Dr.Feelgood
Proud Member
This week, the Obama administration revealed that the President wouldn't be signing the Mine Ban Treaty.
Cue international uproar.
Within twenty-four hours, however, the administration clarified its position, saying that Obama wouldn't be signing the treaty yet, as the review of both the treaty and U.S. policy is still on-going. Does this signal more of the same attitude toward landmines as was seen during the Bush years, or does it leave the way open for change? And how close are we to that change if this is the case?
The news came Tuesday from State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, who, in his midday briefing, responded to a question over the Mine Ban Treaty by saying:
"This administration undertook a policy review and we decided our landmine policy remains in effect. We made our policy review and 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 sign this convention."
This is surprising because, as the Washington Post notes, existing U.S. policy on mines sees it adhering to most of the treaty anyway, with the exception that the U.S. continues to maintain a stockpile of an estimated 10 million mines, which would have to be relinquished under the accord.
This aspect of the treaty did not sit well with former President Bush, and it still does not agree with many in the Pentagon, and certainly a great many Republicans in Congress.
NATO allies (all of whom have signed the treaty, with Poland to ratify in 2012) and human rights groups alike, have said they were both shocked and surprised to learn that the US would yet again refuse to sign the treaty, mostly because no one outside of the administration even knew that a review of the policy had taken place, though information that a review was in the offing had been past about.
Secondly, groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) point out that a refusal to sign the Mine Ban Treaty seems at odds with Obama's previously stated international policy surrounding humanitarian issues.
How so? Well, the Mine Ban Treaty stops countries using, stockpiling, producing or transferring antipersonnel mines. It's been endorsed by 156 countries so far, but several countries are still to sign, including Russia, China and, chief among them, the United States.
When Obama became President, the general consensus was that he would be likely to sign the treaty as a means of showing that the U.S. wanted greater participation in the international community in the post Bush years. Perhaps it is for this reason that there was such an uproar on what appeared to be a flat-out refusal of the treaty.
The U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines group "slammed" the administration, saying:
"Some U.S. officials have cited the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as reasons for not joining the treaty. However, both of these countries are States Parties to the treaty, and as parties have not only banned antipersonnel landmines, but are also prohibited from assisting the United States in any way with use of landmines. The Obama administration’s decision is even more baffling given that the U.S. is already in de facto compliance with most of the treaty’s provisions. "
Steve Goose, director of HRW's Arms Division, also condemned the announcement, adding:
"This decision lacks vision, compassion, and basic common sense, and contradicts the Obama administration's professed emphasis on multilateralism, disarmament, and humanitarian affairs".
Senator Patrick Leahy had some harsh words of criticism for the administration too, saying that the decision constituted "default of U.S. leadership". He also called the rather cloak and dagger review of policy "cursory and half-hearted".
Within a twenty-four hour period, though, the Obama administration had a point or two to clarify about its stance on the Mine Ban Treaty.
Ian Kelly was quick to reaffirm that the review was still "on-going", and that, because the U.S. stance on mines had not been reviewed since 1993 (thanks to Bush rescinding the 2006 treaty commitment President Clinton had made), a review would take some time. The administration was also keen to reinforce:
"The U.S. is proud to be the world's single largest supporter of humanitarian mine action. Since 1993 the U.S. has provided more than $1.5 billion worldwide dedicated to building new partnerships with more than 50 post-conflict countries and supporting efforts by dozens of NGOs to promote stability and set the stage for recovery and development through mine clearance and conventional-weapons destruction programs."
A ray of light peeking through this murky affair makes me ask: Was this the absolute best time for this slip-up to occur? Next week, representatives for the administration are in Cartagena, Colombia, for an international conference on landmines, the Cartagena Summit on a Mine Free World. The U.S. are there as observers only, but with this timely bit of turbulence, now there's pressure. Now there's friction. An impetus, even, for the Obama administration to stop stalling and start acting on this issue.
But why is this treaty so important? The treaty, also known as the Ottawa Treaty, calls for a ban on antipersonnel landmines. Why? It's the civilian cost that is a key player here. These mines maim and kill people in the region that they were deployed in long after the conflict has ended.
That's just the one of the reasons why these mines are bad news, bad policy and bad relations. Here are some more:
* With landmines in the ground, relief aid meant for those in disaster areas and war torn regions is slowed, or perhaps even prevented, because the ground becomes potentially lethal to cross.
* Landmines make much needed farming, grazing and irrigation lands inaccessible, severely hampering the local population's ability to recover and sustain recovery after conflict.
* Landmines increase the risk to aide workers who go to help in post-conflict zones, sometimes preventing them from reaching the people that are in desperate need of help all together.
* Many would contend that there is an unacceptable risk to U.S. military personnel where landmines are concerned, noting that thousands of soldiers have been injured or killed by mines in every U.S. involved conflict since World War II.
* Tragically, it is often children who are the victims of landmines, with UNICEF estimating that around 30-40 percent of mine victims are children under the age of 15, which leads to years of painful rehabilitation and a lifetime of disfigurement, if they have a lifetime left, that is. The non-human victims of landmines shouldn't be forgotten either.
* Lastly, a 1996 study demonstrated that landmines were not an effective or necessary part of military strength, leading to long held support for the rejection of mine use from a growing section of the military.
As mentioned above, the U.S. already adheres to most of the accord. So can we expect Obama to sign on in the near future? All hope is not lost, but his signing the treaty won't be immediate, no. I predict a holding pattern on all sides until the health care reform bill is passed. As Don Kraus, CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions noted, when it comes to these kinds of decisive issues:
"It's more a question of timing than commitment. There's limited bandwidth in terms of what the administration and the Senate can do at any one time."
That doesn't mean we have to wait, however. While Obama collects his Nobel Peace Prize next week, we can gently remind him of the commitments he made to human rights that won him that prestigious honor.
To Take Action go to:
Care2:The Petition Site
Cue international uproar.
Within twenty-four hours, however, the administration clarified its position, saying that Obama wouldn't be signing the treaty yet, as the review of both the treaty and U.S. policy is still on-going. Does this signal more of the same attitude toward landmines as was seen during the Bush years, or does it leave the way open for change? And how close are we to that change if this is the case?
The news came Tuesday from State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, who, in his midday briefing, responded to a question over the Mine Ban Treaty by saying:
"This administration undertook a policy review and we decided our landmine policy remains in effect. We made our policy review and 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 sign this convention."
This is surprising because, as the Washington Post notes, existing U.S. policy on mines sees it adhering to most of the treaty anyway, with the exception that the U.S. continues to maintain a stockpile of an estimated 10 million mines, which would have to be relinquished under the accord.
This aspect of the treaty did not sit well with former President Bush, and it still does not agree with many in the Pentagon, and certainly a great many Republicans in Congress.
NATO allies (all of whom have signed the treaty, with Poland to ratify in 2012) and human rights groups alike, have said they were both shocked and surprised to learn that the US would yet again refuse to sign the treaty, mostly because no one outside of the administration even knew that a review of the policy had taken place, though information that a review was in the offing had been past about.
Secondly, groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) point out that a refusal to sign the Mine Ban Treaty seems at odds with Obama's previously stated international policy surrounding humanitarian issues.
How so? Well, the Mine Ban Treaty stops countries using, stockpiling, producing or transferring antipersonnel mines. It's been endorsed by 156 countries so far, but several countries are still to sign, including Russia, China and, chief among them, the United States.
When Obama became President, the general consensus was that he would be likely to sign the treaty as a means of showing that the U.S. wanted greater participation in the international community in the post Bush years. Perhaps it is for this reason that there was such an uproar on what appeared to be a flat-out refusal of the treaty.
The U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines group "slammed" the administration, saying:
"Some U.S. officials have cited the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as reasons for not joining the treaty. However, both of these countries are States Parties to the treaty, and as parties have not only banned antipersonnel landmines, but are also prohibited from assisting the United States in any way with use of landmines. The Obama administration’s decision is even more baffling given that the U.S. is already in de facto compliance with most of the treaty’s provisions. "
Steve Goose, director of HRW's Arms Division, also condemned the announcement, adding:
"This decision lacks vision, compassion, and basic common sense, and contradicts the Obama administration's professed emphasis on multilateralism, disarmament, and humanitarian affairs".
Senator Patrick Leahy had some harsh words of criticism for the administration too, saying that the decision constituted "default of U.S. leadership". He also called the rather cloak and dagger review of policy "cursory and half-hearted".
Within a twenty-four hour period, though, the Obama administration had a point or two to clarify about its stance on the Mine Ban Treaty.
Ian Kelly was quick to reaffirm that the review was still "on-going", and that, because the U.S. stance on mines had not been reviewed since 1993 (thanks to Bush rescinding the 2006 treaty commitment President Clinton had made), a review would take some time. The administration was also keen to reinforce:
"The U.S. is proud to be the world's single largest supporter of humanitarian mine action. Since 1993 the U.S. has provided more than $1.5 billion worldwide dedicated to building new partnerships with more than 50 post-conflict countries and supporting efforts by dozens of NGOs to promote stability and set the stage for recovery and development through mine clearance and conventional-weapons destruction programs."
A ray of light peeking through this murky affair makes me ask: Was this the absolute best time for this slip-up to occur? Next week, representatives for the administration are in Cartagena, Colombia, for an international conference on landmines, the Cartagena Summit on a Mine Free World. The U.S. are there as observers only, but with this timely bit of turbulence, now there's pressure. Now there's friction. An impetus, even, for the Obama administration to stop stalling and start acting on this issue.
But why is this treaty so important? The treaty, also known as the Ottawa Treaty, calls for a ban on antipersonnel landmines. Why? It's the civilian cost that is a key player here. These mines maim and kill people in the region that they were deployed in long after the conflict has ended.
That's just the one of the reasons why these mines are bad news, bad policy and bad relations. Here are some more:
* With landmines in the ground, relief aid meant for those in disaster areas and war torn regions is slowed, or perhaps even prevented, because the ground becomes potentially lethal to cross.
* Landmines make much needed farming, grazing and irrigation lands inaccessible, severely hampering the local population's ability to recover and sustain recovery after conflict.
* Landmines increase the risk to aide workers who go to help in post-conflict zones, sometimes preventing them from reaching the people that are in desperate need of help all together.
* Many would contend that there is an unacceptable risk to U.S. military personnel where landmines are concerned, noting that thousands of soldiers have been injured or killed by mines in every U.S. involved conflict since World War II.
* Tragically, it is often children who are the victims of landmines, with UNICEF estimating that around 30-40 percent of mine victims are children under the age of 15, which leads to years of painful rehabilitation and a lifetime of disfigurement, if they have a lifetime left, that is. The non-human victims of landmines shouldn't be forgotten either.
* Lastly, a 1996 study demonstrated that landmines were not an effective or necessary part of military strength, leading to long held support for the rejection of mine use from a growing section of the military.
As mentioned above, the U.S. already adheres to most of the accord. So can we expect Obama to sign on in the near future? All hope is not lost, but his signing the treaty won't be immediate, no. I predict a holding pattern on all sides until the health care reform bill is passed. As Don Kraus, CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions noted, when it comes to these kinds of decisive issues:
"It's more a question of timing than commitment. There's limited bandwidth in terms of what the administration and the Senate can do at any one time."
That doesn't mean we have to wait, however. While Obama collects his Nobel Peace Prize next week, we can gently remind him of the commitments he made to human rights that won him that prestigious honor.
To Take Action go to:
Care2:The Petition Site