Clinton Spurns Global Ban On Land Mines U.S. Has Yet To Find Alternative To Defend Troops In South Korea
Risking scorn from U.S. allies and humanitarian groups, President Clinton rejected Wednesday a draft treaty to ban land mines, citing Pentagon concerns that phasing out the weapons too rapidly would endanger U.S. troops.
Clinton’s decision to withdraw from the negotiations in Oslo, Norway, came after other countries rebuffed a monthlong U.S. effort to insert exceptions and delays in the land mine treaty. The other nations said the changes would gut the treaty, known as the Ottawa initiative.
Citing the “unique responsibilities” the United States has as a superpower with troops deployed around the world, Clinton said he cannot agree to a ban that takes effect before the United States has a chance to develop alternatives to land mines for use in places such as South Korea, where thousands of mines are deployed along the Demilitarized Zone to protect U.S. troops.
Disputing suggestions that the United States has not done enough to ban land mines, Clinton said: “We went the extra mile and beyond to sign this treaty, … but there is a line that I simply cannot cross. And that line is the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”
The move to ban land mines received additional public attention in recent weeks after the death of Princess Diana, who spoke out for the treaty.
Seeking to ease criticism of the U.S. rejection, Clinton on Wednesday announced several moves. He said the United States would unilaterally stop using land mines, everywhere but Korea, in 2003, and by 2006 in Korea.
He ordered a study of alternatives to land mines, more money for U.S. efforts to deactivate mines around the world and a new effort to seek a ban through the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.
Clinton called for global elimination of land mines in 1994 and announced during last year’s presidential campaign that the United States would gradually eliminate most of its stockpile. But the U.S. phase-out does not include Korea. Nor has the Pentagon agreed to stop using “smart mines,” which are designed to self-deactivate usually 48 hours after being deployed, to prevent civilian casualties.
The United States argues that its smart mines are not causing the humanitarian problem.
Without the United States as a signatory, the treaty now includes almost none of the world’s major producers and users of land mines. Russia, China, India and Pakistan did not attend the negotiations. The United States decided to come only last month and, critics contend, was never serious about reaching a deal.
“It’s deeply disappointing to us,” said Michael Leveck, associate director of the Vietnam Veterans of America, organizer of the U.S. coalition supporting the treaty. The Clinton administration “never went in with anything acceptable to the other countries, and we’re fairly convinced that they knew that.”
U.S. officials went to Oslo seeking an explicit exception that would allow U.S. mines to remain in place in South Korea. They also said the United States would support deferring the effective date of the treaty for nine years after ratification, to give the Pentagon time to come up with comparable alternative weapons. Since the treaty already contained a 10-year phaseout once in force, the U.S. proposal, in effect, would have delayed the date for compliance with the ban for as long as 19 years.
The demands, which needed the support of two-thirds of the 100 nations attending, proved too far-reaching for most delegates.
The International Red Cross says that mines remaining in the ground, sometimes long after wars are over, kill and maim 26,000 people a year.
xxxx STATUS OF TREATY? Eighty-nine countries gave tentative approval to the draft text Wednesday. The ban, expected to be signed in Canada in December, would take effect after it is ratified in at least 40 countries, a process expected to take several years.