3:00 P.M. EST
Real Audio of Briefing 
MR. MACHAMER: Good afternoon and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. We're pleased to have with us today, Lincoln Bloomfield, Junior, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, but who is speaking today in his additional capacity as special represent and the Secretary of State for Humanitarian Mine Action.
Mr. Bloomfield has some opening statements, and then he'll be glad to take your questions. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Today we announced the President's policy decisions and initiatives relating to landmines. There are several elements, but the thrust of the policy is that the United States will now accelerate, by its example, diplomacy and resources, the effort to end the humanitarian crisis caused by live landmines left behind in former conflict areas all over the world.
More specifically, under the new policy, the United States is committed to eliminate persistent landmines of all types from its arsenal by a date certain and is requesting a substantial increase in funding for our humanitarian mine action programs worldwide.
The President's policy serves two important goals: a strong push to end the humanitarian risks posed by landmines; and ensuring that our military has the defensive capabilities it needs to protect our own and friendly forces on the battlefield.
The new policy demonstrates that our humanitarian and military goals are fully compatible; one does not have to be achieved only at the expense of the other. We can and will prevent unnecessary harm to innocent civilians and, at the same time, protect the lives of American service men and women.
The President's approach departs from landmine policy formulations of the past. It addresses squarely the condition that has caused the humanitarian crisis of civilian casualties and continued hazards in cities, towns and farmlands around the world. That condition is called persistence, referring to a live landmine that sits, ready to explode, for months, years, and often decades, after the conflict that led to its use has ended.
We estimate that there are 60 million persistent landmines posing risks to innocent civilians in more than 60 countries today.
The President's policy applies to all persistent landmines, be they anti-personnel landmines or the larger anti-vehicle landmines.
Let me spell out the four key elements of the President's new policy:
The first element is the President's firm, specific and unconditional commitment that after 2010 the United States will not use persistent landmines of any type, neither anti-personnel nor anti-vehicle landmines.
The United States becomes the first major military power to make this comprehensive commitment regarding all persistent landmines. Any use of persistent anti-vehicle landmines outside Korea between now and the end of 2010 will require Presidential authorization. The use of persistent anti-personnel landmines during this period would only be authorized in fulfillment of our treaty obligations to the Republic of Korea.
In either case, use of these mines would be in strict accordance with our obligations under international agreements on the use of these weapons. Within two years, the United States will begin the destruction of those persistent landmines that are not needed for the defense of Korea.
The second element of the new policy is a firm commitment that within one year the United States will no longer have any non-detectable landmine of any type in its arsenal. The U.S. becomes the first major military power to make a commitment covering all landmines to the internationally recognized level of eight grams iron or equivalent of metal content, assuring reliable detection by humanitarian deminers using the standard equipment in use today.
Third, the President has directed a concerted effort to develop alternatives to its current persistent landmines, both anti-personnel and anti-vehicle, incorporating enhanced self-destructing, self-deactivating technologies and control mechanisms, such as "man-in-the-loop" and on-off commands that would allow our forces to recover the munitions. These enhancements are to be brought forward within the decade.
The fourth major element of this policy is the President's decision to request from Congress a 50 percent increase in the budget for worldwide humanitarian mine action programs administered by the State Department, starting in fiscal year 2005, measured against the fiscal year 2003 budget level, to a total level of $70 million.
Additionally, the Administration will soon solicit international support for a worldwide ban on the sale or export of all persistent mines, with exceptions only for training deminers or countermine personnel, improving countermine capabilities, and the like.
The U.S. already has a statutory prohibition on transfers of anti-personnel landmines, and we will continue to obey our law.
Those are the key elements of the new policy. Before taking your questions, let me say a few words about the significance of this policy, and perhaps anticipate some of the questions you may have.
The Administration came to this position in drawing from 16 years of U.S. experience assisting mine-affected communities all over the world. The United States is already the world's largest contributor to humanitarian mine action, having provided close to $800 million to 46 countries over the past decade for landmine clearance, mine risk education and survivor assistance.
What we have seen, very simply, is that the landmines harming innocent men, women and children, and their livestock, are persistent landmines. Nor are these lingering hazards caused solely by the anti-personnel category of persistent landmines. We find that persistent anti-vehicle landmines are also left behind following conflicts, posing deadly risks to innocent people and requiring remediation by ourselves and the many other parties engaged in humanitarian mine action.
And so the President's policy focuses on the kinds of landmines that have caused the humanitarian crisis, namely persistent landmines, and it extends to all persistent landmines because the roads and fields we are helping to clear, in the Balkans, Africa, Asia and elsewhere, are infested with lethal anti-vehicle landmines in addition to the live anti-personnel landmines.
Let me add that the President's decision to end U.S. military use of persistent landmines after 2010 is not to draw a connection between our military and the harm being done to civilians in mine-affected countries. The deadly landmines being painstakingly uncovered by the deminers of many nationalities, hard at work in at least 40 mine-affected countries today, are not mines left behind by U.S. forces, the only potential exception being U.S. mines left behind during the Vietnam conflict more than three decades ago.
Rather, the worldwide humanitarian crisis is very much the product of persistent landmines used by other militaries or non-state actors who did not observe international conventions relating to the use of these munitions. The U.S. military already follows the strictures of the Amended Mines Protocol and the Convention on Conventional Weapons, which specifies obligations to mark, monitor and clear persistent minefields after hostilities end.
So the question may be, "Why impose restraints on the U.S. use of persistent landmines if these American munitions are not the ones contributing to the humanitarian crisis?" The answer is that the Administration recognized that persistent landmines used indiscriminately by so many others have created a serious crisis with at least 300,000 innocent victims, by most estimates, and a terrible burden on the international community to help mine-affected countries clear these mines and help their societies recover from conflict, particularly their landmine survivors.
Under the President's policy, the United States will take even further measures to ensure that these weapons do not threaten civilians by becoming the first major military power to adopt a policy ending use of all persistent landmines, and maintaining the international standard of detectability for landmines of any kind.
We are not seeking to impose our policy on other countries, but this policy correctly places the focus on problems that can be caused by persistent landmines. We want to strengthen provisions in existing international arms control mechanisms relating to the use of persistent landmines of any kind, and compliance with the goal of ending the indiscriminate laying of persistent landmines anywhere in the world.
As you may have inferred from the emphasis on persistence as the source of the humanitarian problem with landmines, there are other kinds of landmines on which the Administration's policy is not imposing restrictions. These munitions have reliable features that limit the life of the munition to a matter of hours or a few days, by which time it self-destructs. And in the unlikely event the self-destruct features fail, the battery will run out within 90 days, rendering it inert, and these batteries always expire.
The evidence is clear that self-destruct and self-deactivate landmine munitions do not contribute to the grave risks of civilian injury that we find with persistent landmines that can and do, literally, wait for decades before claiming an innocent victim.
To illustrate this point, if all landmines ever used had been destroyed within hours or days of being deployed, and in any case rendered inert after 90 days, there would be no humanitarian landmine issue in the world today. We would not see an estimated 10,000 civilian casualties every year. Refugees would not resist returning to their villages and farms for fear of mine explosions, and we would not need to mount a global humanitarian mine action effort.
Let me say just a few words about the military aspects of landmines.
U.S. military forces presently carry a very large burden of security missions around the world. Recent history has shown that we cannot predict with confidence where, or against whom, our forces may be engaged in hostilities.
It is the considered judgment of our senior military commanders that they need the defensive capabilities that landmines can provide. These capabilities enable a commander to shape the battlefield to his or her advantage. They deny the enemy freedom to maneuver his forces. They enhance the effectiveness of other weapons systems, such as small arms, artillery or combat aircraft.
They act as force multipliers, allowing us to fight and win with fire -- with fewer forces, rather, against numerically superior opponents; and they also protect our forces, saving the lives of our men and women in uniform. At present, no other weapon system exists that provides all of these capabilities.
As Assistant Secretary Bloomfield mentioned, the President's policy calls for the development of more sophisticated, counter-mobility and tactical barrier capabilities in the future. But the United States Armed Forces will retain the ability to use self-destruct, self-deactivate landmines.
In sum, the President's policy strikes an appropriate balance that accommodates two important national interests: It takes significant and comprehensive steps, by our example and by the increased commitment of funds backed by a strategic plan, toward surmounting the global problem caused by persistent landmines, while at the same time meeting the needs of our military for defensive capabilities that may save American and friendly forces' lives in combat.
Many are asking how the United States' policy relates to the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines of all kinds. And while we have no desire to revisit or revive policy disagreements of the previous decade, we will not become a party to the Ottawa Treaty.
The Ottawa Convention offers no protection for innocent civilians in post-conflict areas from the harm caused by persistent anti-vehicle landmines, and it would take away a needed means of protection from our men and women in uniform who may be operating in harm's way.
It is the President's judgment that focusing on persistent mines, both anti-vehicle and anti-personnel landmines, addresses the root of the humanitarian crisis, which is indiscriminately used persistent landmines of all types.
With that in mind, we will work with other nations within the treaty provisions of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to seek the end -- to end the discriminate use -- indiscriminate use of all landmines.
In particular, we are strongly supporting negotiations on an anti-vehicle mine protocol along with 29 co-sponsors where the negotiations are resuming in Geneva on March 8th.
Finally, it should be clear that the President's decision to increase substantially our humanitarian mine action funding is a positive call to action in cooperation with all our partners in humanitarian mine action. This $70 million mine action program will be conducted on the basis of a comprehensive strategic plan with clear measures of performance. The intent is to provide relief to mine-affected areas of greatest humanitarian need and to accelerate their progress toward being declared mine safe.
We recognize that among the nations dedicated to mine action, there may be differing perspectives on landmine policy, based on respective national equities involved. But it is a high priority for this Administration to have effective coordination and partnership among donors nations, the UN and the international NGO community.
Our priority is the strongest, most comprehensive and energetic possible global effort to help mine-affected countries and their people overcome the burdens of persistent landmines still waiting to claim new victims.
There are many Americans, and a large community of international entities and people and organizations, who have dedicated tremendous effort to address this humanitarian crisis in recent years. We respect and appreciate them all. And we look forward to working with our own Congress, our private partners in humanitarian mine action, and the international community to accelerate progress in ending this terrible problem around the world once and for all.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions. Would you please identify yourself.
QUESTION: Parasuram from the Press Trust of India.
Is it possible -- first, is it possible to get a copy of your statement? Secondly, during the life of the mines, which have got a short life of a few hours or a few days, is it possible somebody get killed by both mines as well? And thirdly, what are the new technologies to clear the mines faster than you have been able to do before?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: Thank you. First of all, we are on the record, and I will assume that the remarks will be able to be provided to you, sir.
Secondly, whenever a landmine is live, it poses a danger to anyone who comes in contact with it, whether it's a soldier, an innocent civilian, or even a deminer who is unfortunate enough to trigger the mine inadvertently. The fact of the matter is, United States munitions in the hands of U.S. forces that have these self-destruct and self-deactivate capabilities, as far as I am aware, have not accounted for a single casualty among innocent civilians around the world, not to my knowledge; and I have been the special representative for three years.
We often talk about collateral damage with weapons systems. Compared to most weapons of war, this is an exceptional record of no collateral damage. So you've raised a point of theoretical possibility, but you are talking about innocent civilians walking through a combat zone.
Your third question?
QUESTION: Parasuram. With new technologies we have read that formerly, each mine had to be cleared by an individual --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: Yes.
QUESTION: -- at great risk. But I read that there are new technologies by which without posing a danger to a person clearing it, it's possible to deactivate them.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: Part of the United States' effort in humanitarian mine action, I've already spoken to, which is the country programs for mine clearance, mine risk education and survivor assistance. And as I have mentioned, President Bush has mandated a major increase in funding to $70 million in 2005.
Another part of the United States Government's effort in this area is the research and development activity, which is done mainly in the Department of Defense but something with which the State Department is also aware.
There is a continuing search for improvements in the methodologies for locating and clearing landmines in the safest and most expeditious possible manner; however, insofar as the standard of clearance has to be extremely high, so high that we would be content to let an innocent child, an innocent civilian, walk across that land, it remains the case that demining is an extremely painstaking process.
There have been advancements in machines to clear vegetation in tropical areas; the use of landmine detection dogs, which have been very successful in many climatic conditions; the use of the best possible detection machinery; and high standards of training for deminers. All of these are priorities for our program and for many other generous donor nations.
QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency. I am sorry I have very basic questions because I am not an expert of the matter.
Could you give me any idea if between the 150 countries, approximately, that are involved in the international ban, there is any NATO country? And there is any major United States ally, which is not part of the international ban?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: Well, thank you, sir. I'm not sure that I can speak authoritatively about the Ottawa Convention, but the signatories and those parties that have ratified, I believe, are a matter of public record, and so it's easy to determine.
There's no question but that many countries have seen their way clear to accept the provisions of the Ottawa Convention. The United States has not. While not trying to make any case for American exceptionalism, because we value the close coordination of our policies on so many -- in so many matters, including mine action with the international community, the United States military is carrying some very severe and serious burdens in the world. When the new NATO invitees join in Istanbul this June, we will have more than 50 treaty commitments to defend other countries around the world.
We have forces numbering in the hundreds of thousands who are deployed outside our borders. We are watching or we are involved in situations where we are either actively involved in military operations or are ready to respond in defense of our allies on many continents, and on the oceans as well. These are serious burdens.
As I mentioned before, we have been not very successful in predicting years in advance what situations will arise that call for the use of U.S. military forces. That being the case, our commanders have made the judgment that they need the defensive capabilities in certain situations that are provided by these munitions that have self-destruct and self-deactivating capabilities.
And in the interim, in the event that they feel they need the use of persistent anti-vehicle mines somewhere in the world, only the President could authorize their use.
But the President has made clear that the search for better technologies, better control mechanisms to minimize this theoretical possibility of a civilian casualty will go on in a very concerted way and that these improvements will be fielded within this decade.
QUESTION: Yes. May I ask another question? I think you -- the American Administration has already -- had already an engagement to eradicate some kind of mines before 2006. Now you are postponing this -- the end of this effort to 2010. Is that right or there is something I don't understand?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: I believe that's not accurate. That's not the way the Administration views it. I can't speak for the previous Clinton Administration but I believe if you --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) so far is American policy, is not Clinton Administration, is American Administration policy so far, until now.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: Let me just respond to your question. The previous administration articulated certain goals. Those goals were dependent upon certain conditions being satisfied. If you look into that question, I think you will find that the same weapons that President Bush is permitting U.S. forces to retain would not have been removed from the U.S. arsenal in the main, they would have been incorporated into what are called "mixed systems."
This was a subject of some debate. I'm not the authoritative spokesman because it deals with previous history. I think you will also find that the date of 2006 was predicated on the availability of alternatives to the existing landmines, anti-personnel landmines.
Here again, when the Bush Administration came to office, there was not an actively funded program to search for alternatives. Whatever the program had been had stopped before President Bush came to office. President Bush now is accelerating the search for appropriate technologies.
Final point is that all of the focus of the previous administration's policy was on anti-personnel landmines, as was the Ottawa Convention. President Bush has broadened the focus to all persistent landmines of both types. And we believe that anti-vehicle mines deserve the attention that we are bringing to the issue.
For example, recently, a report came to our attention that suggests that in Angola, a heavily mine-affected country, up to 70 percent of the main roads of that country are mined with anti-vehicle persistent landmines. And so civilians riding on buses, cars and trucks are at grave risk, as we've seen in many other countries as well.
So this is an approach that differentiates between munitions that are causing the humanitarian crisis and munitions that we do not believe are causing the humanitarian crisis and which we believe provide needed capabilities at this time in our history.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, may I just ask a clarification on the new policy and the treaty? If you would be part of the treaty, which kind, which part of this new policy you couldn't apply, you couldn't realize? Or you could be part of the treaty and go beyond the treaty in doing better when the treaty is not invoked?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: To be perfectly honest, I think it's better for other analysts to make comparisons, because I can speak authoritatively about the Bush Administration's policy. I do not speak authoritatively about the Clinton Administration's attempt to achieve certain declaratory goals.
I believe you will find that the Ottawa Treaty supporters define anti-personnel landmine in a way that would take out a whole category of munitions. I think you would also find that under the previous administration, they were struggling with the issue of those munitions that are anti-personnel that have self-destruct and self-deactivate features.
In the main, the program that was funded during that administration would have mixed them together with anti-vehicle systems, with this comparable self-destruct and self-deactivate mechanisms. There was a debate about this. But the intent was not to remove those mines from the arsenal but to combine them into mixed systems. Today, there is no budget plan to combine those systems. But in neither case, in my view, as I read the history, in neither case would those munitions have been taken away from the U.S. military. So it's a debating point. And I, again, I cannot speak authoritatively about the previous administration.
MR. MACHAMER: Anything else?
QUESTION: Can you say something about the cost of the mines, because the very fact that there are millions of mines will make it appear they are very cheap to make. Is that so?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: Yes.
QUESTION: This is Parasuram again, from the Press Trust of India.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLOOMFIELD: Yes. The mines that are being found by deminers all over the world are, in many cases, very cheap to make. In fact, in some parts of the world, they contain no metal at all. They have some explosive, which is used with twigs and leaves and vines, and they are quite deadly. They pose a huge risk to deminers who cannot detect them with standard detection equipment.
The tragedy of this problem is that the cost to remove a mine, the ultimate cost is either a life or the maiming of an innocent person, which is a terrible thing. The other costs include making farmlands useless and after conflicts, refugees refusing to come home because they know there are landmines inside their lands.
And so the entire burden of assisting these countries and these societies and these survivors of landmine accidents, which is very, very high; it is so far higher than the cost of building the landmine that it is obscene, if I may say so.
MR. MACHAMER: Thank you very much.
