Why not ban landmines?
It has been at least a dozen years since the U.S. produced, used or traded an anti-personnel mine, yet this nation remains the only member of NATO not to sign an international treaty banning landmines.
Why not turn practice into policy?
Apparently, it's not going to happen anytime soon. A State Department spokesman said this week the U.S. has no plans to join the Mine Ban Treaty during an upcoming milestone meeting in Cartagena, Colombia because "we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed."
About whom is the State Department speaking? A total of 156 nations are party to the treaty and nearly every country that hasn't signed is considered to be in compliance, according to the most recent survey issued by Human Rights Watch.
The U.S. seemed to be on the path toward signing during the Clinton administration, but the policy was reversed by George W. Bush in 2004. Instead, we have become content to stand with China and Russia, which similarly haven't signed the treaty.
Why choose the moral low-ground? Mines kill and maim innocent people every day. Brutal and indiscriminant, they blow off the feet and hands and the vast majority of the victims are civilians. They also last a long time -- landmines dating from World War I are still causing injuries. They hamper post-war recoveries and present a particularly grave danger to children.
The U.S. can't officially oppose these relics of the past? Modern warfare doesn't even require them, as there are better ways to protect borders. The humanitarian costs clearly outweigh whatever strategic value they might have anyway.
As a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama voted in favor of the ban. How disappointing that he can't follow his conscience as president.
Comments
If you ban landmines then only criminals will have landmines.
Posted by: MrRational | November 25, 2009 11:26 AM
Why don't we cut out all the middlemen and just ban war all together?
Posted by: Sean Tully | November 25, 2009 1:03 PM
Obviously you have not checked all the facts or really looked into the implications of the issues which you are talking about. While the U.S. Government has not signed the mine ban treaty, we remain the world's largest individual donor to humanitarian mine action. Your article talks about the fact that landmines last a long time – this true. Yet you fail to point out that official US policy prohibits the use of persistent landmines and requires that they (both persistent anti-personnel and anti-vehicular) be eliminated from US arsenals by 2010. Before making broad generalizations which do not show all the facts and fails to present a balanced argument, you should check the facts and official U.S. policy which can be found on the web: http://www.state.gov/t/pm/wra/c11735.htm.
Posted by: Smith | November 25, 2009 4:17 PM
US landmines are not the problem, and only an idiot would think that "moral examples" matter in the world when it comes to warfare. Mines are useful in conventional war, for example in channeling an attack by North Korea. The mines in problem countries are NOT being sown by American forces. There is no a reason US forces should sacrifice a potentially useful military option. The people who don't want the US to have mines are also the people who are our enemies and oppose any US use of armed force.
Posted by: Old MSgt | November 25, 2009 6:10 PM
Finally you give the President a drubbing and for the right reason! We all know land mines maim, kill and sow havoc in innocent lives Land mines are the chosen weapons of tyrants and extremists. Democracies have no business using these. Consider the number of children who have been hurt in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia and many other places across the world. Planting land mines should be a crime against humanity, it should be condemned in no uncertain terms and the practice should be relegated to the dust heap of history. The US should stand up and be counted as one of the countries ready to take a stand on the issue.
UN at the table
Posted by: UN at the table | November 25, 2009 7:54 PM
Why not just ban war? As long as wars exist, land mines (as well as nuclear weapons) will also exist.
Posted by: Dick Tatlow | November 26, 2009 7:13 AM
Its not really a matter of moral or not, its a matter of what works. Currently we(US military) can only use mines that are remotely controlled. Maybe we should see if the Taliban will sign the treaty and stop planting landmines(IEDS) in their roads and killing their countrymen.
Posted by: John | November 29, 2009 2:55 PM
Why not ban landmines? I'm sure some of the servicemembers looking across the border with North Korea can give you a few good reasons. Further, the lack of American signature on the landmine ban does nothing to change the landscape of previously sown landmines nor does it affect future abuses by those with no regard for human rights and the Law of Armed Conflict. The US follows the law and uses landmines selectively and discriminately, quite unlike people we are still facing in Iraq.
Posted by: Andrew | November 30, 2009 12:43 PM