The Obama administration recently announced its position on theMine Ban Treaty which bans the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of antipersonnel mines. They have decided to continue with the Bush-era policy and rejected the international convention banning land mines.
156 countries have ratified this treaty, but 39 others have not including the U.S., Russia and China. Landmines are planted in more than 70 countries, and have killed over 1,200 people and wounded 4,000 in 2008.
Why won't the U.S. hop on board? Banning landmines does not meet our national defense needs, or our security commitments to our friends and allies. As a global provider of security, we have an interest in the discussions around the Mine Ban Treaty, but we will not sign the international convention.
Stephen Goose is the director of the Human Rights Watch's (HRW) Arms division and co-founder of the international campaign to ban landmines, which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997. Goose is appalled with the Obama administration's decision, saying it lacks vision, compassion, common sense, but most significantly a lack of political leadership by President Obama on a crucial global humanitarian issue.
Goose states in an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, "...most of the counties of the world have joined this Mine Ban Treaty and virtually all of the major U.S. allies have done so. Every other NATO country is part of the Mine Bane Treaty."
Goose and HRW, along with other NGOs and key legislators like Sen. Patrick Leahy, have been encouraging and urging the Obama administration to undertake a formal review of the Treaty. And even though Obama has emphasized his willingness to be transparent, this whole process was done in secrecy. They never announced their process for reviewing, only that it was completed and they would continue with Bush's policy and reject the international convention.
Key legislators were not consulted with, neither were major military allies, foreign policy or land mine experts. The Pentagon simply dictated the terms that sustained the current U.S. policy on the use and storing of land mines. Bush abandoned Clinton's promise to eventually weed out mines from military weaponry, who was the first global political leader to even mention their elimination. (Which doesn't say too much, since he didn't enact a plan or move on his promise, which was made further evident in Bush's ability to reject this goal during his reign.)
Of the 39 countries yet to ratify, the U.S. is the only country who has taken a permanent stance against signing on. So much for Obama repairing the odious foreign policy of the United States. So much for the end of Bush-era policy-decisions.
Land mines are a horrific weapon which have taken fervent tolls against civilian populations. Thousands of non-combatant civilians are killed and injured each year, and have devastating effects in countries like Afghanistan, Cambodia and Columbia. Since the original conception, 10 years ago, astounding progress has been made by the international community in terms of clearance efforts and the halt of production and trade of this weapon. These efforts have resulted in the number of victims being cut in half, which is a huge success and should be noted when we think about making change. This has been the most successful disarmament treaty of the past decade, and the U.S. has been nothing but an obstruction to these peace-building, humanitarian travails.
I wonder to myself how the U.S. sustains their clout among the international powers, when they seem to bastion all of the things that prolong human suffering, exploitation and oppression, all for their impudent interest in the accumulation of capital and global domination.
The secrecy of the U.S.'s review of the Treaty unveils the authoritative power that the military has over foreign policy and defense mechanisms. This presence of power is also seen in the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. The issue of land mine use above all is a humanitarian issue, because these weapons severely wound and kill civilians who are not part of the military conflict. This is an atrocious effect of military occupation, and something that could easily be eradicated if the U.S. had enough concern for peace.
The U.S. has not used land mines since the first Gulf War in 1991, we have not exported them since '92, and we have not produced them since 1997. We have no future plans to use them, and have not used them in the occupations of Iraq or Afghanistan. (Both countries who HAVE ratified the Treaty.) This means the U.S. is in compliance with the treaty, so what is the reason for barring its ratification? What is going on at the drawing board?
Land mines have successfully been stigmatized, were a country to use one the international community would gravely condemn them and possibly take action against the perpetrators. The U.S. has no reason to keep away from this alliance, and it would be in their best interest, domestically and globally, to do a serious and thorough review of the Treaty. Until then, the U.S. remains a threat to international security, not a provider of such.
