Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Will Not Join Treaty Banning Landmines
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has no plans to join a global treaty banning landmines because a policy review found the United States could not meet its security commitments without them, the State Department said on Tuesday.
![[An Iraqi soldier walks past confiscated ammunition and weapons after a raid operation in Baghdad, September 2, 2009. (REUTERS/Saad Shalash/Files)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/usrefusestosignlandminetreaty.jpg "usrefusestosignlandminetreaty.jpg")
"This administration undertook a policy review and we decided that our landmine policy remains in effect," spokesman Ian Kelly told a briefing five days before a review conference in Cartegena, Colombia on the 10-year-old Mine Ban Treaty.
"We determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed this convention," he said.
It was the first time the administration had publicly disclosed the decision.
The treaty bans the use, stockpiling, production or transfer of antipersonnel mines. It has been endorsed by 156 countries, but the United States, Russia, China and India have not adopted it.
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, a leading advocate for the treaty, called the decision "a default of U.S. leadership."
"It is a lost opportunity for the United States to show leadership instead of joining with China and Russia and impeding progress," Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said in a statement.
Landmines are known to have caused 5,197 casualties last year, a third of them children, according to the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which links some 1,000 activist groups.
The United States generally abides by the provisions of the treaty. It has not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported any since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997, Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch, told a briefing on Monday.
The review conference next Sunday is expected to draw more than 1,000 delegates representing more than 100 countries, including ministers and heads of state.
It will look at the progress of a broadly popular treaty that has helped cut landmine casualties around the world and provided relief to victims.
Kelly said the United States would send humanitarian mine relief experts from the State Department, Defense Department, U.S. Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to observe the conference.
"As a global provider of security, we have an interest in the discussions there," Kelly said. "But we will be there as an observer, obviously, because we haven't signed the convention, nor do we plan to sign the convention."
U.S. SENDING OBSERVERS
It is the first time the United States has sent observers to a gathering of states that have accepted the treaty, a move that was welcomed by anti-landmine campaigners.
"The very fact that they are showing up we take as a positive sign of movement on this issue within the Obama administration," Goose said.
"We hope they're not coming empty-handed," he added. "We very much want them to come and say that they intend to join this convention. Even if they can't give a timeline, we want them to say they intend to join at some point in time."
Anti-mine campaigners said a declaration of intent was important because the Bush administration reversed U.S. policy on accepting the convention and said it would never join.
While Kelly's comment indicated no shift in administration policy, Jeff Abramson, deputy director of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association, said the United States was expected to make a statement at the conference that might shed more light on the decision.
He said it would be disappointing if such a statement shut the door to continuing a review of U.S. policy.
Kelly said the United States was the world's single largest financial supporter of humanitarian mine action, having provided more than $1.5 billion since 1993 to support mine clearance and destruction of conventional weapons.
In contravention of the treaty, however, the United States stockpiles some 10 million antipersonnel mines and retains the option to use them.
But using mines would pose big problems for Washington, Goose said, because most of its allies including all but one NATO country, are parties to the treaty and are pledged not to help other countries use the weapons.
(Editing by Sandra Maler and Alan Elsner)
58 Comments so far
Show All"Given their past inaction on the unprecedented Bush abuses, this will never happen without forceful coercion from the populace."
It will never happen.
-30-
LAND MINE IRONY
Obama’s refusal to participate in the international land mine ban can only result in more needless deaths and maimings, while adding to our demise in international standing from our rejections Kyoto and related efforts. Unless he can provide a rational explanation, which is highly unlikely, Congress should intervene and force passage of this paramount reform measure. Given their past inaction on the unprecedented Bush abuses, this will never happen without forceful coercion from the populace.
Obama Will Attend Copenhagen Summit Before Picking up Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/25-5
and more...
Obama [could be] the greatest President since Lincoln. I guess one has to ease into it. Hope we have time.
Bahaha. Nice snark.
Oh wait. You seem to have stumbled upon the wrong site.
The delusional Obama fan club can be found at http://www.dailykos.com/
What's PUMA for "I told you so"? ;)
I suspect the biggest reason the US won't sign this is that cluster bombs will fall into this category.
Designed as an offensive weapon to kill over a wide area the bomblets that don't explode become de facto landmines.
Landmines are relatively useless in a military application but are very effective at killing civilians and especially children long after any hostilities have ceased. They are primarily an anti-civilian weapon and deserve to be un-invented.
Quite unrelated to this, since there is no real message about landmines despite them being the dominant theme, I highly recommend a movie called "Turtles can fly". Using non-actors, it's a beautifully crafted art movie that I saw at a film festival. It is quite remote from anything Hollywood puts out.
"We would not be able to meet our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed this convention"
What sort of 'friends and allies' need to have innocent children murdered and maimed in order to feel 'safe' - other than Israel?
What is a terrorist?
I'm reminded of the wisdom of Pogo.
The least that should be done is for the UN to make it a crime for those countries who have not signed the ban to plant mines outside their borders.
Also, I agree the US signing an agreement is not a guarantee it will abide by it.
When people complain the Obama looks a lot like Bush they must know by now that the US has one ruling party with two branches, Republican and Democrat.
George C. Brown - Another legacy left to us by the "militocracy" and "corporatocracy". Does this also mean that we are still going to use depleted uranium in some of our weaponry? Let's try pushing and working for peace worldwide!
So America can't meet its own defense requirements without landmines. That's interesting. What are they doing, seeding their northern and southern borders with them? If not then please elucidate how American defense requires landmines. It sounds fishy to me. Anyway who cares if the US signs or doesn't? It's not as if the US has ever lived up to the terms of any treaty it has signed.
Of course 0's reluctant to sign anything that might be used to prosecute him later.
Landmines have little to do with our "preventive" wars. They are not like drones that can go around and hunt and kill. Their purpose is really defensive. You plant them around an area that you are afraid will be attacked. Like military bases. And in a few more years, like the Whitehouse and Congress. That is why they can't ban them. They need them so they can use them...against us. Just in case. Cause ya never know...do you?
Think of it this way, if you get a job with Halo Trust removing land mines its job security.
that is sarcasm by the way.
The political perspective of Obama has been known by the socialist "left" for several years. "Progressives" are still deluded about Obama and the Democratic Party. Progressives are still hoping, despite all hard evidence of recent events to the contrary, that the "true" Obama will, under pressure, reveal himself. All we need to do is just send more emails or have a couple more demonstrations.
Here are links to two articles, one written in July 2007, and another written in the last couple of days. Both articles reveal the "true" and consistent Obama from a critical socialist and Marxist analysis available six days a week from the World Socialist Web Site, http://www.wsws.org. The home page offers a NEWSLETTER form for a free WSWS email subscription. WSWS is a unique anti-capitalist, socialist and Marxist newsletter on-line for over 10 years.
Progressives: Don't allow your "ignorance" be "bliss" to the ruling class that is destroying us all.
===================================================================================
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/obam-j28.shtml
Democrat Barack Obama spells out his foreign policy: “I will not hesitate to use force”
By Andre Damon
28 July 2007
This month’s issue of Foreign Affairs carries an essay by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama outlining his foreign policy. Obama gets to the point early on. Noting the catastrophe in Iraq, he writes: “After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make.”
...
(conclusion)
If the 2008 elections put Barack Obama in the White House, the American people will be saddled with a new president who continues the war in Iraq and whose foreign policy does not significantly differ from that of his reviled predecessor.
============================================================
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n24.shtml
Once again: Obama and the jobs crisis
24 November 2009
Patrick Martin
The Obama administration has flatly rejected appeals for the federal government to take any direct action to create jobs and alleviate the mounting toll of unemployment in the United States. Obama reiterated this position in his Saturday radio/Internet address, and it was echoed by top aides in media interviews over the weekend.
...
...Obama heads an administration of, by and for the most powerful financial interests.
This is not a government of reform that is being led astray by right-wing pressure, or can be pushed to the left by counter-pressure from below. It is a government of social and political reaction.
...
(conclusion)
Obama’s refusal to take action on the jobs crisis and his undisguised indifference to the suffering which has swept over working class America are increasingly recognized by millions of working people. Initially, this is reflected in plummeting poll numbers. Soon enough, it will be expressed in the eruption of major struggles as workers and young people abandon illusions in the phony promises of “hope” and “change” and take action to defend their independent social and class interests.
==========================================================
Throughout the 2008 election campaign, Obama was forever portrayed in an almost religious fervor, as almost the "second coming". Obama is perhaps, as James Petras has remarked, the greatest "con-man" in history.
A Historic Moment: The Election of the Greatest Con-Man in Recent History
http://lahaine.org/petras/articulo.php?p=1766&more=1&c=1
Introduction
The entire political spectrum ranging from the ‘libertarian’ left, through the progressive editors of the Nation to the entire far right neo-con/Zionist war party and free market Berkeley/Chicago/Harvard academics, with a single voice, hailed the election of Barack Obama as a ‘historic moment’, a ‘turning point in American history and other such histrionics. For reasons completely foreign to the emotional ejaculations of his boosters, it is a historic moment: witness the abysmal gap between his ‘populist’ campaign demagoguery and his long-standing and deepening carnal relations with the most retrograde political figures, power brokers and billionaire real estate and financial backers.
============================================================
"Obama is perhaps, as James Petras has remarked, the greatest "con-man" in history."
I said these exact words about a year ago.
Sorry about the typo, folks.
0's slogan was actually:
"YES WE CON!"
here's a little quiz for you all. whats the difference between
the us nazi germany and stalin age soviet union?
nada nothing! when we stop spending and the money dries
up the shit is really gonna hit the fan! its not going
to be a pretty sight!
From the article:
"We determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed this convention,"
Yet ALL those "friends and allies" signed the Mine Ban Treaty. Is the State Department saying they'll use ours in a pinch?
More hyprocrisy.
-30-
Will the [alleged] liberal, Keith Olbermann, have a guest on his show tonight who will dare to criticize Obama for banning landmines?
"The United States generally abides by the provisions of the treaty. It has not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported any since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997, Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch, told a briefing on Monday."
Given the above, I'm wondering why the U.S. made this decision? It says they can't meet their security needs without landmines but that seems to contradict the above. Can anyone stop the Obama-bashing for half a second and offer a serious explanation?
Tramaker 4:30 ------ First USA is using them in Afghanistan see my post at bottom.
And secondly like they said the USA wants the option to openly use them also.
Just like why we won't sign the ICC.
The United States reserves the right to commit war crimes.
"The United States generally abides by the provisions of the treaty"
Yes, and the US "generally" abides by the torture treaty too, eh? If the US did use landmines, would they tell you? It seems that the mantra is "we don't use them, unless we do...but you shouldn't".
If the Democrats can't be trusted to get on board with eliminating the utterly useless and immoral land mines, as most of the rest of the world has done, who would believe that Obama has any interest in reducing the US's nukes or abiding by any arms reduction treaty?
Marian Cole
Where is the man I voted for?
"This land is your land,
This land is MINE land . . ."
Landmines? Torture? Nukes? Did I vote for Republicans by mistake?
Yes.
YES, you GOT it!
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!
..
Hang onto that insight, EZ, the same folks are coming back in 2010 and again in 2012.
"In contravention of the treaty, however, the United States stockpiles some 10 million antipersonnel mines and retains the option to use them."
I see everything still remains on the table......As usual...
Only that which PROFITS scumbag elitists remains on the table!
Wow, big surprise!
Why are that even allowing anyone from the US a visa to attend the treaty conference as a cynical "observer". How convenient that it is in the US puppet-state Colombia.
I dearly hope the US "observer" is treated with complete hostile invisibility. His existence should not even be acknowledged by the delegates except to bump into him, spill his drink, cough onto his hors-d'ovres. Treat him like a poorly placed lamp in the room.
So we had Bush_one, then Clinton, then Bush_two, and now Obama. There have been expose' and critical articles by many throughout these and many other years on back. Nothing has changed except that our world has become more and more complex. What I would like to see is more "strategy" articles about how we can effectively make changes__which organizations are out there doing the grunge work can we help grow. There has to be another more effective way of building a better and more sustainable world.
I expected this. The US-Israhell Fourth Reich doesn't believe in international laws, only profits, access to resources, and never ending wars. This was spelled out in the Project for the New American Century and it didn't end with the Bush-Cheney era and it will not end now.
Amerika and Israhell will continue to be brutal racist occupiers, public opionion be damned!
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, a leading advocate for the treaty, called the decision "a default of U.S. leadership."
One of many, Senator! U.S. Military-driven empire building has not only wasted our tax-based resources, but has undermined U.S. economic competition for decades to come. One only needs to look at the economic development of India and China to realize that market-driven empires are far more successful and superior to the military-driven variety. In fact, we are borrowing from them to keep the lights on in the White House while the parasitic Banksters on Wall Street squeeze every last dime out of the citizens of this country.
There is NO leadership in this country and there hasn't been any for decades. As a result, the U.S. is now a morally and financially bankrupt nation.
The headline should have read:
"Nobel Peace Prize Winner Refuses to Support Landmine Ban"
Excellent!
Obama's a shadow Bush.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
He's like the hand inside the Bush II puppet that was one part David Addington and the other part Undead Dick Cheney.
Only Otoken's the hand inside without the semi-literate, folksy-demeanored puppet on the outside to serve as a conveniently dumbed-down heat shield.
Bill Clinton supported the treaty to ban landmines but never got it through Congress. He at least hoped it would be passed by 2006. The U.S. has been essentially conforming to most of the treaty obligations for several years anyway. What Obama is doing now makes no sense except for the likelihood that (A) He is trying to look generally tough on foreign policy no matter the consequences, and (B) Obama is a big purple labia who likes to play it safe by trying to "please everyone"--corporations first. He may have been reminded that Rumsfeld made too many enemies in the Pentagon and MIC and that severely limited his influence with them. Unfortunately they've already sized Obama up as a limp farfalle for the same reasons people across the American political landscape have, and they will tool him around and excoriate him no matter what he does the same way the Republicans will. Obama doesn't instill fear in the hearts of the lamest splitters in his own Party, let alone anyone else.
Signing the treaty seems like such a no-brainer. So this is exactly the kind of thing that makes me wonder about hidden agendas and hidden forces. I wish the article provided more detail other than a simplistic statement from a spokesperson. In what way would the US not be able to meet it's national security needs?
"So this is exactly the kind of thing that makes me wonder about hidden agendas and hidden forces. " –(Kane Jeeves)
–Well, "wonder" no more about the clandestinity of such things.
The only thing remotely surprising here is how many dunderheads actually believed Obama might, 'do the right thing' and sign the anti land mine treaty.
One has to give Obama and his Nobel Peace Prize credit here: Bottom feeding in the pond at Bushian depths, he proceeds to find new lows of wretchedness. Few things fit the bill for barbarity as do land mines.
The only new wrinkle here–and one that will be increasingly seen in all American policy–is that there is no longer any need whatsoever to hide the 'real' agendas of imperial fascism.
That was primarily why the puppet Obama was elected: Imperialism needed a 'face lift' or someone who could more effectively sanitize its crimes than the vulgar Bush. Now, even Obama can jettison the pretense.
Empire and imperial thinking is now so entrenched as a de facto given– not only in the elite policy making apparat– but in the mindset of the American public, that convenient rationalizations can be dispensed with entirely.
Proceed directly to the imposition of fascism without a hitch! By pass all the hypocritical rubric and cant of why fascism needs to be explained as something other than what it is.
The people cheer! –(Jill Bains)
If you think North Korea cares if several tens of thousands of its soldiers would die from crossing a minefield, I think you're very mistaken.
Oh, yes, that old song:
"You know, them thar Asiatics just don't have the same respect for life as we here in Wonderful Land do!"
No, I mean the North Korean military leadership/Kim won't give a crap.
Huh? I think you replied to the wrong post.
Weird, I replied to the reply to your post, which cited North Korea as a reason for the US needing landmines. It seems to have vanished completely, and the reply got attached to your post.
And with each passing day, the news gets worse, causing his groupies to lie about his accomplishments--like "He closed Gitmo and ended torture!" or "He brought the troops home from Iraq!
I heard this on DN! today. It pissed me off so bad. Why the hell didn't we just let Bush become the dictator-for-life he wanted to be? At least then we wouldn't have been disappointed.
How long before he buys a ranch in Crawford?
If he goes ahead and sends tens of thousands more to Afghanistan, he's finished.
The audacity of stumps.
Nothing more need be said. –(Jill Bains)
What good is being in a permanent state of war if we cannot kill and maim innocent people with impunity?
No real difference from Bush, except he is weak in every response so far.
There can be no defense of the use land mines or cluster bombs....if you saw their effects you would be ....upset...
And they are no respector of who sets them off. They as easily killyours as theirs at the time. They are still removing the landmines set by the NVA and us in Viet Nam and the mines and clusterbombs are still killing there as we speak.
"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."
What happened to the part where we wouldn't get fooled again?
a war president and we are screwed.
no, not a "war president", a "global provider of security"...
As we saw in recent Videos on CD, the ones concerning the arms cache captured by Nuristan, Afghanistan freedom fighters, from fleeing USA forces, the USA forces had USA made landmines in their arsenal.
I believe it was an Al Jezeera report.
This is simply another reason why the United States and its leaders should be brought before an international war crimes commission to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Perhaps Obama, that [alleged] agent of hope, will tell the parents whose children have been killed and maimed and crippled by land mines and cluster bombs that he saw no need to ban those obscene weapons of destruction.