

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The ongoing review of United States landmine policy should result in a decision to ban all types of antipersonnel landmines, Human Rights Watch said today. March 1, 2011, will mark 12 years since the international treaty banning antipersonnel mines became binding international law.
"The United States has not used antipersonnel mines in two decades," said Steve Goose, Arms division director at Human Rights Watch."They are a deadly relic of the past and should never be used again."
The US already follows most of the key provisions in the Mine Ban Treaty, which comprehensively bans all antipersonnel mines and requires clearance of contaminated areas and assistance to victims of the weapon. The US has not used antipersonnel mines since 1991 in the first Gulf War, has not exported them since 1992, and has not produced them since 1997. It is also the biggest donor to mine clearance and victim assistance programs around the world. But it still stockpiles millions of antipersonnel mines for potential future use.
As of January 1, under a 2004 Bush administration policy decision, the US will no longer use so-called "dumb mines" or "persistent mines" anywhere in the world, including in South Korea. These landmines, the most common type, are usually buried in the ground and remain there, awaiting a victim. The US is in the process of destroying its stockpile of more than one million of these mines.
However, the US says it reserves the right to use "smart" or "non-persistent" mines anywhere in the world. These mines have "self-destruct" features designed to blow the mine up after a period of time. The Mine Ban Treaty also prohibits these mines because they too pose unacceptable dangers to civilians. They are typically dispersed indiscriminately by aircraft or artillery in the hundreds or thousands over large areas. Many fail to explode as designed, and lay in wait for a victim or a mine clearer.
The US began a comprehensive landmine policy review in late 2009, at the direction of President Barack Obama. The Clinton administration in 1998 set the objective of joining the Mine Ban Treaty in 2006, but the Bush administration reversed course in February 2004 and announced that it did not intend to join.
Over the past year of the policy review, there have been notable expressions of support for a US ban on landmines. In November 2010, 16 Nobel Peace Prize laureates - including Mohamed ElBaradei, Shirin Ebadi, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and Jody Williams - wrote to President Obama, himself a Nobel laureate, urging a US decision to join the Mine Ban Treaty. In May 2010, 68 US Senators sent a letter to Obama expressing strong support for the ban on antipersonnel mines. Under the US constitution, a two-thirds Senate majority is necessary for the US to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty.
A total of 156 nations are parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, and another two have signed but not yet ratified. China, Russia, and the United States are among the 37 states that have not yet joined. But nearly all of those states are in de facto compliance with most of the treaty's provisions. Every NATO member except the US has foresworn the use of antipersonnel mines, as have other US allies, including Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force on March 1, 1999, just 15 months after it was negotiated - the shortest time ever for a multilateral treaty.
Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
“By safeguarding these deep-sea ecosystems within a global network of ocean sanctuaries and establishing a moratorium on deep sea mining, we can create a resilient safety net for marine life, and protect the health of our global oceans for generations to come."
Aided by a sophisticated underwater submersible, activists with Greenpeace on Wednesday set a world record for the deepest protest ever by displaying a banner 1.4 miles beneath the surface of the Arctic Ocean to oppose industrial deep-sea mining and urging protection of the world's oceans.
According to the international environmental group, the message "LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE!" was displayed 2,315 meters below sea level using a remotely operated vehicle called ‘ROV Holly.’
Executed during a deep-water survey expedition between Iceland and the island of Svalbard, the robotic hand of the submersible held up the sign in front of a hydrothermal vent field known as Loki’s Castle, which is located along the Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge that separates the Arctic Ocean's Greenland Sea from the Norwegian Sea.
"This marks the deepest banner protest in history, to speak for ecosystems that have no voice of their own," said Dr. Sandra Schöttner, chief scientist for the Deep Arctic Expedition at Greenpeace International. "World leaders have already promised to protect 30 percent of the oceans, now they must listen to the science and actually do it. We cannot meet our global goals if we also allow industrial exploitation of unexplored and vulnerable ecosystems in the deep sea. It is high time that leaders keep their promises and give the oceans a chance to recover.”
The Arctic Mid Ocean Arctic Ridge—which the group characterized as "one of Earth's least known wildernesses"—goes down to depths of up to 3000 meters. The expedition and historic protest is part of a Greenpeace campaign that is calling for the deep-sea world of hydrothermal vents like Loki's Castle and others, as well as seamounts and the "extraordinary creatures" that live in such ecosystems to be protected with the establishment of a network of marine sanctuaries.
“By safeguarding these deep-sea ecosystems within a global network of ocean sanctuaries and establishing a moratorium on deep sea mining," said Dr. Schöttner, "we can create a resilient safety net for marine life, and protect the health of our global oceans for generations to come."
Efforts to ban deep-sea mining by environmentalists, ocean stewards, and conservationists were stymied in the US with an executive order last year issued by President Donald Trump which seeks to bolster and expand the practice by the mining industry.
Trump was condemned for the move, which Greenpeace at the time called "an insult to multilateralism" due to its sidestepping of a UN-backed process designed to protect the oceans, and "a slap in the face to all the countries and millions of people around the world who oppose this dangerous industry.”
Trump's failures, however, have been counteracted at some level by other nations who have paused or put stronger protections in place when it comes to deep-sea mining. In December, Norway paused controversial plans to issue a fresh round of drilling and mining license beneath undersea areas it controls.
As part of its ongoing campaign to curb the destructive practice, Greenpeace is calling on world leaders to honor existing global climate targets, implement the UN Ocean Treaty to protect 30% of the global ocean by 2030, and establish an immediate moratorium on deep-sea mining.
“There is no version of seabed mining that is sustainable or safe,” Greenpeace Aotearoa campaigner Juressa Lee said last year. “Alongside our allies who want to protect the ocean for future generations, we will continue to say a loud and bold no to miners who want to strip the seafloor for their profit.”
"Ken Paxton embodies the broken political system that we're running against," said James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat.
Ken Paxton, the scandal-plagued Texas attorney general backed by President Donald Trump, handily won a Republican US Senate primary runoff on Tuesday, ousting incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and setting up a critical race with Democratic nominee James Talarico—who wasted no time blasting Paxton's long record of self-dealing.
"Ken Paxton embodies the broken political system that we're running against," Talarico, a Texas state representative, said in an MS NOW appearance following Paxton's victory. "He is the most corrupt politician in America. Three years ago tomorrow, he was impeached by his own party for using his public office, his position of public trust, to enrich himself and his donors at our expense."
Talarico highlighted that Paxton has been indicted on securities fraud charges and said he "has shown over and over again that he's only concerned about himself."
"And that is exactly the problem in our politics," said the Democratic candidate. "It's puppet politicians who serve themselves and their billionaire megadonors instead of serving us. It's why we can't afford anything. It's why we can't get ahead no matter how hard we work. The system is rigged by corrupt politicians like Ken Paxton. And so it's going to be all of us. It's going to be Democrats, independents, and Republicans. It's going to be urban Texans, rural Texans, suburban Texans. It's going to be all of us coming together, the people versus Ken Paxton."
Ken Paxton is the most corrupt politician in America.
He embodies the broken system we’re running against.
It’s time to come together: The People vs. Ken Paxton pic.twitter.com/xL3cckibX9
— James Talarico (@jamestalarico) May 27, 2026
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, echoed Talarico, dubbing Paxton "the most corrupt politician in America" and adding, "Calling Ken Paxton just a crook is like calling Texas summers a little bit warm."
"The guy makes Richard Nixon look like a Boy Scout," said Casar. "We cannot allow him to become a United States Senator."
The Texas Tribune noted in its coverage of the primary outcome that Paxton is "known for his checkered history of personal ethics and legal troubles: He was once indicted for felony securities fraud (charges that were later dropped) and impeached by the GOP-controlled Texas House for corruption and abuse of office (and acquitted by the Republican majority in the Senate). And he has come under fire for alleged infidelity and an accumulation of assets during his time in office."
A Wall Street Journal report published last year detailed how Paxton "went from being a middle-class lawyer to a multimillionaire during his two decades on a public official’s salary."
"Paxton, who entered state government in 2003 with a modest income and few assets, by 2018 told a lender he had amassed a net worth of about $5.5 million, not including millions in assets he and his wife had previously moved into a blind trust," the Journal reported. "The following year, Paxton reaped an additional $2.2 million gain—never previously disclosed—from his investment in a local company with a lucrative Texas state contract."
Talarico—who, if victorious in November, could be a decisive factor in helping Democrats retake control of the US Senate—said in his television appearance late Tuesday that Paxton "owns 11 homes while we can't afford one."
"Ken Paxton's net worth went up by 7,000% while our pay has been stagnant," he added. "This is not just about Ken Paxton—it's about the corrupt system that he embodies, that he represents. If we can defeat the most corrupt politician in America in this year, in this race, in this state, then we can defeat this entire corrupt system."
Noting that "70+ countries and one US state" have banned the chemical, the Michael J. Fox Foundation said that "this is a clear and critical message" to federal and state lawmakers that "the time to ban paraquat is now."
In a move cheered by advocates for public health and the environment, Vermont on Tuesday became the first US state to ban paraquat, a neurotoxic herbicide banned in over 70 countries but protected by the Trump administration despite being linked to Parkinson's disease.
Democratic Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed H. 739, which bans the sale and use of paraquat, after the legislation was passed by the state Legislature with strong bipartisan support. The ban—which contains a provision allowing for limited use of the chemical on fruit orchards through the end of 2030—is set to take effect on November 1.
As Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) campaigner Liam Sacino recently noted, the US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] acknowledges that "even a small amount" of paraquat "can be fatal, and there is no known antidote."
"The agency has also decided that due to health risks, it should never be used around home gardens, schools, recreational parks, golf courses, or playgrounds," Sacino added. "Regardless of these conclusions, the EPA still allows paraquat to be sprayed on farms, posing a potentially increased risk to those who work on the farms and live nearby."
The EPA paradoxically calls paraquat "an important tool for the control of weeds in many agricultural and non-agricultural settings," a stance promoted by the chemical industry, some of whose highly toxic products the pesticide-friendly Trump administration has designated as vital to US national security.
Ban advocates point to mounting evidence that paraquat exposure greatly increases the risk of developing Parkinson's disease, a neurodegenerative illness. One recent UCLA study found that the odds of developing Parkinson's could more than double for people living within 500 meters of paraquat application.
That study added to a body of research linking paraquat to Parkinson's that dates back to at least 2011, when National Institutes of Health researchers concluded that the brain disorder is “positively associated” with the herbicide. A 2013 paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Neurology found that exposure to paraquat roughly doubled the risk of developing Parkinson’s. In 2020, four of the world’s leading neurologists published a book citing paraquat as a cause of the ailment.
Parkinson's advocacy groups, including the Parkinson's Foundation and Michael J. Fox Foundation, hailed the Vermont ban.
The Michael J. Fox Foundation noted that "70+ countries and one US state have now banned paraquat."
"This is a clear and critical message to other states and our federal government: The time to ban paraquat is now," the group added.
Environmental groups also cheered the ban.
"We applaud Gov. Scott and the champions in the Legislature that made this moment possible that will protect all Vermonters, including farmers and children, from being exposed to this dangerous chemical,” Environmental Working Group legislative director Geoff Horsfield said in a statement.
“With Vermont leading the way, states across the country now have a clear path to end the use of one of the most toxic herbicides still on the market,” Horsfield added. “This is a turning point in the effort to protect public health from a chemical that has been tied to devastating neurological harm.”
Other states including California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania have either introduced bills to ban or strictly limit paraquat, or are considering doing so.
"We should not wait for federal action when we can act now to protect farmworkers and families," PIRG's Sacino said Tuesday.