[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9394-9396]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CLUSTER BOMBS AND LANDMINES IN IRAQ

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we can all celebrate the collapse of Saddam 
Hussein's brutal, corrupt regime. While much remains to be done to 
rebuild Iraq and reassure the Arab world that the United States is a 
liberator, not a conqueror, and that we have no intention of imposing 
our will on the Iraqi people, the demise of such a tyrant should be 
universally welcomed.
  As we reflect on the past 3 weeks of war, we should above all pay 
tribute to the extraordinary courage and professionalism of our Armed 
Forces. They conducted themselves in ways that should make all of us 
proud.
  We should also make note of the vast arsenal of modern weapons which 
enabled them to prevail. These weapons have devastated Iraqi troops, 
armor, and military infrastructure.
  We have seen on television how effective our precision-guided 
missiles and bombs are, and we can only imagine how many civilian 
casualties were avoided because of their accuracy. It is partly because 
we have such increasingly accurate weapons that I want to discuss an 
issue that concerns me, and that is the use of cluster bombs by our 
forces in Iraq.
  Cluster bombs, otherwise known as ``submunitions'' or ``bomblets,'' 
are strewn by aircraft or artillery over a wide area. They can be as 
small as a baseball. They are designed to detonate on impact and 
scatter deadly shrapnel in every direction. However, on average some 2-
20 percent do not explode on impact. Instead, they remain on the 
surface of the ground, often hidden by sand or vegetation, where they 
lie in wait for some unsuspecting child, farmer, or other innocent 
person. They also pose a grave danger to U.S. forces in the area.
  The United States military dropped millions of cluster bombs on Laos 
during the Vietnam war. Today, over 30 years later, they continue to 
maim and kill innocent people. The cost of removing these tiny, lethal 
weapons is prohibitive for an impoverished country like Laos. The 
United States Agency for International Development, through the Leahy 
War Victims Fund, is aiding some of the severely disabled victims of 
these indiscriminate weapons.
  More recently, the United States has used cluster bombs in several 
countries, including Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq during the first gulf 
war, and, according to reports, again in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  In the first gulf war, U.S. planes dropped more than 24 million 
submunitions on Iraq, leaving roughly 1.2 million duds which resulted 
in over 1,600 Kuwaiti and Iraqi civilian deaths and an additional 2,500 
injured following the war. The cost of clearing these duds and other 
unexploded ordnance was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
  In 1995 in Bosnia, U.S. military officers reportedly banned the use 
of cluster bombs because they were seen to present an unacceptable risk 
to civilians. However, 3 years later, during the NATO air campaign in 
Yugoslavia, U.S., British and Dutch military aircraft dropped more than 
295,000 submunitions. The U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center 
estimated that more than 20,000 live bomblets remained after the war, 
and the International Committee of the Red Cross reported that in the 
year following the war there were 151 reported casualties due to 
cluster bombs.
  The U.S. Air Force has used cluster bombs in Afghanistan, where, 
predictably, they have caused the deaths of innocent civilians. 
Additionally, the appearance of the yellow bomblets bore a

[[Page 9395]]

remarkable similarity to food aid parcels being airdropped. Civilians 
searching for food instead have found a hidden death. Also, the bright 
yellow of the bomblets attracted children, who thought it might be a 
toy. I read recently that this same problem has occurred in Iraq.
  According to Human Rights Watch, television images and reports from 
journalists embedded with the U.S. military indicate that U.S. forces 
are using artillery projectiles and rockets containing large numbers of 
cluster munitions of a type which, according to a Department of Defense 
report, have a failure rate of 16 percent. This could result in 
hundreds or thousands of dangerous duds.
  In addition, The Washington Post reported on March 29 that U.S. 
forces fired 18 Army Tactical Missile Systems against suspected air 
defense sites in support of a helicopter attack by units of the 101st 
Airborne Division on March 28. The payload of an ATACMS is 300 or 950 
submunitions with a reported failure rate of 2 percent.
  There is also apparently video footage of U.S. Marine artillery units 
supporting the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion using 155 
millimeter artillery firing projectiles at Iraqi positions. A reporter 
described ``hundreds of grenades'' being fired at the Iraqis. These 
were apparently a type of submunition which have a 14 percent dud rate.
  Submunitions that fail to detonate upon impact become de facto 
landmines. I have long opposed the use of landmines, and while cluster 
bombs differ from landmines in that the former are designed to explode 
on impact, I have urged the Department of Defense to only use cluster 
bombs that contain reliable self-destruct fuses. Modern self-destruct 
fuses, which cost only $8-10 each, could reduce the number of duds and 
the number of innocent casualties by more than 97 percent. Yet, the 
cluster bombs used by U.S. forces in Iraq do not, to my knowledge, 
include this available technology. Innocent people, whether Iraqis or 
Americans, should not die on account of a mere ten dollars.
  I have also urged the Pentagon to adopt rules of engagement to 
prevent the use of cluster bombs in heavily populated areas. These 
weapons, which are designed to detonate over a wide area, are not 
accurate enough to prevent widespread death and injury to 
noncombatants.
  I also want to speak about the use of landmines by Iraqi forces. As I 
mentioned, I oppose the use of landmines--specifically, landmines that 
do not have a man in the loop. According to Human Rights Watch and 
press reports, Iraqi soldiers and paramilitaries have strewn 
antipersonnel mines widely. They even stored mines inside a mosque in a 
town in northern Iraq, and placed them around the mosque. This is a war 
crime.
  Iraq is not among the 132 countries that are party to the 1997 Ottawa 
Convention that outlaws any use, production, stockpiling or trade in 
antipersonnel mines. Neither is the United States. However, landmines 
that do not have a man in the loop which can distinguish between an 
enemy soldier and an innocent civilian are outmoded, inhumane weapons. 
They should be universally condemned.
  Even before this latest conflict, Iraq was a heavily mined country. 
It is littered with mines from the Iraq-Iran war and from decades of 
internal fighting. Landmines were used in the first Gulf war by Iraq, 
as well as by U.S. forces. I am very pleased that U.S. forces 
apparently have not used landmines in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The fact 
that even without landmines our soldiers were able to destroy the Iraqi 
army in a matter of weeks is the latest evidence that landmines without 
a man in the loop should have no future in U.S. war fighting plans.
  Landmines continue to take their toll. In the past 3 weeks, a 
cameraman working for the BBC was killed in Iraq when he stepped on a 
mine, and at least three U.S. marines have been injured by mines in 
separate incidents. It is a virtual certainty that innocent people will 
continue to be maimed and killed by mines in Iraq long after the 
fighting stops.
  Saddam Hussein's army had a long history of atrocities against the 
Iraqi people, as well as against Iraq's neighbors. Its use of landmines 
is but another example of its utter disregard for innocent life.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today is a new beginning for the people 
of free Iraq. The central authority in Baghdad has collapsed. Saddam 
Hussein's regime has lost control. But we know that there will be hard 
days ahead, days that will test our leadership, and test our 
willingness to engage with the rest of the world.
  In the coming months and years, America faces the enormous challenge 
of helping the Iraqi people rebuild their lives in peace and 
prosperity. This challenge presents an extraordinary opportunity for 
the United States as well. If we do this right, we have a chance to 
ensure that the United States occupies a place of respect and 
admiration in the world. We must take advantage of this opportunity to 
strengthen relationships with our core allies, to revitalize the United 
Nations, and to demonstrate American leadership through respectful 
engagement with the rest of the world.
  Today, in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, America's military forces are 
still in harm's way, and our thoughts and prayers are with them. Over 
the past 3 weeks, I have visited with some of our troops and their 
families in North Carolina at Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, and with the 
National Guard. These young men and women inspire us all. They are 
performing brilliantly, and they will bring us to a great military 
victory. I support our troops, and I support the cause for which they 
are fighting.
  I have long argued that disarming Saddam, even if it meant the use of 
military force, was necessary to defend America's national interests. 
Last fall, I cosponsored and voted for the resolution authorizing force 
to disarm Saddam. As I argued then, lasting victory will require more 
than removing Saddam from power and disarming Iraq once and for all. 
Victory means winning the peace. We have proved that we have firepower. 
Now we must show that we have staying power.
  We must make a major commitment to help rebuild Iraq. It is in 
America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself 
and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq 
will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a 
model for the entire Arab world. If done right--with humility, patience 
and cooperation--this effort to rebuild Iraq will bring the world 
together and return America to a place where it is respected and 
admired.
  The President has spoken about his commitment to Iraq's future and 
pledged that America will be there to help. We must hold him to these 
commitments, especially because in Afghanistan the President's rhetoric 
about winning the peace looks more and more like an empty promise.
  In order to succeed, our actions to help Iraq must be based on four 
clear and simple principles.
  First, the United States cannot do this alone. It would be a huge 
mistake if the reconstruction of Iraq were an ``American-only'' effort. 
The United Nations must play a central role, not just through passive 
endorsement, but through active engagement in reconstruction, 
humanitarian relief, and civil administration. In addition, we should 
be working with our NATO allies to find ways the alliance could be 
involved in providing security assistance, and we should seek help from 
our friends in the European Union. Finally, we need to work with 
regional partners such as Turkey and Jordan to support these efforts. A 
robust multilateral approach to this problem will not just increase the 
likelihood of success. It also will allow us to share the burden of the 
reconstruction costs with the rest of the international community. And 
it will help create a free Iraqi Government with legitimacy and 
authority in the region and the world.
  Second, we must ensure the immediate security and safety of the Iraqi 
people, and help them achieve stability over the long-term. In the 
beginning, most of this security will have to come

[[Page 9396]]

from American and British military forces. While our forces should be 
there as long as it takes, and not be restricted by artificial 
deadlines, an American military presence in Iraq cannot be indefinite. 
We should support creating a multinational force to follow our efforts, 
including a central role for NATO. There are many other urgent security 
needs as well, such as eliminating the instruments of Iraq's system of 
repression and securing Iraq's borders and oil facilities. The Iraqi 
people will only be able to emerge from the shadow of Saddam Hussein's 
tyranny if they are freed from the threat of violence and lawlessness.
  Third, the Iraqi people must be able to shape their own future, not 
have it imposed on them by outsiders. We can help create an environment 
for this to happen. This means, most fundamentally, a civil 
administration that protects three basic freedoms: freedom of speech, 
freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement. Iraq also must develop 
the rule of law. Its people need the international community's help in 
capturing and trying war criminals, developing legal institutions, 
educating judges and lawyers, and developing a legitimate police force.
  The reconstruction effort must also begin to restore the basic 
elements of everyday life, from ensuring that they have adequate 
electricity and clean water to helping them at tasks life rebuilding 
their roads and schools.
  All Iraqis must have confidence that they will have a voice in their 
future and that they will have a government that reflects their 
diversity. A free and democratic Iraq will not spring up by itself or 
overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated society that has suffered 
under repression for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our 
help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open 
society. All Iraqis--including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds--deserve to be 
represented.
  Fourth, the Iraqi people must have the tools to build a prosperous 
economy that is theirs alone. Iraqi has enormous natural resources and 
it has great potential. While we should help the Iraqi people tap into 
that potential, we have to make clear to the Iraqi people that the oil 
is theirs, and not for the U.S. or others to exploit. We also will have 
to explore all possibilities for debt restructuring and relief. Yet 
doing what it takes to succeed in Iraq is only one of the challenges we 
face. We have to develop a new kind of leadership throughout the world.
  In the Middle East, it is time to engage to achieve a real peace 
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I think this 
administration's disengagement in this crisis for the past 2 years has 
been a mistake. With the end of the conflict in Iraq, we have an 
opportunity to bring hope to this troubled region. We must seize it.
  We also have to do far more to support democracy and freedom 
throughout the Middle East. No region of the world is more vital to our 
interests; yet no region is as undemocratic. Ultimately, there is no 
greater force for peace and prosperity--and against terrorism--than the 
promotion of democratic regimes that respect human rights and the rule 
of law, both within and beyond their borders.
  Showing a new kind of leadership in the Middle East will also help 
begin to bridge the gap that has grown between America and many of our 
best friends in the world.
  The most powerful country in the world can afford to heed the 
concerns of its friends. We cannot afford to lose them. Yet I am 
concerned that some would move us in the opposite direction, attempting 
to punish allies that disagreed with us on Iraq. This is wrong. We also 
have to take action to revitalize institutions like NATO and the United 
Nations. At times these institutions can be frustrating, but we must 
remember that it was America's vision and leadership that created these 
institutions. American leadership will be indispensable to helping them 
act to tackle today's challenges.
  Make no mistake, America's families are safer in a world where 
America is looked up and respected, not isolated and resented. 
America's interests are best served when we lead in a way that brings 
others to our side, not drives them away. Like the generation of 
Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, we have a chance to define how 
America uses its power--whether it is defending against threats, 
promoting prosperity and freedom or giving help to those who need it.
  We have a chance to strengthen international institutions and 
alliances to help us meet these challenges. And we have a chance to 
ensure America's place of respect in the world. This is what we can 
achieve with the right kind of leadership.

                          ____________________