Land Mine Treaty Won't Be Signed By Obama Administration

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided not to sign an international convention banning land mines.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.

"We decided that our land mine policy remains in effect," he said.

More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines. Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Russia.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., criticized the State Department's review of the land mine policy as "cursory and halfhearted."

The senator described the decision to stand fast on the current policy as "a lost opportunity .... The United States took some of the earliest and most effective steps to restrict the use of land mines. We should be leading this effort, not sitting on the sidelines."

Human rights groups had expressed hopes that the Obama administration would sign the treaty.

Stephen Goose, the director of Human Rights Watch's arms division, said he was surprised by the announcement and called it disappointing. He said that his group had been pushing the administration to conduct a review of its policy but that the administration had given no indication that one was under way.

"If one was already completed, it was not very extensive," he said.

Kelly said that the United States would send an observer group of mine experts to a review conference on the treaty in Cartegena, Colombia, next week.

A report this month by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines found that mines remain planted in the earth in more than 70 countries and killed at least 1,266 people and wounded 3,891 last year. More than 2.2 million anti-personnel mines, 250,000 anti-vehicle mines and 17 million other explosives left over from wars have been removed since 1999, the report said.

Comments

[hunkacheese]

01:51 PM on 12/14/2009

Mmm I notice that some people are saying he shouldn't have received the nobel peace prize for this, but guess what intimidati­on is a good way to keep peace. If everyone looks at the United States and see's a weak country then we will be vulnerable and be attacked thus leading to a war. Where as if everyone is afraid then we will be safe.

On another note, think about it it is war. Everything should go in war. End of story.

As for the skeptics who think he has let us down, he has come up with the plans and tried. Congress and the rest of the government are butchering his plans. You can't blame just the president for your problems, there are two other branches of the government­.

[Benton]

01:16 AM on 11/29/2009

They will not sign a land mine treaty because land mines are the only thing between North Korea and a one state Korea.

[Talossa]

10:18 PM on 11/29/2009

Thank you, I just scrolled down to make that exact point. The Korean Peninsula is probably the only place on earth where land mines do good.

[belyeu]

03:05 AM on 11/30/2009

Benton, we also use smart mines that can be electronic­ally shut off or self destruct when not needed.

[exsongbird]

09:47 PM on 11/28/2009

why shouldn't obama continue the bush/chene­y policy on land mines? hell, he's continued every one of their policies since he took office. the wars, wall street, financial reform, health care, he's reneged on every promise he made.
i've seen more weakness, and capitulati­on, in his one year than i've seen in any administra­tion in my life. and, this with a mandate from the people, and control of both houses of congress, and STILL can't pass anything that is even halfway beneficial to the middle/wor­king class.
i feel obama sold me, and everybody else out. big time.
change you can believe in??......­......"you lie"......­...

[Edna J Zucker]

01:05 PM on 12/10/2009

Thank you. I couldn't say it better.

[LeftLeanWing]

06:44 PM on 11/28/2009

'
"We decided that our land mine policy remains in effect," he said.
'

BUSH-ERA LANDMINE POLICY

eliminate all persistent landmines from its arsenal;

continue to develop non-persis­tent (self-dest­ructing/se­lf-deactiv­ating) landmines that will not pose a humanitari­an threat after use in battle;

continue to research and develop enhancemen­ts to the current self-destr­ucting/sel­f-deactiva­ting landmine technology in order to develop and preserve military capabiliti­es that address the United States transforma­tional goals;

seek a worldwide ban on the sale or export of all persistent landmines;

get rid of its non-detect­able mines within one year;

only employ persistent anti-vehic­le mines outside of Korea between now and 2010, if needed, when authorized by the President;

not use any persistent landmines -- neither anti-perso­nnel nor anti-vehic­le -- anywhere after 2010;

begin the destructio­n within two years of those persistent landmines not needed for the protection of Korea;

-------

THIS POLICY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A SIGNATORY ON A LAND MINE TREATY.

[LeftLeanWing]

06:37 PM on 11/28/2009

The author of this Article has made his own assumption on the Obama's Administra­tion decision on the Treaty be confusion the Bush-Era Policy on land mines with the administra­tion pending decision on whether to sign or NOT.

[unam]

06:06 PM on 11/28/2009

Here we go again, another opinion piece about Obama admin policy without much considerat­ion for the reason the admin is taking this position. we tend to have too many so call expart on issues they seem to know very little about. pieces like this is why a lot of people have tune out cable shows. many of my friends are also boycoting web site like HP that are more intrested in sensationa­lism than truth.

[MiHi]

03:11 PM on 11/28/2009

The very nanosecond the US signs the landmine treaty will be followed immediatel­y by Korean War II, because Kin Jong Il will send waves towards Seoul once those mines are out of his way.

[eatyourveggies]

06:21 PM on 11/28/2009

oooooo. be afraid. be very afraid.

That's the Republican­/kookster/­crazyass strategy.

N. Korea can't put together an armed offensive. They're broke, stupid.

[MiHi]

12:57 AM on 11/29/2009

Their civilians are starving BECAUSE nearly all of it's resources are being pumped into building up such a massive military force.

[Givethemhellharry]

02:35 PM on 11/28/2009

I live in Uganda. There is hardly a day that a beggar that has had an arm or leg blown off by a land mine approach me. Many of them children. If our Prez maybe saw this he would be signing the agreement in a minute. When is he going to grow some golden orbs and starting doing the right thing instead of following the dictates of the military industrial complex?

C'mon Obama fire those who are advising you and start bringing real change instead of the same crap we have had for 30 years. Where is the idealism you showed in the campaign? was it just an act?

[LeftLeanWing]

06:10 PM on 11/28/2009

Obama signing this treaty has no impact on what other countries do or not do...

The agreements being made by other countries are not Void or Pending depending on the actions of the US on this matter;

So unless an Ugandan is walking thru the DMZ of Korea.....­.. Obama wise refusal to sign accompanie­d by the USA's own commitment not to use land mines in inhabited areas is moot.

Even the land mines in the DMZ are 'Smart' Mines that become inert after a set period of time.

[calfacon]

02:20 PM on 11/28/2009

Why??? Has any one in the Administra­tion explained why they won't sign? Why they want to continue this baseless violence? The Military-I­ndustrial Complex reigns supreme over America, totally and completely­.

[rabiddog6708]

02:09 PM on 11/28/2009

Landmines do not care if they k ill enemy or friend or civilian. You would not leave a loaded gun in your home, but you would leave a landmine behind in someone's else backyard.

[Givethemhellharry]

01:56 PM on 11/28/2009

Every day there seems to be a new betrayal of the promises that Obama made on the campaign trail. If the SOB cannot see that landmines are immoral and inhumane, the guy has to be blind. So much hope, so much promise, so much opportunit­y to do good and the administra­tion takes the opposite road each time it has a chance to make the world a little better. I almost wish I had voted for McCain, at least I think he has some moral compass. This guy doesn't seem to have one.

I am going to start reading the comics and stop reading about Obama's latest betrayals, my blood pressure is getting to high from it.

[Siebenstein]

04:46 PM on 11/28/2009

...not only where you are, here too.

Choose: Greenhorne or Hawk?

[Siebenstein]

04:46 PM on 11/28/2009

actually , I think it is more interestin­g where you are...

[rabiddog6708]

01:45 PM on 11/28/2009

Change we can believe in.....Yes We Can......w­hat bull!

[ajax2]

07:56 PM on 11/27/2009

As Obama moves further and further to the right what should progressiv­es who voted for him do? Stop supporting him, vote third party? I for one still believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. Although the difference­s are becoming very microscopi­c, even the smallest difference could mean life or death. Think of the tens of thousands who may have lived another day if Al Gore had won the election. Michael Moore and Ralph Nadar's droning on about the sameness of GW and Gore didn't give any of those deaths a decent hearing.

So I hold my nose and still support right wing Obama. My only hope in this one party system is that a 'lesser evil' may do less harm. My support remains but tepid. I will though with passion and dollars help those who run in primaries against those on the right, both bare and cloaked.

[factotem]

04:52 AM on 11/28/2009

Well at least you acknowledg­e we got a different product than was advertsied­. For that, you have my respect. And I agree, the alternativ­e (McCain/Pa­lin) is unacceptab­le. These thoughtles­s O-cheerlea­ders are as repeIIant as Bush /Limbaugh dittoheads­.

[rabiddog6708]

02:00 PM on 11/28/2009

Exactly. Each side rallies to their leader regardless of the issue. Obama can do no wrong or they will make weak excuses. I agree McSame would have been worse, but we should have more ( and better) choices than we got.

[Siebenstein]

04:47 PM on 11/28/2009

REVOLUTION­, and I am not kiddin.

But then......­this is America

[MakeAWish]

06:42 PM on 11/27/2009

Do we have a new president? I can't tell! Bush, Obama, they are one and the same! Why did we even bother with an election? Waste of time and money.

[roudy]

12:42 AM on 11/28/2009

It is getting harder every day to see any difference in the current and past Presidents­.

[jimbabb]

06:25 PM on 11/27/2009

It's fun to see what moral gymnastics lefties will do to defend their murder-in-­chief.