|
Major Newspapers Call on Bush to Ban Landmines Landmines: Ban This Horrific Weapon Banning Landmines Fights Terrorism LANDMINES: Now is Time to Join Ban US Disgracefully Refuses to Join International
Treaty Another War, Another Round of Land Mines? Fehribach and Fishman: Using land mines offers
no benefits to U.S. military U.S. Use of Land Mines Would be Mistake A Clear and Present Danger U.S. Loses Moral Ground on Land
Mine Ban The
Killing Fields/Bush Shouldn't Back Out of a Land Mine Pact U.S.
Should Support Ban on Land Mines Hollywood
Sends A Message: Sign the Mine Ban Treaty Banning
Land Mines Don't
Heed Pentagon On Mines No
Going Back on Landmines U.S.
Must Sign Land Mine Treaty The
Angola Mirror Will
This President Ban Land Mines? The
Scourge of Land Mines The
Hidden Enemies Friday,
June 2, 2003, The Oregonian's On-line Edition, Slightly Edited With the September 11th attacks and continued acts of terrorism around the world, our collective focus on international acts of violence against the innocent has never been more acute. It fits then that we take an honest look at the terror caused by landmines –a weapon that does not know the difference between the foot of soldier and that of a child. In the tiny east African country of Eritrea alone, warring factions have planted an estimated 2 million landmines, representing one landmine for every two citizens. Tens of thousands of Eritrean refugees wanting to return home after the end of the most recent conflict with Ethiopia have been delayed due to the dangers of landmines. Large areas of land remain unfarmable because of mines or the perceived threat of mines. In addition, a severe drought emergency currently puts some 1.5 million people at risk of starvation, according to the World Health Organization. Many families wander unknowingly in mined areas searching for food - experiencing the horrors of hunger and mine explosions at the same time. Eritrea is but one example of a place where the presence of this indiscriminate weapon of terror continues to threaten poor civilians who have extremely limited access to medical care. Annually, landmines maim and kill 15-20,000 people each year and threaten the every-day life of millions more in over 80 countries. There are 147 countries that have joined the Mine Ban Treaty, which prohibits the use, trade, production and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. Every member of NATO except the United States has embraced the convention. Since the early 1990s when the international mine ban movement began to take hold, the number of mine-producing countries dropped from 54 to 14. Trade of the weapon has come almost to a halt. Sixty-one nations have destroyed more than 34 million antipersonnel landmines from their arsenals. Most importantly, casualty rates from the weapon have dropped about 30 percent. But there is still much work to be done. More than 40 nations still have not joined the treaty. Three members of the UN Security Council – the US, China, and Russia– are among the non-signatories, and have a combined 180 million landmines in stockpiles. US refusal to ban AP mines to date gives political cover to countries such as Russia, India, and Pakistan that have laid hundreds of thousands of mines in recent times, with devastating consequences for innocent people. We understand that US forces did not plant new antipersonnel mines in Iraq during the recent fighting, despite evidence of tens of thousands of US mines stockpiled in the region. Reportedly, US forces have not laid antipersonnel landmines since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, nor since the majority of the world banned the weapon in 1997. That the US military even considered using AP mines in Iraq this time, however, hurts global momentum to fully eradicate the weapon. The US military recently announced one of its first major post-war humanitarian assistance efforts, a 3-year, $25 million emergency demining program in Iraq. This contribution, and similar ones in other mine-affected countries, is vital. However, it is inconsistent for our government to commit to clearing mines while retaining the right to use them. Early in his Presidency, President Bush ordered a complete review of US landmine policy. As part of this review, the Defense Department recommended to the President that the US abandon all efforts to join the Mine Ban Treaty. In response, 124 Members of the House of Representatives –both Democrats and Republicans– sent a letter to President Bush urging him to not accept these DOD recommendations and to move towards joining the treaty. Oregon Congressmen David Wu, Earl Blumenauer, and Peter DeFazio should be applauded for having signed this letter. A group of retired US admirals and generals in late 2001 sent a similar letter to President Bush. The commanders called landmines “outmoded” and told the President that “…we believe that the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian advantages of speedy US accession [to the Mine Ban Treaty] far outweigh the minimal military utility of these weapons.” Shortly after the September 11th tragedy, President Bush stated that our country “has the soul of a church.” Joining the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty will be one way to demonstrate this strong and compassionate soul. It will be also be significant contribution to the global war against terror. Don Lieber, a Portland resident, is a researcher and writer for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Gina Coplon-Newfield is the coordinator of the US Campaign to Ban Landmines Copyright 2003 Oregon Live. All Rights Reserved. May
26, 2003, the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Now that President Bush has declared the end of military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he should announce that the U.S. will ban the use, production, trade and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines. The overwhelming majority of the 15,000 to 20,000 annual landmine victims are innocent civilians -- women traveling to market, farmers tending to their fields and children playing near their homes. Millions more suffer from the agricultural, economic and psychological consequences wrought by the weapons' presence in more than 80 countries. Sadly, Iraqi forces did plant new landmines. The presence of the new mines -- on top of the millions of older mines -- will threaten the security of innocent civilians for decades to come. A recent General Accounting Office report on the use and effects of landmines during the 1991 Persian Gulf War stated that some U.S. commanders were reluctant to use AP mines "because of their impact on U.S. troop mobility, safety concerns and fratricide potential." After President Bush took office in 2001, eight retired U.S. admirals and generals wrote to him stating that "the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian advantages of speedy U.S. accession [to the Mine Ban Treaty] far outweigh the minimal military utility of these weapons." The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty came into force faster than any other modern multilateral convention. Every member of NATO, except the United States, has embraced the treaty. Allies such as the U.K. and Australia were prohibited by law from participating in mine-laying activities in Iraq. The mine ban movement has already produced life-saving results. Since the early 1990s, the number of mine-producing countries has dropped from 54 to 14. Trade of the weapon has come almost to a halt, and more than 34 million antipersonnel landmines have been destroyed. Most importantly, casualty rates from the weapon have dropped. However, U.S. refusal to ban the weapon to date gives political cover to countries such as Russia, India and Pakistan that have laid hundreds of thousands of mines in recent years, with devastating human consequences. The Bush administration, now conducting a formal review of U.S. landmine policy, must not abandon the 1998 presidential directive that conditionally commits the U.S. to joining the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006. One hundred twenty-four members of the House -- both Democrats and Republicans -- have sent a letter to Bush urging him to move toward banning the weapon as soon as possible. Florida Reps. Robert Wexler, Alcee Hastings and Corrine Brown should be applauded for having signed this letter. Bush should demonstrate humanitarian and military leadership by eliminating antipersonnel landmines from the U.S. arsenal and by banning the weapon altogether. Gina Coplon-Newfield, of Boston is the coordinator of the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines. Dr. Martin Rubenberg of Boca Raton is a member of Physicians for Human Rights. PHR shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for its role in founding the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Copyright 2003 Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. All Rights Reserved. May 08, 2003, San Jose Mercury News For the people of Iraq, the horror and bloodshed of war are not over. They will persist for years because of a silent, deadly peril: land mines and unexploded munitions. In Iraqi Kurdistan alone, a mine kills or maims about one person a day. The daily toll in lives and limbs argues eloquently against the use of these random killers. Yet the United States persists in refusing to join the international treaty banning land mines. It's a disgrace. Iraq is one of the most heavily mined countries, with 8 million to 12 million estimated to be still in the ground. Many were planted by the former Iraqi regime itself, but nearly 28,000 were planted by the United States during the first gulf war. Although U.S. troops transported 90,000 more land mines to Iraq this time, none was deployed -- perhaps because of global opposition. But troops did use another time-release killer. Some 1,500 cluster bombs were dropped by air, and more by ground and missile. The canisters explode and release hundreds of submunitions that are supposed to detonate on impact, but up to 30 percent do not. Coming in various sizes and colors, they can attract curious children -- and explode when touched. For this reason, many organizations argue for a moratorium on cluster munitions, at least until the dud rate can be reduced. But at least these weapons are not designed to be stealth killers, as land mines are. The United States had been on track to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty by 2006, joining 146 other governments. But last year the Defense Department recommended abandoning efforts to join. In the Western Hemisphere, Cuba is the only other non-signatory. The treaty is making a difference: Only 14 countries produce land mines today, compared with 55 a decade ago. Regrettably, the United States still is one of them. Killing innocent people was not part of the goal in Iraq -- but people will continue to die from land mines and cluster munitions. Joining the Mine Ban Treaty would show good faith in a world increasingly skeptical of U.S. aims. Copyright © 2003, San Jose Mercury News Friday,
February 18, 2003, Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – While UN inspectors are searching for dangerous weapons hidden in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, they must also be wary of American weapons already lurking there. These are not the nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons that President Bush charges Iraq is concealing, but they're equally indis- criminate and dangerous. Antipersonnel land mines emplaced by the US during the Gulf War in 1991, as well as those from the Iran-Iraq war, now continue to kill or maim up to 30 Iraqis each month. Because land mines are such indiscriminate tools of war - thousands of innocent civilians worldwide are killed each year - the majority of nations in the world have signed the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. The treaty prohibits the use, trade, production, or stockpiling of antipersonnel land mines in conflicts anywhere. The US, however, has chosen not to sign this convention. Now, with war impending, the US has an important policy decision to make: Will it use land mines in its military operations again? It is ironic that any US operation in Iraq will have to contend with the snares of its own land mines - both those already in the ground and any new ones emplaced. But beyond the military pros and cons of using land mines, the US must also consider their humanitarian impact. Today, Iraq already has an estimated 600,000 to 1 million internally displaced people. A US attack and an increased presence of land mines will only make this growing population more vulnerable and cause humanitarian aid to be more difficult. With new land mines in place, the present rate of land-mine casualties can only grow. Internationally, there are concerns over whether the US will ask other countries to violate the terms of the Mine Ban Treaty. All members of NATO, except the US and Turkey, have joined the treaty. Additionally, Qatar, which will serve as headquarters for future US military action in Iraq, is a party to the Mine Ban Treaty. Allowing the US to transfer mines across its borders for use in Iraq would put Qatar in direct violation of the treaty. During the Gulf War, US war-fighting doctrine
listed four types and uses for land mines: However, even with clear-cut rationales for using land mines, some US commanders were fearful that their own mines would endanger friendly forces and decrease battlefield mobility. In fact, as in all previous wars, US troops were not immune to the dangers of land mines in the Gulf War. Of the 1,364 US casualties in the Gulf War, 81 - 6 percent - were caused by land mines. Moreover, the military benefit of land-mine usage in the Gulf War is unclear. According to a September 2002 General Accounting Office report, there was no evidence of enemy casualties or damage to enemy equipment as result of land mines laid during the Gulf War. The Bush administration has been reviewing the issue but hasn't yet announced its own land-mine policies, including whether to continue the Clinton administration decision to move toward joining the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006. Recent reports of US land mines transferred to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Diego Garcia, and elsewhere in the region suggest that the US is indeed planning to use the weapons in Iraq. Before deciding to do so, however, military leaders and the Bush administration must examine the painful lessons learned from the military and humanitarian consequences of land mine use in Desert Storm, not to mention the diplomatic implications of using the weapons today when most of the world has banned their use. If the administration were to thoughtfully consider whether all of the military, humanitarian, and international political costs are really worth it, it would decide to prohibit land-mine use in Iraq and move toward banning this outmoded weapon altogether. Eugene Carroll is a retired US admiral and Rachel Stohl is a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information. Copyright © 2003, Christian Science Monitor Friday,
January 14, 2003, Lansing State Journal Bush should back treaty's ban on 'terror' weapons As the threat of war looms in Iraq, the U.S. military is reportedly preparing to use thousands of anti-personnel (AP) land mines presently stored in Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Diego Garcia and Bahrain. American forces last used AP mines in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The use of AP mines in Iraq would be contrary to a nearly universal acceptance of a comprehensive prohibition on the weapon. New land mines on top of old unexploded ones left from the 1991 conflict and from the Iran-Iraq War threatens not only the security of innocent civilians looking for shelter, water and food, but our own soldiers as well. A recent U.S. General Accounting Office report on the use and effects of land mines during the Persian Gulf War stated that some U.S. commanders were reluctant to use mines because of their impact on U.S. troop mobility and fratricide potential. In May 2001, eight retired U.S. admirals and generals wrote to President Bush that anti-personnel land mines "are outmoded weapons that have, time and again, proved to be a liability to our own troops ... We believe that the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian advantages of speedy U.S. accession (to the Mine Ban Treaty) far outweigh the minimal military utility of these weapons." The most striking reasons to ban AP mines are humanitarian. More than 15,000 people are maimed or killed by land mines each year. Millions more suffer from the agricultural, economic, and psychological effects in mine-affected communities. Eighty percent of land-mine victims are innocent civilians. Most mine victims lack access to basic medical care including doctors, blood for transfusions, pain medication, prosthetic limbs, and rehabilitative services. President Bush is expected to determine new U.S.
land-mine policies soon. In response to the current policy review,
124 members of the U.S. House of Representatives - Democrats and
Republicans- sent a letter last year to President Bush urging him
to ban the weapon. We should applaud Congressmen More than three-quarters of the world's nations and every member of NATO except the United States, have embraced the Mine Ban Treaty, which has already led to tremendous results. Since the early 1990s, the number of mine-producing countries has dropped from 54 to 14. Trade of the weapon has come almost to a halt, and more than 34 million anti-personnel land mines have been destroyed from the arsenals of the world. Most importantly, casualty rates from the weapon have dropped from approximately 26,000 people per year to about 15,000 to 20,000. American repudiation of the Mine Ban Treaty would undermine global efforts to eradicate the weapon. President Bush should demonstrate humanitarian and military leadership by banning anti-personnel land mines and by instructing U.S. forces not to deploy AP mines in Iraq. For the millions of innocent people living in Iraq and other mine-affected countries, the anti-personnel land mine is a weapon of terror and mass destruction.Bob Fehribach served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He is active with the Michigan Chapter of Veterans for Peace. Al Fishman, also a veteran, is a former national board member of Peace Action and is currently active with the group's Michigan chapter. Copyright © 2003, Lansing State Journal Friday,
January 10, 2003, Detroit News The fifth anniversary of the Mine Ban Treaty comes as the United States prepares to use anti-personnel landmines in a war with Iraq. This global agreement, which bans the use, production, trade and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines, came into force faster than any other modern, multilateral convention. There are now 130 states parties to the treaty and another 16 signatories. Every member of NATO except the United States has embraced the treaty. The U.S. military, which last used antipersonnel (AP) mines during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reportedly has these weapons stored in Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain and elsewhere in the region. Use of the weapon would be a mistake with disastrous consequences for U.S. troops, innocent Iraqi civilians, and future international peacekeepers. After President Bush took office, eight retired admirals and generals wrote to the president saying anti-personnel land mines "are outmoded weapons that have, time and again, proved to be a liability to our own troops. ... We believe that the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian advantages of speedy U.S. accession (to the treaty) far outweigh the minimal military utility of these weapons." A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report on landmines during the Persian Gulf War stated that some U.S. commanders were reluctant to use mines because of their impact on U.S. troop mobility and fratricide potential. The United States used an estimated 118,000 self-destructing landmines during the war, but the mines were not militarily effective. "The services reported no evidence of enemy casualties, either killed or injured; enemy equipment losses, either destroyed or damaged; or enemy maneuver limitations resulting, directly or indirectly, from its employment of ... land mines during the Gulf War," the GAO reported. The humanitarian reasons to ban mines are striking. As the weapon is inherently indiscriminate, 80 percent of land mine victims are innocent civilians -- women traveling to market, farmers cultivating their land and children playing near their homes. Most of the victims, a third of them children, come from extremely poor countries. Farming, economic development, and health care delivery are severely hampered in mine-affected communities. Most landmine blast survivors lack access to any sort of medical care. If U.S. forces were to lay mines in Iraq, they would endanger innocent Iraqi civilians who are already at risk from the thousands of mines laid during the Iran-Iraq and gulf wars. Current policy calls for the United States to conditionally join the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006. The Department of Defense last year recommended to the president that the United States abandon efforts to ban the weapon. The State Department and National Security Council are reviewing the issue, with a final presidential decision expected soon. Last year, 124 members of the House of Representatives -- Democrats and Republicans -- sent a letter to President Bush urging him to ban the weapon. We should applaud Michigan U.S. Reps. Bart Stupak, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dale Kildee, David Bonior, John Conyers and Sander Levin -- and former Reps. James Barcia and Lynn Rivers -- for signing this letter. The Mine Ban Treaty has had a tremendous impact on the millions of people globally living in mine-affected communities. Since the early 1990s, the number of mine-producing countries has dropped from 54 to 14. Trade of the weapon has come almost to a halt, and more than 34 million anti-personnel landmines have been destroyed. Most important, casualty rates from the land mines have dropped from approximately 26,000 people a year to 15,000 to 20,000. The U.S. government should not allow anti-personnel mine use in Iraq and should join its allies in banning this weapon. Gina Coplon-Newfield, based in Boston, is coordinator of the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines. Gilbert S. Omenn, MD is professor of internal medicine, human genetics and public health at the University of Michigan. Write letters to letters@detnews.com. Copyright © 2003, Detroit News October
21, 2002 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. That movement of non-governmental organizations to rid the planet of these hideous weapons started gathering in 1991. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines formally began in October 1992. Five years later, the campaign and its coordinator, Jody Williams, won the Nobel Peace Prize. In December 1997, just days before Williams accepted the prize, 122 nations signed the treaty in Ottawa. It took less than a year to gather the needed 40 ratifications to put the treaty in force. It became binding under international law in March 1999. The treaty has produced some good news. Under its terms, nations have destroyed more than 34 million antipersonnel mines, including 7 million last year. Over the past decade, the treaty has led to the expenditure of $1.4 billion on such activities as mine clearance and survivor assistance. Most important of all, it has cut the number of new casualties from an estimated 26,000 a year to 15,000-20,000. Both the citizen movement and the treaty have worked. Early on, Clinton spoke out in favor of the treaty. But the Pentagon didn't like it, and he caved. Since the treaty took effect, the United States has honored most of its requirements-without joining. Clearly, joining will not damage our nation's security, but refusal to join causes real damage to our image. "The country has not exported land mines since 1992; has not used since the first Iraq war in 1991; has not produced since 1997; has destroyed several million mines from its stockpiles; and is one of the largest contributors in the world to mine action," Williams said. "It would seem a logical step to sign the treaty." Despite the disturbing placement of mines by India and Pakistan recently, the trend is toward the elimination of these weapons, which keep producing death and serious injury long after a war ends. "Even countries like China, which has not been pro-ban, have responded to the global sentiment against land mines," Williams said. "While it still retains them, it announced that it has stopped producing land mines for export - a very significant step forward, since China has been one of the biggest producers and exporters of land mines in the world." The shame is that the United States, once a leader in this heartening effort to make the world safer, now stands on the sidelines, an outcast. Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc. A
Clear and Present Danger In the new James Bond superspy flick, the villains use hovercraft to evade deadly land mines and a high-tech satellite weapon to blast them to bits. The bad guys aboard the hovercraft actually laugh about their ability to glide over these mines in Korea without fear. On celluloid, that’s a clever plot. In reality, though, there is no escaping the deadly monstrosity of mines. In wartime land mines kill and maim soldiers; in peacetime they kill and maim farmers, merchants and children -- as many as 20,000 a year. That’s an unacceptable number. Battlefield veterans know the horror of land mines and many of them, organized as Veterans for Peace, recently adopted a resolution imploring the U.S. government to join the Ottawa Ban Landmines Treaty without delay, to remove and destroy planted and stockpiled land mines here and abroad, and to outlaw further use of these antipersonnel weapons. It is a timely resolution. Tuesday was the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty, a treaty that the United States has yet to sign. We are the only NATO member to decline support because we see land mines as potentially useful military weapons, even though we haven’t deployed any since the Gulf War in 1991 and haven’t manufactured any since 1997. We are storing them, some designed for use during the Korean conflict, holding them in reserve for possible use in Iraq or other distant lands. Does it really make sense to use a Korean-era ground weapon for a nation that now largely wages war from the sky? While the United States has been holding out on the mine ban, it has been helping and funding volunteers around the world in the de-mining process, clearing fields of mines we laid years ago. If we’re already paying the cost to remove these weapons, doesn’t it make sense to formally ban their use so we don’t make more work for ourselves? For most of us, it’s easy to dismiss the danger of mine fields because they are in faraway places. What if there were mine fields in the United States? In open fields just outside militarily strategic locations? Wouldn’t we do everything in our power to secure the fields, to protect the public? Absolutely. If Americans were in danger, we would act. Well, they are. We deployed some 117,634 land mines during the Gulf War and counted 81 American casualties as a result. And that was, as wars go, a brief moment in time. If we enter a prolonged war, the number of casualties is sure to climb. American lives are in danger because this country does not support the mine ban. And our callous disregard for innocent victims of mines that we manufactured, deployed and then abandoned turns the stomach. If we can’t see our way clear to ban land mines to protect civilians in other countries, we should at least do everything possible to ban them to protect our own personnel. Editorial:
The killing fields / Bush shouldn't back out of a land mine pact Banning
Land Mines |
| FREE EMAIL CAMPAIGN UPDATES |
|
| Please enter your email address and click "Go" | |
|
| SEARCH OUR SITE |
For more on the Mine Ban Treaty, go to www.icbl.org |