Administration Pursuing Flawed Policies on
Landmines and New Nuclear Weapons
By Catherine Gordon [4-20-04]
Washington Office, Presbyterian Church (USA)
April 15, 2004: Over the last
decade, security issues for the United States have changed dramatically.
With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War many have felt
that the threat of nuclear annihilation was slowly becoming obsolete.
However, some experts believe that the possibility of a nuclear device being
used against the United States is higher today than during the Cold War.
Though the threat may have risen, policies
that could help reduce the nuclear danger are being dismissed. A global
system of nuclear restraints and agreements is being seriously weakened by
the current Administration's policies toward preemptive nuclear strikes,
and its pursuit of "usable" nuclear weapons.
The U.S. has criticized Iran and North
Korea for their nuclear weapons programs and has expressed concerns about
the nuclear programs in Pakistan and India. There is also the growing fear
that nuclear materials could fall into the hands of a terrorist group, such
as al Qaeda. But U.S. research and development of "usable" nuclear weapons
not only undermines U.S. demands that these countries not seek to acquire
nuclear weapons, it also destabilizes the international system of nuclear
nonproliferation.
Rather than seeking new uses for nuclear
weapons, the U.S. should commit to its obligations under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, and
pursue global disarmament. The new Bush Administration nuclear posture is a
major step backward for security and disarmament and is leading to
increasing instability.
Funding Bunker Busters and Mini-Nukes
While the Administration claims that the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP or "bunker buster ") program is simply
a study, Energy Department budget documents show that funding demands for
RNEP increase dramatically after this year. The initial three-year study was
to cost $45 million, but the Administration's proposed spending in the next
five years would total nearly $500 million and move RNEP into early
development and engineering stages.*
This year the Administration requested
$27.6 million for the design of the RNEP -- an increase of $12.6 million
from last year's request and $20.1 million more than the FY2004 amount
appropriated by Congress.* (DOE received $15 million for FY2003 and $7.5
million for FY2004.)
These bunker busters are not low-yield
nuclear weapons. They are 70 times more powerful than the bomb that was
dropped on Hiroshima. They would be designed to burrow into the ground and
destroy underground military facilities that are protected by 100 to 300
feet of reinforced concrete or rock. Proponents of the project claim that it
would be a "clean" nuclear weapon because it would detonate underground
rather than on the surface. It is, in fact, a very deadly weapon that could
kill tens of thousands of people if detonated in an urban setting.
As well as funding the bunker busters, the
Administration has requested an increase of $3 million for the Advanced
Concepts Initiative (from $6 million in FY2004 to $9 million in FY2005).*
This program divides money between the three weapons laboratories to conduct
studies on advanced concepts, ranging from modifications of existing weapons
to the exploration of new nuclear weapons' technologies and weapons for new
missions.
The Administration has also requested $30
million to reduce to 18 months the time needed to prepare the Nevada Test
Site (from the current three years). As do the other programs, this
reduction in time needed before nuclear testing can be done signals to the
world that the U.S. is scaling up its own nuclear activities and undermining
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ultimately leading to
instability, not security.
*From the Energy
Department at:
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/05budget/content/Weapons/ExecSum.pdf
What We Can Do
Last year, in a big victory for
disarmament, conferees for the energy and water appropriations bill cut half
the funds for the nuclear bunker buster (down to $7.5 million).
Unfortunately, the conferees fully funded $6 million requested by the
President for advanced nuclear weapons concepts. ($4 million is unavailable
until the Energy Department submits details on future nuclear reductions to
Congress.)
Conferees for the Defense Authorization
bill (HR 1588) chose to repeal the Spratt-Furse ban on low-yield nuclear
weapons (the House version modified the ban instead of repealing it). While
the final bill authorizes research into low-yield nuclear weapons, it
prohibits the Energy Department from development work that may lead to their
production. Thus, the ban on research and development was lost, but a new
hurdle was enacted. A similar ban on development was imposed on the RNEP, or
nuclear bunker buster.
While relatively small, these reductions
are a significant political victory, given the current political climate. It
will take several more years of congressional funding before these systems
can be deployed. There are still opportunities to stop these new nuclear
weapons from being developed. Opposition is growing.
Your Members of Congress will soon consider
funding for new nuclear weapons and preparations for the resumption of
nuclear testing. Please write to them and urge them to oppose funding for
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Advanced Nuclear Weapons Concepts and
nuclear test site readiness. Emphasize that the development of new nuclear
weapons will undermine international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear
weapons and will lead to major spending if implemented.
For a sample letter and information on your
Members of Congress, please go to our action alert at the Presbyterian
Legislative Action Center at
http://capwiz.com/pcusa/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=5482181
New
Landmines Policy
The Bush
Administration has announced a new landmines policy that is a complete
about-face on landmines policy and essentially drops the goal of eventually
joining the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.
In 1994, the United
States was the first nation to call for the "eventual elimination" of all
antipersonnel landmines. But the Administration's new landmines policy
discards what has been official U.S. policy since 1998 -- to give up the use
of all antipersonnel mines and join the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006 if landmine
alternatives are in place.
The new policy does
call for the destruction of older, "dumb" landmines, but not until four
years after the previous deadline. And, in what human rights groups are
calling the most disturbing aspect of this new policy, the Administration is
maintaining the right to use self-deactivating or self-destructing
antipersonnel (AP) "smart" landmines indefinitely.
While smart mines
are somewhat better than dumb ones -- as they are supposed to self- destruct
or deactivate after a certain amount of time -- they still put civilians and
our own forces at risk. These smart mines are most often scattered from the
air by the thousands. It is very difficult to make a clear map of where the
mines are. De-mining teams have to treat smart minefields in the same way
they treat dumb minefields because of potential malfunctioning of the mines
or bad intelligence.
According to
Human Rights Watch,
the United States has not actually used antipersonnel mines since the 1991
Gulf War, has not exported them since 1992, and has not produced them since
1997. In addition, it has eliminated more than three million stockpiled
antipersonnel mines, and has provided more funding for mine clearance, mine
risk education and mine victim assistance than any other single nation.
Stephen Goose,
executive director of the Arms Division of
Human Rights Watch,
stated: "The United States apparently found no military requirement to use
antipersonnel mines in the recent conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan
or Iraq. This is a clear indication of the lack of utility of antipersonnel
mines in modern warfare, and in post-9/11 warfare... The new policy shows
the inability of the Pentagon to give up an outmoded weapon, and the lack of
political leadership by the White House."
The Mine Ban Treaty
has been tremendously successful. The number of countries that produce
landmines has dropped from 54 to 14 since the early 1990s, the sale of
landmines has been almost entirely eradicated, and more than 52 million
stockpiled antipersonnel landmines have been destroyed. Casualty rates from
the weapon have dropped from approximately 26,000 people per year to
15,000-20,000 per year. But landmines are still present in more than 80
countries, and millions continue to suffer the consequences.
In a recent press
release responding to the Administration's new policy announcement, Gina
Coplon-Newfield, the Coordinator of the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines said
that, "U.S. refusal to join this treaty sets a dangerous, isolationist
example to mine-using countries such as Russia, India, and Pakistan that
have laid hundreds of thousands of mines in recent years with devastating
consequences to civilians." In addition, the campaign fears that the new
U.S. policy rejecting the Mine Ban Treaty will cause countries that have
recently given up the weapon, to resume mine-laying activities.
Landmine
Action Alert
Please
contact the White House now and make it clear to President Bush
that you are outraged at this decision to abandon U.S. efforts to join the
Mine Ban Treaty and that you want the President to reconsider.
Call the White House
Switchboard: 202-456-1111
White House Fax:
202-456-2461
White House Email:
president@whitehouse.gov
Please
submit a letter to the editor. Many papers around the country, and
around the world, have published articles about this. Many seem to
inaccurately portray self-deactivating or self-destructing mines as "smart,"
though they cannot distinguish between the foot of a soldier and that of a
child. Make your voice heard to policy-makers and the general public.
Sample
Letter to the Editor:
The recent
coverage of President Bush's new U.S. landmine policy sugar-coats a major
policy rollback. The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty has made a tremendous, life-saving
impact throughout the world. More than 52 million mines have been destroyed
from global stockpiles, trade of the stigmatized weapon has slowed to a
trickle, hundreds of thousands of mines have been removed from the ground,
most countries have given up use of the weapon, and casualty rates have
declined dramatically. U.S. refusal to join this treaty gives political
cover to countries such as Russia, India, and Pakistan, which have laid
hundreds of thousands of mines in recent years with devastating consequences
for innocent victims.
Though President
Clinton failed to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, he did create a policy that
would put the U.S. on track to join the treaty by 2006. The new Bush policy
rejects any notion that the U.S. will join the treaty, puts off the
destruction of "persistent" landmines until 2010, and asserts that our
military may use self-deactivating "smart" mines indefinitely. These
so-called "smart" mines cannot discriminate between the foot of a soldier
and that of a child, tend to be scattered by air and are thus difficult to
mark and map, pose tremendous challenges and costs for demining teams, and
threaten the lives and limbs of innocent civilians and U.S. troops who step
on the weapons soon after they've been planted.
Meanwhile,
reportedly, the U.S. military hasn't used antipersonnel landmines since
1991. Let's join the majority of the world in giving up this cruel,
outmoded, and indiscriminate weapon!
Sincerely,
Name
Address
General
Assembly Policy
Since reunion in
1983 the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has repeatedly affirmed its
long-standing call to end the arms race. General Assembly resolutions and
statements of the Washington Office have gone on record to:
••
Urge ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
••
Oppose deployment of a missile defense system.
••
Advocate adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
••
Support negotiations for arms control and disarmament.
••
Oppose expanded use of nuclear weapons.
••
Oppose the development of new nuclear weapons.
Reexamination by the
United States of both its domestic and international policies, and the
seeking of informed public review of its foreign policy perspective and
goals for the 21st century will be based on the extension of the rule of
law, the development of strengthened instruments of nonviolent conflict
resolution, not on the continued enhancement of technological instruments of
destruction, shaped originally in the context of the cold war... (Minutes,
2000, Part I, pp. 280-281)
The 214th General
Assembly directed the Stated Clerk to once again petition the president of
the United States, the secretary of state and the members of the United
States Senate to take every necessary step to assure United States
ratification of the Ottawa Convention to join with the countries that have
already taken the lead in the banning of antipersonnel land mines and are
engaged in the removal of those antipersonnel land mines that have already
been distributed. (Minutes,
2002, Part I, pp. 704-705)
Published by the
Stewardship of Public Life (SPL) advocacy program of the Washington Office,
Presbyterian Church (USA), 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002,
(202) 543-1126, www.pcusa.org/washington
