Message To Oslo: Don’t Take For Granted Congressional Approval Of A Defective Ban On Anti-Personnel Landmines

(Washington, D.C.): In Oslo, the
International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) and its proxies continue to run
roughshod over U.S. positions concerning
a ban on anti-personnel landmines (APLs).
These positions reflect the considered
judgments of the Nation’s uniformed
military leaders and have been described
at the insistence of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff as “red-lines” which, if
breached, would make the treaty resulting
from the “Ottawa process”
unacceptable.⁽¹⁾

Freelance Negotiators

Unfortunately, those contemptuously
disregarding the Chiefs’ requirements are
being encouraged to do so by two Members
of the United States Congress — Sen.
Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the
principal champion of this initiative in
the Senate, and one of his House
counterparts, Rep. Jack Quinn
(R-NY). A press release issued today by
Sen. Leahy quotes him as saying to a
“forum of advocacy groups associated
with the treaty effort”: “Our
negotiators need different instructions
and they need them immediately.”

After describing his opposition to an
exception sought by President Clinton for
short-duration (so-called “smart”
or self-destructing/self-deactivating)
anti-personnel landmines, Leahy added:
“I say to all of the participants in
Oslo: Seize this moment. This is a time
to ban all anti-personnel landmines —
any type that is triggered by the victim
— forever.” In so doing, he made
clear his opposition to yet another U.S.
position — the caveat that the systems
covered by the Oslo ban will be limited
to weapons “primarily
designed” for
anti-personnel purposes. These changes,
along with an exception for U.S. use of
long-duration APLs in Korea, are among
those sought by the American delegation
that have already been rejected (or are
in the process of being voted down).

In his own press release issued on 5
September, Rep. Quinn interwove his
endorsement of a complete ban on APLs
with paragraphs lifted from a statement
issued by Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich on the same day.
The effect — perhaps unintended — was
to communicate the impression that
Speaker Gingrich not only authorized Rep.
Quinn to represent the House for the
purpose of observing the “ongoing
dialogue” in Oslo. If left
uncorrected, the inference could have
been drawn that the Speaker actually endorsed
the Quinn-Leahy line on banning landmines
and would be indifferent to the U.S.
military’s objections.

Not so Fast

Fortunately, Speaker Gingrich’s office
today released a statement that should
prevent any such misconceptions. After
noting that Rep. Gingrich had indeed
asked Rep. Quinn to “observe the
ongoing dialogue,” his press
secretary said the following:

“It is not uncommon for
Members of Congress to be
observers of such proceedings, a
function that can be especially
useful when the issues under
discussion are as complex and
controversial as those involved
in attempts to ban landmines.
That is likely to be particularly
the case in this instance where
U.S. positions are being given
short shrift by other parties to
the negotiations — despite the
fact that those positions have
been put forward by the President
on the strong recommendation of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff that
such changes are necessary to
make a landmine ban consistent
with our national security.

“In the face of this
opposition, some are encouraging
President Clinton to abandon or
greatly alter those
JCS-recommended positions. It
should be remembered that the
full House of Representatives has
yet to address the wisdom and
feasibility of permanently
banning anti-personnel landmines.
If and when it does so, the
Speaker is confident that in
addition to reviewing Rep.
Quinn’s Oslo report, the House
will give great weight to the
advice of our military leaders.
Speaker Gingrich will urge
members, the negotiators, the
Clinton Administration and the
Senate, which has exclusive
responsibility for advising and
consenting to treaties, to do
likewise.”

Enter Bob Kerrey

In light of the U.S. Senate’s indispensable
role in the treaty-making process, it is
perhaps even more important that the
ICRC, nations under its thrall and the
Clinton Administration take to heart
several important cautionary notes
sounded yesterday by Sen. Bob
Kerrey (D-NE). Sen. Kerrey is a
highly decorated combat veteran, an
influential Democratic legislator and
Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee who supports the idea of
banning anti-personnel landmines. In an
appearance on CNN’s “Crossfire”
with Center for Security Policy director
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Sen. Kerrey
nonetheless displayed a commendable
sensibility toward the U.S. military’s
requirements. Particularly noteworthy in
this regard were the following comments:

• “…I do think that
  the U.S. position of asking for
  an exception at the DMZ in Korea
  is a reasonable one.
  I’ve not studied their request
  for an exemption for so-called
  ‘smart’ mines. I haven’t had a
  chance to examine that as well,
  but, clearly, the DMZ is an
  exception. It’s an international
  agreement, it’s a U.N.-supervised
  area, and I think it’s a
  reasonable exception for us to
  ask for.”
• [Regarding opposition from other
  nations’ to U.S. positions:]
  “I think the position that
  we need to take in response to
  that is to say, look, with great
  respect — I don’t want to be
  arrogant about this, but when the
  phone — when people are
  looking for somebody to call to
  lead an international military
  effort, it is the United States
  that gets called upon, and we’re
  the ones that are getting called
  upon to lead and to organize the
  effort, and it’s all — it’s
  going to be that way for the
  foreseeable future, so I think
  it’s quite appropriate for us to
  be saying, you know, look, here
  are the terms and conditions
  under which we’re willing to
  agree to this treaty.
• [When asked if he would vote for
  a treaty that did not include the
  present U.S. positions on Korea
  and “smart” landmines:]
  “Well, the first part,
  definitely no. If the Korean
  exception is not there — the
  ‘smart’ one — I just haven’t had
  a chance to study it. If I
  conclude that [the military is]
  right — and I have no
  reason at the moment to believe
  that they’re wrong because it’s
  — it was developed by, you know,
  people that have looked at the
  military side of it —
  I’m not familiar with the ‘smart’
  mine, by the way, so I don’t know
  — I don’t know how it’s
  constructed. I would not vote for
  the treaty….”

The Bottom Line

To the extent that Sen. Leahy and Rep.
Quinn have acted in a way that undermines
American diplomacy and encourages the
adoption of a landmine treaty that is
incompatible with U.S. security, they
have done a grave disservice to the
national interest. They have also
disserved the military men and women
whose safety and combat effectiveness
require for the foreseeable future the
judicious, responsible use of APLs.
Speaker Gingrich and Senator Kerrey are
to be commended for displaying a greater
degree of sensitivity to that requirement
— a view that surely will enjoy broad
support in the Congress.

As President Clinton considers appeals
that would make the Oslo/Ottawa treaty no
less unverifiable, no less
enforceable and no less
ineffective, but would greatly
increase its adverse effect on
America’s armed forces, he
should take his lead from the cautionary
remarks of distinguished legislators like
the Speaker of the House and the Vice
Chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee. And those in places like Oslo,
Geneva and Washington who hope to force
the United States to enroll in a
defective treaty — not least as a
further impetus to their campaign of arms
abolitionism (see
the attached, excellent editorial on
this subject that appears in today’s Wall
Street Journal) — would be
well-advised not to discount the
legitimate concerns and as-yet
largely unexercised influence of the
U.S. military on this matter.

– 30 –

1. See the
Center’s Decision Briefs
entitled Welcome To The New
World Order: U.S. ‘Red Lines’ On The
Landmine Treaty Are Being Crossed With
Impunity, Contempt ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_125″>No. 97-D 125, 4
September 1997) and ‘Welcome
To Oslo’: When The U.S. Gets Rolled On
Its Landmines Exceptions, Will The Joint
Chiefs Hold The (Red) Line(s)?
(No. 97-D 120,
29 August 1997).