U.S. Won't Sign Anti-Land Mine Treaty

[papau]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3794784,00.html


U.S. Won't Sign Anti-Land Mine Treaty

Friday February 27, 2004 2:01 AM By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration intends to end the U.S. military's use of land mines that are not timed to self-destruct but will not sign a 150-nation anti-land mine treaty, a senior administration official said Thursday. <snip>

From now on, all new U.S. land mines will be detectable to U.S. authorities and geared to become inert. But those that are considered part of deterring attacks, such as in Korea, will remain in use. Those mines will be timed to self-destruct, but they can be reset to remain operable, the official said. <snip>

Stephen Goose, executive director of the arms control division of Human Rights Watch, praised the plan to increase spending for mine clearance projects. But he said the United States is isolated by its insistence on using land mines in its defense programs. <snip>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3794636,00.html

Bush Administration Bans Some Land Mines

Friday February 27, 2004 1:16 AM By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - <snip>The 1997 pact is known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mine and on their Destruction. It went into force on March 1, 1999, and bans the stockpile of mines and requires each nation to destroy its stock within four years.

In early 2001, a Pentagon-commissioned study said advances in technology could lead to alternatives to anti-personnel land mines that would pose fewer risks to civilians. But it said that not all of these emerging technologies were likely to be ready by 2006 - a target set by the Clinton administration for deciding whether the United States should approve the international treaty.

Former President Clinton said land mines were a necessary deterrent that protected South Korea from the North; thousands of mines lie in the demilitarized zone between the two countries. He indicated the United States would be willing to sign the treaty by 2006 if armed forces could find alternatives to the mines.

[Colin Ex]

1. Because US companies make land mines.

Hurrah!

-C

[pinniped]

2. We all know how all technology is failsafe

"Those mines will be timed to self-destruct"

[DennisReveni]

3. But

Clinton didn't sign it either. In his case Diana had just died and it was one of her big issues.
Just another case of Bill's failure to do the right thing.

[alittlelark]

4. Family came over on the Mayflower

4 generations of DAR ( I wasn't one). Family fought in every war but this one. I am an American Patriot.

And I am ashamed to say that we have become 'the evil ones'

Hate it....hate it....but it is reality.:cry: :cry: :cry:

[leesa]

5. Ah yes...more death and destruction sponsored by the good ol' USA

We are a country of monsters??

[TexasMexican]

6. Korea

Because removing all the land mines that keep North Korea out of South Korea would be a good idea right?