Nobel is Turning Over in His Grave
Published in Frankfurter Rundschau
(Germany) on 25 November 2009
by Dietmar Ostermann (link to
original)
Even under Barack Obama’s leadership, the United States will refuse to sign the international agreement condemning the use of land mines. After U.S. State Department review, a decision was made to leave the current policy in effect. This decision means that although the U.S., which does not manufacture, distribute or use land mines, and leads the world in funding mine removal initiatives and helping mine victims, still wants to retain the option of using mines.
The 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize has thus sent the 1997 recipient packing. 12 years ago, under pressure from a campaign using the prize as an incentive, 121 nations adopted the Ottawa Treaty, banning the production, stockpiling, and distribution of anti-personnel land mines. The treaty was fully implemented two years later with 156 signatories. About 2.2 million land mines were destroyed. During the 1990s, mines were responsible for the deaths of some 26,000 people worldwide, most of them civilians. By 2008, that number had been reduced to about 5,000.
The Obama administration implied that the U.S. would sign the accord. For the first time, the U.S. sent a delegation to the follow-up conference held this past weekend in Colombia. However, the State Department made it clear that the U.S. was attending merely as an observer. Spokesman Ian Kelly said that the treaty would not permit the U.S. to “meet our national defense needs, nor our security commitments to our friends and allies." This clumsy excuse suggests that this policy is embarrassing to some in the Obama administration.
In addition to criticism from human rights organizations, some influential Democrats, such as Senator Patrick Leahy, have also expressed displeasure. Leahy called the State Department’s study of the land mine ban "cursory and half-hearted." He added, "The U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth. We don't need these weapons, and most of our allies have long ago abandoned them.”
Other opinions in the White House carried the day. It is no secret that the Pentagon is opposed to the U.S. signing onto the land mine ban. The Clinton administration also had to bow to Pentagon pressure and refrain from joining the ban. Under George W. Bush, the U.S. would only agree to refrain from deploying mines without a limited lifespan. Mines that deactivate themselves after a certain period would help reduce the dangers to the civilian population. Opponents of the ban point to the border between North and South Korea, where both sides have sown millions of land mines. They also emphasize that Russia, China, and India have not signed the treaty.
It is entirely possible that Obama, who in the coming weeks may give his military commanders fewer new troops for Afghanistan than they would like, is trying to avoid renewed accusations that he is soft on defense. Alfred Nobel, meanwhile, is turning over in his grave. The father of dynamite founded the peace prize that bears his name, because he regretted the fact that his invention was misused as a tool of war.
The 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize has thus sent the 1997 recipient packing. 12 years ago, under pressure from a campaign using the prize as an incentive, 121 nations adopted the Ottawa Treaty, banning the production, stockpiling, and distribution of anti-personnel land mines. The treaty was fully implemented two years later with 156 signatories. About 2.2 million land mines were destroyed. During the 1990s, mines were responsible for the deaths of some 26,000 people worldwide, most of them civilians. By 2008, that number had been reduced to about 5,000.
The Obama administration implied that the U.S. would sign the accord. For the first time, the U.S. sent a delegation to the follow-up conference held this past weekend in Colombia. However, the State Department made it clear that the U.S. was attending merely as an observer. Spokesman Ian Kelly said that the treaty would not permit the U.S. to “meet our national defense needs, nor our security commitments to our friends and allies." This clumsy excuse suggests that this policy is embarrassing to some in the Obama administration.
In addition to criticism from human rights organizations, some influential Democrats, such as Senator Patrick Leahy, have also expressed displeasure. Leahy called the State Department’s study of the land mine ban "cursory and half-hearted." He added, "The U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth. We don't need these weapons, and most of our allies have long ago abandoned them.”
Other opinions in the White House carried the day. It is no secret that the Pentagon is opposed to the U.S. signing onto the land mine ban. The Clinton administration also had to bow to Pentagon pressure and refrain from joining the ban. Under George W. Bush, the U.S. would only agree to refrain from deploying mines without a limited lifespan. Mines that deactivate themselves after a certain period would help reduce the dangers to the civilian population. Opponents of the ban point to the border between North and South Korea, where both sides have sown millions of land mines. They also emphasize that Russia, China, and India have not signed the treaty.
It is entirely possible that Obama, who in the coming weeks may give his military commanders fewer new troops for Afghanistan than they would like, is trying to avoid renewed accusations that he is soft on defense. Alfred Nobel, meanwhile, is turning over in his grave. The father of dynamite founded the peace prize that bears his name, because he regretted the fact that his invention was misused as a tool of war.
Previous article![]( "China Setting the Stage For the Next Economic Crisis")
