Human Rights Watch: Obama's rejection of Landmine Treaty Reprehensible

[Karmadillo]

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/11/25/us-obama-rejection-mine-ban-treaty-reprehensible

(Washington, DC) - The Obama administration's decision to continue the Bush administration's policy of refusing to join the international treaty banning antipersonnel landmines is a reprehensible rejection of the most successful disarmament and humanitarian treaty of the past decade, Human Rights Watch said today.

"President Obama's decision to cling to antipersonnel mines keeps the US on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of humanity," said Steve Goose, Arms Division director at Human Rights Watch. "This decision lacks vision, compassion, and basic common sense, and contradicts the Obama administration's professed emphasis on multilateralism, disarmament, and humanitarian affairs," said Goose.

The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty has been endorsed by 158 countries, including nearly all of the US military allies. Every other member of NATO has endorsed the treaty, as has every other country in the Western Hemisphere except Cuba. The international stigma against the weapon has become so strong that in recent years the only government laying significant numbers of new landmines has been the abusive military government in Burma. Production of the weapon has dwindled to a few states, and virtually no government still exports antipersonnel mines.

<edit>

Human Rights Watch is one of the founders of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, in large part for its role in bringing about the Mine Ban Treaty.

"It is painful that President Obama has chosen to reject the Mine Ban Treaty just weeks before he joins the ranks of Nobel peace laureates, including the ICBL," said Goose.

[cali]

1. It is reprehensible

I wonder what Pat Leahy thinks. He's been working on this issue like no one else for nearly 2 decades.

[UndertheOcean]

2. Shame , shame on you Mr. Obama.. ....n/t

[sudopod]

3. Why I think we're being manipulated RE: the "Land Mine Treaty" article from the AP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x16844

This thread is about a different article written by an AP reporter who references this one. Steven Goose of HRW talked about this on Democracy Now a little while back and pointed out that this is basically moral cowardice. It should be noted, though, Mr. Goose noted that we are in compliance with virtually every part of the treaty, save the ones which would force us to clear the Korean DMZ of land mines. He noted that President Clinton started the push for the treaty, that we have not used land mines in 18 years, and have not sold them in 17, and that despite all this, it would likely be impossible to push it through the Senate as currently constituted.

Yes, it is wrong that we won't support it, but keep in mind that this doesn't mean that we're hiding them like limb-severing easter eggs in downtown Kabul, and the news should be received with that firmly in mind.

[whathehell]

4. Thanks for providing some context.

[lsewpershad]

5. Shut the fud up

We should sign the treaty. What the hell are we affraid of? we should clean up our mess also. Every time an innocent child or any living thing gets killed by one of these horrible bonbs we left behind should make us all cringe.

[sudopod]

6. Hell yeah we should sign it.

But the fact that we aren't doesn't make us (by us, I mean the President) monsters either. Just sayin.

[Kaleva]

8. The US has spent millions cleaning up or assisting in clearing minefields

[Bluebear]

15. indeed

[Kaleva]

7. +100!

[roguevalley]

11. If one child anywhere loses a limb because we didn't lend our

moral authority to an easy one like this then we are all bastards. This is a no brainer and there is not good reason for not doing it. Somalia and us, great.

RV, who has family members who lost limbs in accidents, rather than war and even that is horrendous. Imagine your own family member getting a limb blown off. No defense of this will ever mollify me.

[sudopod]

13. Hopefully we won't have to go there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7090269&mesg_id=7091473

[ProSense]

9. U.S. landmines policy still under review

U.S. landmines policy still under review

[ProSense]

10. Human Rights Watch issues updated statement

US: Obama Should Join Mine Ban Treaty

November 25, 2009

Update:

In a statement issued earlier today, Human Rights Watch criticized a statement made at the US State Department's daily briefing saying that the Obama administration had completed its policy review on antipersonnel landmines and decided not to join the international treaty banning these weapons. The Obama administration has subsequently corrected its initial statement, and indicated that its policy review is continuing. Human Rights Watch welcomes this correction and urges the United States to join the 158 countries - including nearly all its treaty allies - that have signed the landmine treaty.

[Political Heretic]

17. Good to hear. Also, the N/S Korea issue is going to have to be addressed somehow.

[Confusious]

12. But.............Obama is the greatest president ever

How could they not see that?

[Bluebear]

14. kick

[Political Heretic]

16. I believe we are still asking for a N/S Korea exemption?

Pretty sure that's been the sticking point for a long time. The only thing separating N. and S. Korea is about a million landmines, right?