URGENT ACTION NEEDED ON THE LANDMINE TREATY TODAY!

In May of 1996, President Clinton promised he would support an international ban on antipersonnel landmines and ordered the Department of Defense (DOD) to find alternatives to those weapons. Two years later, he issued a policy directive stating that the U.S. would sign the ban by the year 2006 if and only if DOD had found suitable alternative weapons to use in Korea and in mixed-mine systems. To date, it appears that the Pentagon has been slow to remove obstacles to joining the ban treaty. The U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines, a coalition of more than 300 organizations, opposes DOD's recent requests for funding from Congress to begin production of a new weapon, nicknamed RADAM, an artillery-fired anti-tank mine which includes antipersonnel landmines as a part of the weapon system. If fully funded this year, RADAM will be deployed in 2001. The weapon is banned under the Mine Ban Treaty.

Many military experts believe that alternatives to antipersonnel landmines already exist and that there is no impediment to the U.S. signing the treaty. Retired U.S. General Robert Gard, who commanded troops in Vietnam and prohibited them from laying antipersonnel landmines there, has identified not one but seven different military weapons or strategies that could replace antipersonnel landmines, including those in mixed mine systems. General James Hollingsworth, the former commander of U.S. forces in Korea, wrote in 1997 that "There is indeed a military utility to APLs, but in the case of U.S. forces in Korea it is minimal, and in some ways even offset by the difficulty our own APLs pose to our brand of mobile warfare. The loss of this utility is a small and acceptable price to pay for moving the world towards a complete ban on APLs. Not only civilians but U.S. armed forces will benefit from a ban on landmines. U.S. forces in Korea are no exception."

1. I strongly support the International Mine Ban Treaty and respectfully urge you to announce your support for joining the Ban Treaty this year.
2. It is vitally important that the United States join the Mine Ban Treaty so that a ban on antipersonnel mines can someday become truly universal. America's continued refusal to join the treaty gives political cover to other treaty holdouts who continue to use, abuse, or export the landmines.
3. A total of 138 nations have joined the Mine Ban Treaty declaring antipersonnel landmines illegal. As an American citizen, I deplore the use of landmines. Former U.S. military commanders assert that, like poison gas, antipersonnel mines are not essential to the effectiveness or safety of our forces. Just as the United States does not use chemical or biological weapons, it should not use in any context a weapon that principally kills and injures civilians, including women and children. Moreover, numerous military leaders have indicated that landmines complicate battlefield operations and U.S. landmines often endanger our own troops.
4. The U.S. is a world leader in providing assistance for demining and victim assistance. This is welcome, but not enough. The U.S. also must be a world leader in banning the weapons and stigmatizing and isolating those countries that use, produce, transfer, and stockpile the landmines. The Mine Ban Treaty offers the most effective framework for solving the landmine problem: it mandates international cooperation to destroy landmine stockpiles within four years and to clear all minefields within 10 years. The treaty also calls on governments to work together to offer care, rehabilitation,and social and economic integration for mine victims.
5. President Clinton called upon the Pentagon nearly four years ago to find alternatives to antipersonnel landmines so that the U.S. could support a legal ban on the weapon. To date, it appears that there has been little progress toward that goal. We urge you to set an early date by which the U.S. will join the treaty, and make appropriate changes in military procurement and planning that are required when the U.S. gives up the weapon forever.