Highlights

 
Quotable
The failure to dissect the cause of war leaves us open for the next installment.
Chris Hedges
Original Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

 
February 28, 2004

Washington Drops Bomb on Landmine Ban


by Jim Lobe
Groups that have fought for the elimination of anti-personnel landmines worldwide lashed out Friday at the U.S. decision to not sign the global Landmine Ban Treaty. They warned that Washington's snub could embolden nations already employing or considering use of the weapons.

The United States has not used these weapons – which have killed an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 people around the world each year – since 1991, and has not produced them since 1997. In September, anti-mine groups, which played a huge role in creating the treaty, predicted the United States would sign on to the convention by 2006.

But on Friday the administration of President George W. Bush said it would not sign the treaty, that it would push back the date to eliminate some mines to 2010, and would retain the right to use other "smart" mines indefinitely. But Washington also promised to boost funding for global anti-mine activities for 2005 by 50 percent over 2003 levels.

Since 1997, some 150 countries have signed the Mine Ban Treaty, which prohibits the use, trade, production and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines.

Washington's mine policy has been under review since 2001 but Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, in 1998 directed that the US military must search for alternatives to the weapon, phase out most of its use outside of the Koreas by 2003, and that the government would join the treaty by 2006.

On Friday, Assistant Secretary of State Lincoln Bloomfield rejected the convention, adding that landmines with timing devices are relatively safe and "have some continuing utility for our armed forces around the world," reported the Associated Press.

Those so-called "smart mines" are programmed to self-destruct after a certain period, unlike conventional ("persistent") landmines. The United States will begin destroying its persistent mines in 2006 with a goal to eliminate them by 2010, Bloomfield added, but will retain "smart" mines on the Korean peninsula.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) called that the most "objectionable" aspect of the new policy. It means US military forces are now free to use smart mines anywhere in the world, indefinitely, said Stephen Goose, executive director of HRW's arms division.

"So-called smart mines are not safe mines – they still pose real dangers for civilians," added Goose.

"The United States stands alone in this position that there can be a technological solution to the global landmine problem," he said in a statement.

According to the US Campaign to Ban Landmines, smart mines are particularly dangerous for a number of reasons, including that they might fail to self-destruct, and they are "planted" by air in the thousands so it is difficult to map their locations.

"(Another) problem with these mines is that they are not smart enough to tell the difference between a child and a soldier," USCBL Coordinator Gina Coplon-Newfield told IPS.

She said although the United States had not planted mines since 1991, "we do know that the US military took with them to the Gulf region about one and a half years ago tens of thousands of antipersonnel landmines for possible use."

"We're very glad that reportedly they haven't used them thus far, but especially with this new announcement we're very concerned about the possibility of future use," added Coplon-Newfield.

HRW's Mary Wareham said the announcement was a shock, given that although the United States had not signed the treaty, "in our minds (Washington) was doing all the right things."

But Friday's decision now means "they're going to keep mines indefinitely instead of working toward their elimination," she added in an interview.

It sets a bad example for the 40-odd nations that have not signed the treaty, said Wareham. "It's very difficult to influence them but one country can, and that's the United States."

According to Coplon-Newfield, "many countries may say 'if the wealthiest military in the world wants to reserve the right to use this weapon then surely we, a poor military, should be able to reserve the right.'"

Last September, anti-mine groups reported that in 2002, the use of landmines plummeted worldwide, that 12 countries had signed the Mine Ban Treaty during the year and 10 others had ratified it, meaning their national legislatures had approved it.

They said that only the governments of Burma and Russia continued to plant mines on a regular basis and that even rebel groups around the world were using fewer mines.

At the time, Campaign to Ban Landmines founder Jodie Williams speculated the United States was hesitating to join the treaty because its defense department feared the precedent of civil society forcing it to abandon one type of weapon might "snowball."

On Friday she told AP Radio that the announcement "is yet another indication of the Bush administration's total disdain for international law."


comments on this article?
 
 
Archives

  • US Jews Open to Palestinian Unity Govt
    3/26/2009

  • Bipartisan Experts Urge 'Partnership' With Russia
    3/17/2009

  • Obama Administration Insists It's Neutral in Salvador Poll
    3/14/2009

  • NGOs Hail Congressional Moves to Ease Embargo
    3/12/2009

  • Call to 'Resist and Deter' Nuclear Iran Gains Key Support
    3/7/2009

  • Washington Ends Diplomatic Embargo of Syria
    3/4/2009

  • Diplomatic, Aid Spending Set to Rise Under Obama Budget
    2/28/2009

  • Many Muslims Reject Terror Tactics, Back Some Goals
    2/26/2009

  • Lugar Report Calls for New Cuba Policy
    2/24/2009

  • U.S.-Israel Storm Clouds Ahead?
    2/20/2009

  • Calls Mount for Obama to Appoint 'Truth Commission'
    2/20/2009

  • Washington's Praise of Venezuelan Vote Suggests D├ętente
    2/19/2009

  • Rightward Shift in Israeli Polls Creates New Headaches
    2/13/2009

  • US Advised to Back Somalia Reconciliation Efforts
    2/12/2009

  • Hawks Urge Boosting Military Spending
    2/5/2009

  • More Troops, More Worries,
    Less Consensus on Afghanistan
    2/4/2009

  • Report: Most Citizens Kept in Dark on Govt Spending
    2/2/2009

  • Obama Raises Hopes of
    Mideast Experts
    1/28/2009

  • Obama Picks Israel-Arab, Afghanistan-Pakistan Negotiators
    1/23/2009

  • Rights Groups Applaud Move to Halt Gitmo Trials
    1/22/2009

  • Obama Offers Internationalist Vision
    1/21/2009

  • Around the World, High Hopes for Obama
    1/20/2009

  • Liberals, Realists Set to Clash in Obama Administration
    1/19/2009

  • Obama Urged to Take Bold Steps Toward Cuba Normalization
    1/15/2009

  • Clinton Stresses 'Cooperative Engagement,' 'Smart Power'
    1/14/2009

  • Bush Foreign Policy Legacy Widely Seen as Disastrous
    1/14/2009

  • Networks' Int'l News Coverage at Record Low in 2008
    1/6/2009

  • Amnesty Calls on Rice to Drop 'Lopsided' Gaza Stance
    1/3/2009

  • Israeli Attack May Complicate Obama's Plans
    12/30/2008

  • Report: Recognizing Hamas Could Help Peace
    12/19/2008

  • Business Groups Support Dismantling Cuba Embargo
    12/8/2008

  • Mumbai Massacre Seen as Major Blow to Regional Strategy
    12/5/2008

  • Obama Urged to Quickly Engage Iran, Syria
    12/3/2008

  • Diplomacy, Multilateralism Stressed by Obama Team
    12/2/2008

  • Obama Foreign Policy: Realists to Reign?
    11/28/2008

  • Hemispheric Group Calls for Major Changes in Americas Policy
    11/25/2008

  • Greybeards Urge Overhaul of Global Governance
    11/21/2008

  • Intelligence Analysts See Multi-Polar, Risky World By 2025
    11/21/2008

  • Obama Urged to Strengthen Ties with UN
    11/20/2008

  • Obama-Tied Think-Tank Calls for Pakistan Shift
    11/18/2008

  • Obama Advised to Forgo More Threats to Iran
    11/17/2008

  • First, Close Gitmo,
    Say Rights Groups
    11/11/2008

  • Obama's Foreign Policy:
    No Sharp Break From Bush
    11/11/2008

  • Coca Cultivation Up Despite Six Years of Plan Colombia
    11/7/2008

  • Obama to Seek Global Re-engagement, But How Much?
    11/6/2008

  • Two, Three, Many Grand Bargains?
    11/3/2008

  • Moving Towards a 'Grand Bargain' in Afghanistan
    10/19/2008

  • Top Ex-Diplomats Slam 'Militarization' of Foreign Policy
    10/16/2008

  • Bush Set to Go With a Whimper, Not a Bang
    10/15/2008

  • Pakistan 'Greatest Single Challenge' to Next President
    10/8/2008

  • Senate Passes Nuke Deal Over Escalation Fears
    10/3/2008

  • Brief Talks With Syria Spur Speculation
    10/1/2008

  • Iran Resolution Shelved in Rare Defeat for AIPAC
    9/27/2008

  • Bipartisan Group Urges Deeper Diplomacy with Muslim World
    9/25/2008

  • White House Still Cautious on Georgia
    9/6/2008

  • US' Somalia Policy Likely to Bring Blowback
    9/4/2008

  • Iran Could Reap Benefits of U.S.-Russian Tensions
    8/28/2008

  • A Really Bad Couple of Weeks for Pax Americana
    8/24/2008

  • Success of Attack on Iran's Nuclear Program Doubtful
    8/9/2008

  • US Gets No Traction in the Middle East
    8/5/2008

  • Gates Strategy Stresses Unconventional Warfare
    8/1/2008

  • Air Force Think Tank Advises Against Iran Attack
    7/31/2008

  • Pakistani PM May Be Pincushion for U.S. Frustration
    7/26/2008

  • Realists Urge Bush to Drop Iran Precondition
    7/23/2008

  • McCain Knee-Capped by Maliki
    7/22/2008

  • Jim Lobe, works as Inter Press Service's correspondent in the Washington, D.C., bureau. He has followed the ups and downs of neo-conservatives since well before their rise in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2003 Antiwar.com