[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 28884-28885]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            CARTAGENA LANDMINE BAN TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on a subject that 
many Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have had an 
abiding interest in over the years.
  Throughout this week, delegates from countries around the world will 
gather in Cartagena, Colombia, to participate in the Second Review 
Conference of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, 
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on 
Their Destruction.
  The Cartagena review conference would have been the perfect 
opportunity for the Obama administration to announce its intention to 
join the 156 other nations that are parties to the treaty, including 
our coalition allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  In fact, every member of NATO and every country in our hemisphere, 
except Cuba, is a party to the treaty. The United States is one of only 
37 countries that have not joined, along with Russia and China.
  By announcing our intention to join the treaty in Cartagena, this 
administration would have signaled to the rest of the world that the 
United States is finally showing the leadership that has been wanting 
on these indiscriminate weapons that maim and kill thousands of 
innocent people every year.
  The U.S. military is the most powerful in the world. Yet we have seen 
how civilian casualties in Afghanistan have become one of the most 
urgent and pressing concerns of our military commanders, where bombs 
that missed their targets and other mistakes have turned the populace 
against us.
  Despite this, one of the arguments the Pentagon makes for resisting 
calls to join the Mine Ban Treaty is to preserve its option to use 
landmines in Afghanistan, even though we have not used these 
indiscriminate weapons since 1991.
  Since the Pentagon has never voluntarily given up any weapon, 
including poison gas, which President Woodrow Wilson renounced in 1925, 
perhaps this is to be expected.
  But can anyone imagine the United States using landmines in 
Afghanistan, a country where more civilians have been killed or 
horribly injured from mines than any other in history?
  A country which, like our coalition partners, is itself a party to 
the treaty?
  A country where if we used mines and civilians were killed or injured 
the public outcry in Afghanistan and around the world would be 
deafening?
  Can anyone imagine this President, who has been awarded the Nobel 
Peace Prize which only a few years ago was awarded to the International 
Campaign to Ban Landmines, having to publicly defend such a decision?
  I wonder if anyone at the Pentagon has thought of the military and 
political implications of that.
  Last Tuesday, the State Department spokesman announced that the 
administration had completed a review on its landmine policy and had 
decided to continue supporting the Bush administration's policy, which 
was, in key aspects, a retreat from the policy of President Clinton.
  This was a surprise to me and others, as I had encouraged the 
administration to conduct such a review and then heard nothing for 
months. In fact, I had spoken personally with President Obama about it 
just a few weeks before.
  I did not hesitate to express my disappointment, as did many others. 
Thereafter the State Department corrected itself, and announced that a 
``comprehensive review'' is continuing and reaffirmed its earlier 
decision to send a team of observers to the Cartagena review conference 
this week.
  It is unfortunate that the State Department spokesman misspoke. 
However, the administration's approach to this issue until this past 
weekend had been cursory, half-hearted, and deeply disappointing to 
those of us who expected a serious, thorough reexamination of this 
issue.
  One hopes that an administration that portrays itself as a global 
leader on issues of humanitarian law and arms control recognizes this 
is an opportunity.
  A serious review should begin by examining the extensive history of 
the negotiations that led to the treaty, and the technical issues that 
were debated and addressed.
  It should involve consulting our allies, like Great Britain and 
Canada, whose militaries have operated in accordance with the treaty's 
obligations for a decade, including with our forces in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, to determine what their experience has been.
  It should involve consulting with the Pentagon, of course, but also 
with retired senior U.S. military officers and diplomats, many of whom 
have expressed support for the treaty.
  It should involve consulting with Members of Congress, and with the 
humanitarian and arms control communities who have extensive expertise 
on all aspects of the treaty and its implementation.
  Unfortunately, none of these obvious steps was taken. Instead, an 
opaque process involving limited consultations with the Pentagon simply 
resulted in a regurgitation of the Bush administration's talking 
points.
  That is not what we expected of this administration, and I welcome 
the announcement that a comprehensive review will be carried out.
  The United States has not exported anti-personnel mines since 1992.
  We have not produced anti-personnel mines since 1997.
  And the United States has not used anti-personnel mines since 1991--
when many of them malfunctioned.
  In effect, we have been in de facto compliance with the treaty for 18 
years, with the exception of not yet destroying our stockpile of mines.
  And in the interim we have invested millions of dollars to develop 
alternatives to indiscriminate landmines, to replace them with 
munitions that include man-in-the-loop technology, so they are not 
victim-activated.
  Indiscriminate landmines, whether persistent mines or those that are 
designed to self-destruct or deactivate, are nothing more than booby 
traps. They cannot distinguish between an enemy combatant, a U.S. 
soldier, a young child, or a woman out collecting firewood. They do not 
belong in the arsenal of any modern military.
  I have supported President Obama and I look forward to supporting him 
on many issues in the future. I believe this can be one of those 
issues.
  I am confident that after a proper review is conducted, and the 
President considers the equities, he will conclude, as our allies have, 
that the humanitarian benefits of banning anti-personnel landmines far 
exceed their limited military utility. Ultimately, this is a decision 
President Obama will need to make himself, as President Wilson did 
almost a century ago.
  I want to commend the Government of Colombia, a country where 
landmines have taken and continue to take a terrible toll on civilians, 
for hosting

[[Page 28885]]

the review conference. Colombia joined the treaty years ago.
  I also appreciate that the State Department has sent a team of 
observers to Cartagena. I hope they use this opportunity not only to 
highlight the hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. has provided for 
humanitarian demining and assistance for mine victims over the years, 
but also to learn from the delegations of countries that are parties to 
the treaty.
  I want to pay tribute to the leadership of Canada, and my friend 
Lloyd Axworthy, who as Foreign Minister showed the extraordinary vision 
and leadership that culminated in the Mine Ban Treaty, and to the other 
nations that have joined since then.
  The treaty has already exceeded the expectations of even its 
strongest advocates. The number of mine casualties has decreased 
significantly. The number of countries producing and exporting mines 
has plummeted.
  And at the same time, none of the arguments of the treaty's naysayers 
have come to pass.
  The United States is the most powerful nation on Earth. We don't need 
these indiscriminate weapons any more than our allies who have 
abandoned them.
  We have not used landmines for many years. We should be leading this 
effort, not sitting on the sidelines.
  It is time for the United States to join the right side of history.

                          ____________________