EDITORIAL Has U.S. given up on land mine ban?
It is with mixed feelings we witness the International Treaty on
Landmines take effect March 1. It is gratifying that 133 nations have signed
the treaty, pledging resources and money to clear the more than 100 million
antipersonnel land mines that kill or maim thousands of soldiers and civilians
every year.
At the same time, it is distressing that the United States is not
among them. Not only are we not signing the treaty, but, according to recent
news reports, the Clinton Administration is seeking nearly $50 million from
Congress this year for a new type of artillery-fired land mine system designed
to blow up tanks and people.
The procurement request raises questions about whether Clinton
quietly has given up trying to comply with the global ban on the notoriously
indiscriminate explosives. The United States has refused to sign the accord
adopted in Ottawa in 1997, arguing that it needs antipersonnel mines to protect
South Korea from North Korea.
Clinton has said the government would ban antipersonnel land mines
everywhere but on the Korean peninsula by 2003, and then at that frontier by
2006 -- if alternatives could be found. But the presidents 2000 defense
budget request casts new doubts on our nations conditional commitment to
the Ottawa treaty.
Buried in the budget proposal is a request that would authorize
$48.3 million to be spent on a new military system that would combine in a
single artillery canister an existing antipersonnel mine with an anti-tank
mine.
The treaty bans the production, use, stockpiling or transport of
antipersonnel mines. The small devices, some costing no more than $3, have been
used in more than 60 countries and remain deadly long after battles end.
Support for the treaty was built up with surprising speed by
citizens groups, and then crystallized by their work, and later,
ironically, by the death of Princess Diana of Wales, who had actively
campaigned for the treaty.
National Catholic Reporter, March 5,
1999
|