Why the Pentagon loves land mines

[donsu]

http://www.counterpunch.com/stanton11012003.html

The United States is 1 of 45 countries that refuses to sign the 1997 Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines (APM's) and on their Destruction. 137 countries have bound themselves to the rigorous provisions of that treaty. But the Pentagon, never seeing a weapon system it didn't like, and the Bush Administration, never having seen a treaty it liked, remain unmoved by the suffering caused by APM's. Article 1 of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty demands that "each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to use anti-personnel mines." Article 4 of the Mine Ban Treaty requires that all States Parties destroy their stockpiles of APM's. The Pentagon is skittish about signing the Treaty as it fears such a precedent will trigger similar campaigns against other US weapons systems most notably those dependent on depleted uranium.

(note - DEPLETED URANIUM)

Even though the US is the largest contributor to demining and mine awareness programs ($80 million in FY 2002), it has reduced funding by close to $24 million less over the last two year period. But that's not a great surprise given that private industry is stepping into what is a lucrative and eternal mine-clearing business. With an estimated 40-50 million APM's below ground around the globe, for-profit demining companies stand to make a killing.

(note - A LUCRATIVE AND ETERNAL)

-snip-

More significantly, according to 1997 Nobel Laureate Jody Williams of the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL), and driving force behind the Mine Ban Treaty, "The military is terrified to give into society's wishes." Williams is one of only three American women to win the Nobel Peace Prize. She indicated that the Pentagon understands that the Mine Ban Treaty "has been one of the few examples of successful multilateralism in today's world". According to Williams, the Pentagon under Bush has recommended abandoning the US policy goal of joining the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006 as it has virtually all other international agreements.

-snip-

The Bush Administration was scheduled to release new directives on APM's in the latter part of 2003 that would halt any effort to develop alternatives to APM's. "I've heard some discouraging things from the Pentagon and it may be that the US will roll back its current policies," Goose.

-snip-

The US continues to give the middle finger to the rest of the world.
---------------------------------

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Plus they're lucrative to make, economical and effective to use

They are cost-effective in general personnel reduction, and one of the leading methods of limb removal. They are particularly attractive to children, which makes them a popular tool for both short term operations as well as long-term strategies, since today's legless child is less likely to be able to present a resistance problem in actions a decade or more away.

[tlb]

2. If I recall correctly, President Clinton was willing to sign the treaty

provided an exemption was allowed for mines on the Korean DMZ to protect our troops. This compromise was refused.

Some would refuse half a loaf in favor of not even a crumb. There may be a lesson in that.