Reply #15: US Refuses to sign Landmine treaty.... [View All]

Here's some background. As far as I know they have STILL not signed it.

U.S. Loses Moral Ground on Land Mine Ban
by Bob Keeler

Nearly five years after the ceremonial signing of an international treaty to ban land mines, these deadly seeds planted malevolently in the earth continue to bear bloody fruit around the world: severed limbs, broken lives, shattered families.

And still, the United States refuses to join 129 other nations that have already ratified the treaty. Once again, our government's ungovernable urge to go it alone casts the nation in the role of pariah.

Former President Bill Clinton deserves a major share of the blame, for failing to override the Pentagon's argument that the treaty would somehow endanger the defense of South Korea. But last year, eight senior retired U.S. commanders, including men who had led troops in Korea, wrote to President George W. Bush and argued that land mines were not needed in Korea. In fact, they'd slow the response by the United States and South Korea to any invasion from the North. (Right now both Koreas are removing land mines along the demilitarized zone that separates them.)

Before leaving office, Clinton did say that the United States would join the treaty by 2006, provided the nation can find "alternatives" to antipersonnel land mines. After Bush took office, his administration began a review of the policy. The Department of Defense has already recommended that the United States abandon any plans to join the treaty. The policy is still under study, but advocates for the treaty fear that Bush, the ultimate unilateralist cowboy, will reject even Clinton's feeble plan for America to do the right thing eventually.

The truth is that the protection of Korea is not the real reason for the Pentagon's intransigence. What the generals really fear is the precedent that joining the treaty would set: If a bunch of civilians can band together and force the Pentagon to abandon one of its weapons, then none of its weapons would be safe. So this is not about Korea at all. It's about generals protecting their toys from rampaging peacemakers.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1021-04.htm