• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

[Page: E2333]

• Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 1995, the Clinton administration notified the Congress of its proposal to sell 120 Army Tactical Missile Systems [ATACMS], valued at $132 million, to the Government of Turkey. The Congress has 15 days to review this proposed sale to Turkey, a NATO ally.

• Because of many concerns in the Congress about human rights in Turkey, I asked the Department of State to write to me with respect to this weapons system, and whether any human rights issues are raised by this proposed sale. The text of the let ter from the Department of State follows:

U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, November 17, 1995.

Hon. Lee Hamilton,
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Hamilton: I am pleased to respond to your request for further information regarding the Administration's intention to transfer 120 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles to Turkey.

We believe this defensive system is appropriate to the threats faced by Turkey. In particular, with a range of 165 kilometers, ATACMS is designed and tested to be effective against high value targets deep behind the battlefield, including deployed b allistic missile launch sites, surface-to-air missiles and command and control units.

The missile can be launched from the Multiple Launch Rocket System, of which the Turks already possess twelve. This compatibility makes the ATACMs an ideal system for meeting Turkish defense needs. Moreover, the transfer meets NATO defense requi rements and it supported by the Commanders-in-Chief of the European Command and Central Command and offers protection against Iran, Iraq, and Syria, all of which have missiles capable of striking Turkey.

We are aware of your concern that arms transfers be used for the uses intended by the U.S. government as stipulated in the Arms Export Control Act and other relevant statutes. We share your concern and wish to emphasize that this is not a weapon likely to be used in the commission of human rights abuses.

First, the high cost of the system, $750,000 per missile, make it highly impractical as a counter-insurgency or anti-personnel weapon. Second, it is designed and optimized as an anti-material weapon; the munitions it carries are designed to pier ce electronic equipment and other lightly shielded materiel. Third, in view of the characteristics of the missile, the United States has the ability to monitor the use of the system. Fourth, the distinctive debris and damage pattern it produces mak e it possible to obtain physical evidence that it has been used.

The use of this system against insurgents does not make financial or military sense and its use could be confirmed by observation and physical evidence. You should also know that, unlike some other sub-munitions weapons it has a very low `dud' rate (4 per cent or less). Therefore, if it is used in wartime, the risk to civilians from unexploded munitions will be very low.

We need to ensure the Turks do not question our security relationship with them. While we have in fact been exceptionally thoughtful in our transfers, it is important now to demonstrate we are a reliable ally and that Turkey's legitimate defense needs will be met.

Our Embassy in Ankara has commented that it is particularly important to go forward with the ATACM sale now to reassure Ankara about the reliability of our security relationship.

I hope we have been responsive to your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
WENDY R. SHERMAN,
Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.

[Page: E2340]

• Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on December 1, DOD's Defense Security Assistance Agency notified the House International Affairs Committee of the sale of 120 Army Tactical Missile Systems [ATACMS] to Turkey. Essentially a massive, guided cluster bomb, each missile is accurate at a range of up to 100 miles and delivers 950 small bombs. Many of the munitions fail to detonate, remain on the ground, and become a mortal threat to noncombatants. I rise today to voice grave concern s about this sale and question the rationale and timing of this deal. I also want to point out possible consequences of this sale and underscore the danger of unconditional military support for an unstable regime which routinely commits massive human righ ts abuses against its own citizenry.

• Mr. Speaker, my main concern about this sale is that Turkey's regime could use these missiles against civilians as it pursues its ruthless campaign against Kurdish guerrillas. Tragically, Kurdish terrorists have killed hundreds of innoc ent civilians. Yet in response, Turkey's military has killed thousands, tortured and maimed countless others, destroyed almost 3,000 Kurdish villages and forced 3 million people from their homes. On November 20, 1995, Human Rights Watch detailed in a 171- page report the Turkish military's widespread use of United States-supplied equipment in campaigns which inflict death and destruction against civilians. The atrocities detailed in this report are appalling. The report cites more than two dozen eyewitness accounts and substantiates a June 1995 State Department report which also concluded that U.S. equipment was used to violate the human rights of civilians.

• Mr. Speaker, advocates of the missile sale argue that Turkey would not use ATACMS against civilians because of the system's high cost and because such use can be easily detected. Both rationales are preposterous. Over recent years, Turk ey has spent an estimated $7 billion per annum fighting its internal war. The supposed deterrence due to United States detection capabilities also rings hollow given that this administration, despite overwhelming evidence that Turkey uses United States-su pplied weapons against civilians, refuses to condition Turkey's use of United States equipment. I am particularly disturbed that the State Department's Office on Democracy, Labor and Human Rights has lent its support to this sale when it had opposed the s ale of ordinary cluster bombs to Turkey earlier this year. The sale of such weapons appears to indicate that the United States Government is willing to ignore Turkey's ruthless suppression of its Kurdish population because of Turkey's value as a strategic and economic partner. It is worth pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that the prime beneficiary of this $132 million contract will be the LORAL Corp., which manufactures ATACMS in Camden, AR.

• Mr. Speaker, Turkey is undeniably located in a troubled and unstable region of the world. But Mr. Speaker, extending assistance to a fellow member of NATO does not mean we must shut our eyes to their violations of basic human rights. This admi nistration has prioritized the halt of missile proliferation, and I would further question the introduction of advanced missile technology into this unstable region on these grounds.

• On October 17 of this year, Mr. Speaker, a New York Times editorial entitled `America Arms Turkey's Repression' concluded that `[A]ny further [military] aid should carry human rights conditions that would promote a political solution to a war t hat has undermined Turkish democracy, boosted the power of the military, drained the economy and divided Turkey from its European allies. Placing such conditions on assistance would also reduce America's complicity in Turkey's repressive internal war.' Ad ministration representatives, many of my colleagues, and political leaders around the world are urging the Government of Turkey to pursue nonmilitary solutions to the Kurdish crisis because Turkey's purely military approach has failed to do anything but p rolong the bloody, divisive and costly conflict. Mr. Speaker, I would also ask how the transfer of an advanced, destructive weapons system serves long-term United States interests in promoting nonmilitary solutions to Turkey's internal conflict?

• Mr. Speaker, on December 24, national elections will be held in Turkey which will have far reaching implications for United States-Turkish relations and the course of democracy in Turkey. Most observers believe the Islamic-based Welfare Party i s poised to win more votes than any other party and will play an important role in, if not lead, Turkey's post-election government. This anti-Western party has declared its intentions to reevaluate the foundations of Turkey's strategic and economic relati onship with the United States. This raises the question of whether United States policy makers have thought about the consequences should Turkish voters bring the fundamentalists to power? If the Turkish military is to remain subordinated to civilian auth orities, then should we not think twice about providing sophisticated weaponry to a regime whose leaders have stated their opposition to United States interests in the region?

• Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my opposition to this sale on the grounds that it is amoral and undermines U.S. security interests. Turkey's leaders have not sought to assuage concerns that such weapons would be used internally, by publicly co mmitting to nonuse of this United States-supplied weapon on its own territory, against its own citizens. Mr. Speaker, I believe the sale of ATACMS to Turkey is a mistake we will come to regret. It is shameful that these implements of civilian death and de struction will be labeled `Made in the USA.'

[Page: E2341]

MISSILE SALES TO TURKEY (Senate - December 20, 1995)

[Page: S18996]

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, on Monday, December 18, my good friend from New York, Senator D'Amato and I, sent a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher, urging the Clinton Administration to reconsider its decision to sell 12 0 Army tactical missile systems [ATACMs] to the government of Turkey.

I was troubled to learn last night that the Clinton Administration intends to proceed with the sale. This transfer is ill-advised, to say the least. I strongly urge the Administration to reconsider its decision or at the very least, place clear, indisp utable restrictions on deployment and use of these weapons.

This transfer does not make sense. Generally, it is disturbing because the Turkish government has used U.S. and NATO military equipment repeatedly in the past to advance policy and military objectives that are clearly not in our best interests.

As all of us are well aware, the Turkish government in 1974 used NATO military equipment when it invaded the island of Cyprus. More than two decades later, Cyprus remains divided, with one side subjected to an occupation force of 35,000 Turkish troops. I have held a great interest in resolving the Cyprus dispute. This is a matter of strong, bipartisan interest. The Clinton Administration has stated that it intends to make a serious effort to reunite Cyprus. Frankly, I cannot see how the proposed mis sile sale helps our nation achieve this goal. I believe the opposite is true, and that is very unfortunate.

I also am concerned about American made military equipment being used to prolong the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It has been documented that Turkey has transferred U.S. and NATO military hardware to the Azeris, who have made use of this eq uipment against civilian populations in the besieged Nagorno-Karabagh region. It is my understanding that it is contrary to U.S. policy for a buyer of U.S.-made military equipment to transfer such equipment to a third party. What assurances do we have fro m Turkey that it intends to abide by this policy?

Finally, I am concerned that this missile sale could serve to prolong continued violence between the Turkish Army and the Kurds. For more than a decade the Turkish government has waged a brutal war against the Kurdish people. Human rights watch [HRW] estimated that the conflict has resulted in the death of 19,000 Kurds, including 2,000 civilians, and the destruction of 2,000 villages. More than 2 million Kurds have been forced from their homes.

HRW also reported that in 29 incidents from 1992 and 1995, the Turkish Army used U.S.-supplied fighter-bombers and helicopters to attack civilian villages and other targets. Further, U.S. and NATO-supplied small arms and armored personnel carriers have been used in a counter-insurgency campaign against thousands of Kurdish villages.

Clearly, these instances stretching over a period of more than two decades are contrary to our nation's interests as well as our own moral sensibility. In the face of this evidence, the President now wishes to supply the Turkish Army with 120 ATACMs. W hat exactly are ATACMs? Basically, the U.S. Army handbook describes the ATACM as a conventional surface-to-surface ballistic missile launched from a M270 launcher. Each missile has a warhead that carries a combined payload of 950 small clust er bomblets, which can spray shrapnel over a large area.

The practical use of an ATACM does not leave much to the imagination. This kind of missile can be used to disable numerous human and material targets at once and very quickly. Kurdish villages and organized teams of Kurdish dissidents easily cou ld be targets for ballistic missile attack. This would be a terrible tragedy.

The Administration has argued that these missiles are a necessary deterrent against two potential aggressors along Turkey's borders--Iran and Iraq. I believe these missiles are far from necessary. Consider the following: Turkey is an ally of the United States. It is a member of NATO. The Turkish military's Incrylik air base is a launching point for our enforcement of the no-fly zone over Northern Iraq. And Turkey will participate in the enforcement of the Dayton peace accord in Bosnia. I would think that the strategic importance of Turkey to the United States and Europe is enough to deter any foolish military action by either Iran or Iraq. If our nation can mobilize the world to expel Iraq from the tiny nation of Kuwait, imagine our response if Iraq or Iran even made a hostile gesture toward Turkey. Clearly, the Administration's `deterrent" argument to justify the missile sale is hol low at best.

Indeed, I can find no credible political, economic or strategic cause that is furthered by the sale of the ATACMs to Turkey.

Madam President, just last month, Congress took a strong stand against Turkish aggression in the region by voting to cap US economic support funds for Turkey. This is an important step. My friend from New York, Senator D'Amato, and I a re sponsors of legislation that would take even tougher action. It is my hope that we in Congress can all agree that there must be an added price for US economic and military assistance to our allies, particularly our NATO allies, and that price is morall y responsible use of U.S. assistance. I do not see how the Administration's missile sale fits even that basic standard.

We have seen a number of different initiatives designed to bring peace to troubled regions, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and the Middle East. However, the Administration needs to demonstrate our nation's strong interest in brin ging the violence in Kurdistan and Nagorno-Karabagh to an end. The sale of 120 ATACMs moves our nation in the wrong direction and could further fuel the war and destruction in both regions.

Though the Administration has announced it intends to pursue the sale, I make one last plea to urge it to reconsider its decision. If the Administration intends to complete the sale, I would urge at the very least that it impose a few basic conditions. In short, if these missiles are for national self-defense, the sale should be conditioned solely for that purpose. More to the point, the missiles should not be placed so as to pose a threat to the people of Greece and Cyprus. Further, the Turkish government should promise that none of the missiles be transferred to Azerbaijan. And finally, the missiles should not be used to prolong the violence in Kurdistan. The Clinton Administration at the very least should insist on these conditions at the very least. The Clinton Administration also should make clear that failure to abide by these conditions could undermine future economic and military assistance.

Again I believe this sale to be bad policy. It is a mistake. However, if the Administration intends to pursue this sale, it should at the very least make clear that this nation insists on this equipment being strictly limited to self-defense. If we are going to be forced swallow this very bitter bill, the Administration should try to make it less bitter.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter to Secretary Christopher be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Hon. Warren M. Christopher,
Secretary of State,
Washington, DC.

[Page: S18997]

Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to express our strong opposition to the Clinton Administration's proposed sale of 120 army tactical surface-to-surface missiles (ATACMS) to Turkey.

As you well know, for more than a decade the Turkish government has waged a brutal war against the Kurdish people. According to recent data from Human Rights Watch (HRW), the conflict has resulted in 19,000 military and civilian dead, 2,000 villages de stroyed and more than 2 million being forced from their homes.

What concerns us deeply is the use of American-made military equipment to commit these atrocities and to prolong the war against the Kurdish people. Specifically, it has been reported that in 29 incidents from 1992 and 1995, the Turkish Army has used U .S.-supplied fighter-bombers and helicopters to attack and fire against civilian villages and targets. Further, U.S. and NATO-supplied small arms and armored personnel carriers have been used in a counter-insurgency campaign against thousands of Kurdish v illages.

The Kurds are not the only ones to have been subjected to attack with U.S. or NATO equipment from Turkey. Indeed, the record of the last twenty years is disturbing. Most notably, the Turkish military used NATO military hardware when it invaded and occupie d the now-divided island of Cyprus. Further, Turkey has transferred US and NATO weapons to Azerbaijan, where they have been used against civilian Armenians residing in Nagorno-Karabagh.

In the face of this history, the President now wishes to supply the Turkish Army with 120 ATACMS, each of which is capable of carrying a warhead payload of 950 small cluster bombs. With these weapons, the Turkish Army has the capability to launch a hor rendous ballistic missile attack on the Kurdish people. The results would be equally disturbing if any of these missiles ended up in the hands of the Azeris, or were deployed within range of either Cyprus or Greece.

Mr. Secretary, the Clinton Administration has taken a great interest in achieving peace in troubled regions, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and the Middle East. However, the Administration needs to demonstrate our nation's strong interest in bringing the violence in Kurdistan and Nagorno-Karabagh to an end. By arming Turkey with 120 ATACMS, we would send the opposite message and further fuel destruction in both regions.

The time has come for the United States to take a stand for peace throughout the entire Middle East. For that reason, we urge the Clinton Administration to reconsider its proposed sale of tactical surface-to-surface missiles to Turkey.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,

LARRY PRESSLER.

ALFONSE M. D'AMATO.

[Page: H15619]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as soon as today, or at least by the middle of next week, our Department of Defense will sign a letter of offer and acceptance [LOA] with the Government of Turkey, to complete the sale of 120 Army Tactical Missile Syste ms [ATACMS]. The ATACMS--pronounced attacks 'ems--is a ground-launched surface-to-surface, conventional, semiguided ballistic missile which carries an antipersonnel/antimateriel cluster warhead capable of spraying shrapnel over a 150-square-meter a rea. Turkey already has the multiple launch rocket system from which to launch these very nasty, destructive weapons. What this weapon does is essentially deliver 950 small bombs, some of which do not immediately detonate and remain on the ground, posing a threat to noncombatants--including children.

Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong weapon sale to the wrong country at the wrong time.

Earlier this month, I circulated a letter with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] which was signed by 35 Members from both sides of the aisle, calling on President Clinton to reconsider this sale, based on our very serious conc erns over how these weapons would be used. The Turkish Government's domestic and international behavior--including the ongoing campaign against the Kurdish people, the occupation of Northern Cyprus, and the blockade of Armenia--makes us deeply concerned t hat providing such destructive power to that Government has the potential to cause terrible, and preventable, human suffering.

Today I am joining with my colleagues, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. Bilirakis in introducing House Concurrent Resolution 124 expressing the sense of Congress that the President should suspend the proposed sale of the Army Ta ctical Missile System to the Government of the Republic of Turkey until the Government takes significant and concrete steps to end the military occupation of Cyprus, lift its blockade of Armenia, cease its ongoing campaign against the Kurdish peopl e, and demonstrate progress on the protection of human and civil rights within Turkey.

Mr. Speaker, the timing of this sale is peculiar to say the least. The Foreign Operations appropriations bill includes a cut in economic assistance to Turkey. This provision, which has strong bipartisan support, was enacted in response to the concerns cited above. We believe that the message we are trying to send with this provision would be undermined by approving a new sale of military hardware at this time. In Ankara, the conclusion would inevitably be that, beyond limited symbolic measures, America ns do not take seriously the shocking breaches of international law and decency committed in the name of the Turkish Government.

The proposed transaction represents the first sale of these weapons to any foreign nation. The Turkish military track record is not consistent with what we would expect of any recipient of United States arms, much less a NATO member. The Human Rights A rms Project has cited numerous examples of the indiscriminate use of weapons by Turkish forces in Kurdish civilian areas. We are also concerned about the evidence strongly linking Turkey to unauthorized transfers of United States and NATO weapons to the R epublic of Azerbaijan.

While it is our contention that the weapons sale should be halted entirely, in our letter to the President we recommended that, are the very least, strong conditions governing the use and transfer of these weapons be attached to any sale, and that thes e conditions be strongly enforced.

Mr. Speaker, this sale has been strongly opposed by Greek-American, Armenian-American, and Kurdish-American organizations, as well as Human Rights Watch, the Council for a Liveable World, and the Federation of American Scientists. And for good reason.

Turkey claims it needs the ATACMS as a deep strike weapon against the threat of tanks in Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Yet, in Greece, Turkey's neighbor to the west, there is deep concern about the threat posed by these offensive weapons. In the regional arms race, Turkey already has a substantial edge, with F-16 fighter jets, attack helicopters, and antiarmore missiles. In addition Turkey has imported more than 1,000 tanks from the United States alone in the past 5 years.

The Government of Turkey is conducting a war against the Kurds within Turkey and has made incursions into Kurdish areas of Iraq, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties and millions of refugees. This cruel war is one part of an overall effort to essentially negate the Kurdish people as a distinct entity within Turkey. Many people are concerned that these missiles could be used as part of this military campaign, resulting in terrible civilian casualties.

Also, Turkey continues its occupation of one-third of the territory of Cyprus, having declared a `Northern Republic of Cyprus,' an entity that has no international recognition, and resisting good-faith efforts of the United States, Greece, and other na tions and international bodies to end the conflict. The occupation of Cyprus is well into its 21st year. There is no sign that it will end if we continue to send the message to Ankara that there are no significant consequences to this illegal occupation, and that our protests are largely symbolic and rhetorical.

Another illegal and immoral Turkish Government policy is the blockade of its border with the Republic of Armenia. This blockade has blocked the delivery of American humanitarian aid to Armenia and complicated its delivery. In the foreign ops bill, we h ave language, with strong bipartisan support, known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which restricts aid to those countries that block the delivery of aid to other nations. Although the language does not mention Turkey by name, clearly that is the co untry that would be targeted.

Why are we taking these seemingly significant legislative steps--Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, cutting aid to Turkey--and then turning around and giving them this terrible weapon system?

• Mr. Speaker, we also have to worry about whether Turkey will see fit to transfer this technology--our technology--to other nations. Strong evidence has linked Turkey to the unauthorized transfer of Untied States and North Atlantic Treaty Organi zation weapons to the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan and Armenia are engaged in a tense conflict over the region of Nagorno-Karabagh. A tenuous cease-fire is holding, and the administration has recognized the importance of resolving this crisis by app ointing a special negotiator with the rank of Ambassador. Why, again, do we turn around and take steps that will potentially undermine our efforts to negotiate a just and lasting resolution to this conflict?

• International human rights organizations continue to cite Turkey for egregious violations of the basic human rights and freedoms of its own citizens. Earlier this year, an American journalist was jailed in Turkey because of her reporting on the campaign against the Kurds. She was released, thank God. Unfortunately, there has not been such a happy ending for those few brave Turkish journalists and human rights activists who try to tell their countrymen and the world the truth about what's going on. These brave souls languish in prison, largely forgotten by all but a few friends and supporters.

• Mr. Speaker, I am very discouraged and disappointed by the reaction of Western governments--not only our own--to Turkey's continued flouting of international law and standards of decency. Just last week, the European Union admitted Turkey into its Customs Union, a likely first step toward full membership in the EU--despite the strong objections from many legislators and activists on the other side of the Atlantic.

• Why are we doing this? Sadly, we are witnessing the triumph of Realpolitik, in other words, putting economic or strategic interests ahead of our own values. The argument is that we need Turkey because of its strategic location and as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. Well, in the first place, I believe that these goals could be achieved by more positive means than weapons sales. But I also wonder whether we're making a terrible strategic mistake over the long term, investing billions, s ending our most advanced weapons and otherwise hurting America's good name by associating with a regime that isn't very stable and may collapse anyway.

• While it may be too late to stop this ill-advised weapons sale, I urge all my colleagues to work with me and other Members of this House to stop coddling the regime in Ankara, to stand with Turkey's neighbors, and to stop basing our foreign pol icy on the bad bet represented by the Government of Turkey.

It may be too late to stop this ill-advised weapons sale to Turkey. I urge all of my colleagues to work with me and other Members of this House to stop coddling the regime in Ankara, to stand with Turkey's neighbors, and to stop basing our foreign poli cy on the bad debt represented by the Government of Turkey.