper. It said:
There's just one problem with President Clinton's
``landmine ban.'' . . . It doesn't ban landmines.
An ad in the Hill newspaper 2 days ago asked the question:
Would a landmine by any other name be as deadly?
That may seem like a strange question because the answer is so
obvious. Landmines are those tiny hidden explosives that kill and maim
randomly. They are strewn by the thousands, by the tens of millions, in
over 100 million in over 60 countries.
They do things like what is shown in this photograph. They do it to
children in as many foreign countries as there are States in the United
States. That was a healthy young child walking down a road. That child
in a single instant was maimed, crippled for the rest of his life, if
he survives the surgery he will have to undergo. If he survives, he
will grow up in a poor country with one arm, one leg and somehow be
expected to make a living.
Imagine if something like this was happening in the United States. We
would call it terrorism. We would make it a Federal crime. We would do
everything possible to stop it. At my own home in Vermont, I can walk
through acres of fields and woods, I can do it easily at this time of
the year, in the great beauty of the fall foliage. If I was in most of
these other countries, I would not dare step off the traveled part of
the road.
So there should not be any question about what a landmine is. For
hundreds of millions of people around the world, they are a daily,
deadly nightmare. Everyday on their way to the fields, or to gather
water or in school yards or on roads once safe to travel, innocent
people, often children, are blown to bits by these indiscriminate
weapons.
A year ago at the United Nations, President Clinton called on the
nations of the world to ban antipersonnel landmines. The President
said:
The United States will lead a global effort to eliminate
these terrible weapons and stop the enormous loss of human
life.
Those were inspiring words. I commend him today for saying them; I
commended him at the time.
But today we are confronted with a question we thought had been
answered a long time ago: When is a landmine a landmine?
It is relevant today because 2 weeks ago, rather than join 89 other
nations, including most of our NATO allies, in agreeing to sign a
treaty to ban antipersonnel mines, the White House resorted to
doublespeak. Rather than make the hard choice, the right choice, rather
than pledge unambiguously to do away with these weapons, they said one
thing but then they did another. They said the United States would ban
antipersonnel mines, but then in the same breath, they redefined what
an antipersonnel landmine is so they wouldn't have to ban them after
all.
Mr. President, some people were fooled, but not many. A September 24
article in the Washington Post begins with the same question:
When is an antipersonnel landmine . . . no longer an
antipersonnel landmine?
When the President of the United States says so.
I am told that article upset some people in the Pentagon. I am not
surprised. When the Pentagon tried to explain that a weapon that just a
few months ago they called an antipersonnel landmine is no longer an
antipersonnel landmine today--they said it was yesterday; today they
say it is not--it is like watching someone who is caught telling a lie
that even he convinced himself was not a lie, and then acting offended
at the suggestion he tried to pull a fast one.
A weapon they once called a landmine, now isn't. Why do they say
that? So they can say ``Look, we banned landmines. Except some of them
we renamed so we can still use them.'' It is Orwellian at best.
The Pentagon thought they could come up with a nifty way to get
around a landmine ban that they never wanted. They asked themselves,
``How can we be part of a treaty that bans antipersonnel mines, and
still keep using them? We'll just call landmines something different.
Then you don't really have to ban them, you can just say you are.''
If antipersonnel mines are used in the vicinity of an antitank mine,
then they miraculously become something different from an antipersonnel
landmine even though that is what they were called just a few monts
ago. Without changing in any way, shape or form or explosive
capability, they suddenly become a submunition, not a landmine.
Thank God, Mr. President, we have banned landmines from our arsenal.
Only now we have submunitions. I am waiting for the appropriations bill
to come forward to pay to relabel these millions of former landmines.
Somebody will have to paint over where it says ``landmine'' and relabel
them as ``submunitions.'' And since submunitions are not banned,
presto, the United States can say it is banning landmines even though
everyone knows we are not.
Unfortunately, this kind of cynical ploy is seen too often in
Washington. That is the problem.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post
article and a September 19 editorial from the Rutland Daily Herald, a
Vermont newspaper that has kept up with the international campaign to
ban landmines, be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibits 1 and 2.)
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, there are serious issues here. One, of course, is
about pretending a landmine is something else, in a last-minute attempt
to avoid being embarrassed by being left out of an international treaty
that the United States called for a year ago. It is embarrassing. We
urged other nations to negotiate a treaty, and when they did we stayed
out of the negotiations until
[[Page S10316]]
the last minute and then we said we would not sign it.
But another serious question is what to do with certain types of
antitank mines that the United States has in its arsenal and that are
packaged with antipersonnel mines.
I fully understand how important the Pentagon considers these weapons
to our defense. I have spoken with people in the Pentagon about this. I
do not intend to minimize this problem. What I am saying, though, is
face the problem, be straight about it, do not play word games.
Because it is just as important that the United States support a
landmine ban. If we are not going to be among the 100 nations that sign
the treaty in Ottawa this December--and I understand that is the
President's decision--then we need to find a way to remove the
obstacles that keep us from signing, because I the United States needs
to be part of this treaty. If that means redesigning our antitank
mines, then that is what we ought to do.
We need to sign the treaty as soon as possible, because as remarkable
an accomplishment as it is, without the United States it is never going
to achieve the international ban that everyone, including the
President, wants. No country has the ability that the United States has
to broaden support for the treaty and obtain adherence to it. Nobody
can exert the leadership that the world's only superpower can exert.
The American people do not want the United States to use a weapon that
does not belong in the arsenal of civilized nations. They do not want
the United States to be standing in the way of a treaty that will set a
new moral standard for the next century. As the most powerful Nation,
it is time to put an end to the doublespeak and the excuses and get
busy solving the problem.
Mr. President, I said when I spoke in Oslo to the representatives of
nations and organizations that were meeting there, I dream of a
century, a new century, when armies of humanity dig up, disarm, and
destroy landmines and nobody--nobody--puts new landmines down. Think
what a century that would be for the children and the children of the
children in those countries.
Think what that would mean to the United States when it sends
peacekeepers around the world, when it sends humanitarian workers,
missionaries, doctors, whatever. Think what it would mean if they did
not have to face the constant threat of landmines.
Think what it would mean if we could go into countries that today
have to spend their scarce resources to import food because their
people cannot go into their fields to plant or to harvest, fields that
are death traps because of landmines. There might be only one landmine
in a field, but if you do not know where that landmine is, there may as
well be a hundred.
Think what it would mean if we could go to countries ravaged by civil
war and now reaching toward democracy, to help them rebuild the
infrastructure they need and not have to spend money on removing
landmines, expending $100 to $1,000 to remove a $3 or $5 landmine.
Think how wonderful it would be if our country did not have to fund,
every year now to the tune of $5 million, the Leahy War Victims Fund
which pays for artificial limbs--something that is supported, I say
with gratitude, by every Member of this Senate, Republican and
Democrat. But think if we did not have to do that. Think if we would
not have to see children learning to walk on crude prosthetics. Think
what a different world it would be.
We have worked to ban nuclear testing. We have worked to ban chemical
weapons. Far more civilians have died and been injured and maimed by
landmines than by nuclear weapons or chemical weapons.
We can find a way to protect the legitimate defense needs of the
United States and to maintain our legitimate obligations around the
world whether on the Korean Peninsula or anywhere else. We can do that
and still be part of the remarkable global effort to ban landmines.
Mr. President, I have been in many countries where I have gotten out
of a car and been told where I should walk, to be careful, that I
should step only here, not a foot away. I remember in one country I was
about to step off the road and somebody grabbed my arm and yanked me
back because there were landmines there.
These are things I remember, and they are a daily terror for people
who live there.
Mr. President, let us join together to bring that to an end.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 24, 1997]
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
devices'' 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 ``U.S.
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--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
[[Page S10317]]
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.''
Exhibit 2
[From the Rutland Daily Herald, Sept. 19, 1997]
Clinton's Stumble
Sen. Patrick Leahy is charitable to President Clinton in
his statement, printed below, about the treaty negotiated
this week in Oslo, Norway, banning anti-personnel land mines.
Leahy says he is convinced Clinton wants to see land mines
eliminated and that Clinton's commitment is real.
But his statement also contains a damning account of
Clinton's pusillanimous surrender to the Pentagon and his
incompetent, eleventh-hour effort to negotiate a compromise.
Leahy, a champion of the international effort to ban land
mines, covers up his scorn for Clinton's effort with the
barest fig leaf of decorum.
The land mine negotiations are an excellent lesson in why
the U.S. Constitution ensures that control of the military
remains in civilian hands. In a democracy, the U.S. military
is an instrument of the people, not a separate warrior caste.
Thus, it is up to the civilian government to institute the
humanitarian standards and the political boundaries that
reflect the people's values. Clinton chickened out.
Clinton used Korea as an excuse, but in doing so he failed
to make the necessary calculation; the marginal difficulty of
reconfiguring our defenses in Korea weighed against the daily
carnage the land mine treaty is designed to prevent.
About 100 nations have signed on to the treaty, which
forbids them to use, produce, acquire, store or transfer
anti-personnel land mines. They have also agreed to destroy
current stocks and to remove any mines they have in place.
Further, they have agreed to assist in the care of land mine
victims.
The treaty represents an extraordinary response, outside
the usual bureaucratic channels of the United Nations, by the
governments of the world to a popular demand for change.
U.S. participation is necessary, however, if the ban is to
become a true worldwide ban. That's because there is no
chance those nations who have not signed will join the ban
until the United States does. These include China, Russia,
India, Pakistan and Israel, all of which could continue to
serve as sources for land mines for terrorist organizations.
Thus, Leahy is holding to his goal of making the United
States a signatory of the treaty. A bill of his that has 60
co-sponsors would have established a ban on use of land mines
by the United States in 2000. The prospect that that bill
might pass goaded the Clinton administration into joining the
Oslo talks in the first place.
Now Leahy plans to consult with participants in the Oslo
talks, including the Canadians who have led the treaty
movement, plus Clinton and members of Congress, to determine
how best to move the United States toward signing the treaty.
Pushing the Leahy-Hagel bill, which includes an exception for
Korea under some circumstances, is one option.
It is clear Clinton needs to be reminded he was elected by
the people, not by the Pentagon, and that the people believe
progress in ending use of this barbaric weapon is important.
Leahy scoffs at the notion that the most powerful nation in
the world requires this primitive weapon to protect itself.
The message to policymakers in Washington must be that it is
shameful the United States has failed to join a worldwide
effort to make the world a safer and more civilized place.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see my distinguished friend from Georgia
back on the floor. So I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________