To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
U.S. soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment collect US landmines, in the northern city of Mosul, Iraq on January 8, 2005. (Photo: Mauricio Lima/AFP via Getty Images)
Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly revealed that President Barack Obama would follow in President George W. Bush's footsteps and not sign the international Mine Ban Treaty. Many of us had hoped he would embrace President Bill Clinton's pledge that the U.S. would join.
The 1997 treaty was a landmark accomplishment. For the first time, a group of governments and civil institutions joined together to ban a conventional weapon that had been used by virtually every fighting force for decades.
Today, 156 nations are party to the treaty -- including Afghanistan, Australia, Indonesia, Japan, all of Europe except Finland (Poland has signed but not yet ratified), all of sub-Saharan Africa except Somalia, almost half of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa (including Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and Algeria), and the entire Western Hemisphere, except for the United States and Cuba.
Kelly's startling revelation came during a briefing in advance of a treaty review conference in Cartagena, Colombia. As he explained: "This administration undertook a policy review, and we decided our land mine policy remains in effect."
A leader of my organization, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, called another State Department official after the disclosure looking for more information. Could it really be true that the U.S. would remain outside one of the most inclusive and comprehensive treaties put together in the past 50 years? The official confirmed that the review was over and that the Bush policy would prevail.
The next day, after an immediate firestorm of protest, Kelly backtracked, saying a review was "still under way." This weak attempt at damage control is hardly credible and has been discounted even by land-mine-ban champion Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt. The best hope now is that the outcry is loud enough that the administration will revisit the issue and conduct an open and meaningful review of existing policy. But the possibility of policy change remains highly uncertain.
So why won't the U.S. be joining so many of its allies in renouncing land mines?
"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," Kelly said in the briefing.
This is absurd. And given the hush-hush nature of a review excluding almost everyone involved in the land mine issue, the real reasons remain unclear. Surely the administration has no intention of defending the homeland with antipersonnel land mines? All of its major allies -- including the 27 other NATO members -- have signed the treaty. It remains unclear, then, which commitments to which friends and allies Kelly refers to.
Perhaps South Korea? The Clinton argument for not signing the treaty immediately was that land mines are heavily used in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. As we pointed out then, however, and as remains true, land mines are not effective weapons of deterrence, particularly in the case of an outright attack on South Korea by the North. Even if they were, the land mines in the DMZ are South Korean, not American, and therefore would be unaffected by Obama's joining the Mine Ban Treaty.
Obama's position on land mines calls into question his expressed views on multilateralism, respect for international humanitarian law and disarmament. How can he, with credibility, lead the world to nuclear disarmament when his own country won't give up even land mines?
When a colleague called after Kelly's briefing to give me the news about the continuation of our shameful land mine policy, half of me couldn't believe it -- but the other half wasn't surprised at all.
I voted for Obama. I wanted to believe that his soaring rhetoric might actually be turned into a revival for the U.S. on issues of multilateralism, international humanitarian law and, of course, human rights. But at the moment, I'm disillusioned.
This administration has seemed all too willing to put aside human rights in the service of political expediency. Its response to Iran's post-election crackdown on nonviolent protest was wishy-washy; its response to the illegal Honduran coup has been weak, ineffective and disregarded a huge spike in human rights violations there. Then there was Obama's decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama to avoid upsetting Chinese leaders before his recent visit there.
If human rights are of so little importance to the president and his administration, why would they worry about international humanitarian law? Is that the unspoken reasoning behind land mine policy? Or is it reluctance to ruffle military feathers?
A shrinking number of countries -- including China, Russia, India and Pakistan -- have not joined the Mine Ban Treaty. When will the U.S. join the rest of the world in banning these insidious weapons of terror that have caused so much heartbreak and devastation?
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly revealed that President Barack Obama would follow in President George W. Bush's footsteps and not sign the international Mine Ban Treaty. Many of us had hoped he would embrace President Bill Clinton's pledge that the U.S. would join.
The 1997 treaty was a landmark accomplishment. For the first time, a group of governments and civil institutions joined together to ban a conventional weapon that had been used by virtually every fighting force for decades.
Today, 156 nations are party to the treaty -- including Afghanistan, Australia, Indonesia, Japan, all of Europe except Finland (Poland has signed but not yet ratified), all of sub-Saharan Africa except Somalia, almost half of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa (including Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and Algeria), and the entire Western Hemisphere, except for the United States and Cuba.
Kelly's startling revelation came during a briefing in advance of a treaty review conference in Cartagena, Colombia. As he explained: "This administration undertook a policy review, and we decided our land mine policy remains in effect."
A leader of my organization, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, called another State Department official after the disclosure looking for more information. Could it really be true that the U.S. would remain outside one of the most inclusive and comprehensive treaties put together in the past 50 years? The official confirmed that the review was over and that the Bush policy would prevail.
The next day, after an immediate firestorm of protest, Kelly backtracked, saying a review was "still under way." This weak attempt at damage control is hardly credible and has been discounted even by land-mine-ban champion Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt. The best hope now is that the outcry is loud enough that the administration will revisit the issue and conduct an open and meaningful review of existing policy. But the possibility of policy change remains highly uncertain.
So why won't the U.S. be joining so many of its allies in renouncing land mines?
"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," Kelly said in the briefing.
This is absurd. And given the hush-hush nature of a review excluding almost everyone involved in the land mine issue, the real reasons remain unclear. Surely the administration has no intention of defending the homeland with antipersonnel land mines? All of its major allies -- including the 27 other NATO members -- have signed the treaty. It remains unclear, then, which commitments to which friends and allies Kelly refers to.
Perhaps South Korea? The Clinton argument for not signing the treaty immediately was that land mines are heavily used in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. As we pointed out then, however, and as remains true, land mines are not effective weapons of deterrence, particularly in the case of an outright attack on South Korea by the North. Even if they were, the land mines in the DMZ are South Korean, not American, and therefore would be unaffected by Obama's joining the Mine Ban Treaty.
Obama's position on land mines calls into question his expressed views on multilateralism, respect for international humanitarian law and disarmament. How can he, with credibility, lead the world to nuclear disarmament when his own country won't give up even land mines?
When a colleague called after Kelly's briefing to give me the news about the continuation of our shameful land mine policy, half of me couldn't believe it -- but the other half wasn't surprised at all.
I voted for Obama. I wanted to believe that his soaring rhetoric might actually be turned into a revival for the U.S. on issues of multilateralism, international humanitarian law and, of course, human rights. But at the moment, I'm disillusioned.
This administration has seemed all too willing to put aside human rights in the service of political expediency. Its response to Iran's post-election crackdown on nonviolent protest was wishy-washy; its response to the illegal Honduran coup has been weak, ineffective and disregarded a huge spike in human rights violations there. Then there was Obama's decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama to avoid upsetting Chinese leaders before his recent visit there.
If human rights are of so little importance to the president and his administration, why would they worry about international humanitarian law? Is that the unspoken reasoning behind land mine policy? Or is it reluctance to ruffle military feathers?
A shrinking number of countries -- including China, Russia, India and Pakistan -- have not joined the Mine Ban Treaty. When will the U.S. join the rest of the world in banning these insidious weapons of terror that have caused so much heartbreak and devastation?
Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly revealed that President Barack Obama would follow in President George W. Bush's footsteps and not sign the international Mine Ban Treaty. Many of us had hoped he would embrace President Bill Clinton's pledge that the U.S. would join.
The 1997 treaty was a landmark accomplishment. For the first time, a group of governments and civil institutions joined together to ban a conventional weapon that had been used by virtually every fighting force for decades.
Today, 156 nations are party to the treaty -- including Afghanistan, Australia, Indonesia, Japan, all of Europe except Finland (Poland has signed but not yet ratified), all of sub-Saharan Africa except Somalia, almost half of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa (including Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and Algeria), and the entire Western Hemisphere, except for the United States and Cuba.
Kelly's startling revelation came during a briefing in advance of a treaty review conference in Cartagena, Colombia. As he explained: "This administration undertook a policy review, and we decided our land mine policy remains in effect."
A leader of my organization, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, called another State Department official after the disclosure looking for more information. Could it really be true that the U.S. would remain outside one of the most inclusive and comprehensive treaties put together in the past 50 years? The official confirmed that the review was over and that the Bush policy would prevail.
The next day, after an immediate firestorm of protest, Kelly backtracked, saying a review was "still under way." This weak attempt at damage control is hardly credible and has been discounted even by land-mine-ban champion Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt. The best hope now is that the outcry is loud enough that the administration will revisit the issue and conduct an open and meaningful review of existing policy. But the possibility of policy change remains highly uncertain.
So why won't the U.S. be joining so many of its allies in renouncing land mines?
"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," Kelly said in the briefing.
This is absurd. And given the hush-hush nature of a review excluding almost everyone involved in the land mine issue, the real reasons remain unclear. Surely the administration has no intention of defending the homeland with antipersonnel land mines? All of its major allies -- including the 27 other NATO members -- have signed the treaty. It remains unclear, then, which commitments to which friends and allies Kelly refers to.
Perhaps South Korea? The Clinton argument for not signing the treaty immediately was that land mines are heavily used in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. As we pointed out then, however, and as remains true, land mines are not effective weapons of deterrence, particularly in the case of an outright attack on South Korea by the North. Even if they were, the land mines in the DMZ are South Korean, not American, and therefore would be unaffected by Obama's joining the Mine Ban Treaty.
Obama's position on land mines calls into question his expressed views on multilateralism, respect for international humanitarian law and disarmament. How can he, with credibility, lead the world to nuclear disarmament when his own country won't give up even land mines?
When a colleague called after Kelly's briefing to give me the news about the continuation of our shameful land mine policy, half of me couldn't believe it -- but the other half wasn't surprised at all.
I voted for Obama. I wanted to believe that his soaring rhetoric might actually be turned into a revival for the U.S. on issues of multilateralism, international humanitarian law and, of course, human rights. But at the moment, I'm disillusioned.
This administration has seemed all too willing to put aside human rights in the service of political expediency. Its response to Iran's post-election crackdown on nonviolent protest was wishy-washy; its response to the illegal Honduran coup has been weak, ineffective and disregarded a huge spike in human rights violations there. Then there was Obama's decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama to avoid upsetting Chinese leaders before his recent visit there.
If human rights are of so little importance to the president and his administration, why would they worry about international humanitarian law? Is that the unspoken reasoning behind land mine policy? Or is it reluctance to ruffle military feathers?
A shrinking number of countries -- including China, Russia, India and Pakistan -- have not joined the Mine Ban Treaty. When will the U.S. join the rest of the world in banning these insidious weapons of terror that have caused so much heartbreak and devastation?