Time for the grown-ups to negotiate a *real* land-mine treaty
Hugo S. Cunningham
Euro-Socialists agreed to a total ban on land-mines, and lobbied the
rest of the world to join them, starting with the USA. Under strong
counter-pressure from his military, Bill Clinton refused; given the
vital importance of land mines in blocking a surprise attack across
the Korean DMZ, no responsible US commander-in-chief could have done
otherwise. Amid the execration aimed at the US, it was often
overlooked that virtually all other important powers facing land
combat had also refused to sign, eg: China, Russia, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, North Korea, South Korea and
Vietnam.
A total ban on land-mines was, and remains, unrealistic to any
nation that stations troops in exposed positions. Nevertheless, the
leading powers should negotiate a new treaty to cut the worst abuses,
especially with anti-personnel mines. Useful reforms for
anti-personnel mines might include:
(1) No delivery of mines to insurgents (or to other foreign citizens,
with the *possible* exception of governments approved by the UN
Security Council), or training of same in making or using mines.
(2) No delivery of mines from the air, or by other remote means (ie
over large areas that will be difficult to clear).
(3) No use of mines for interdiction behind enemy lines, especially
in civilian areas or beyond one's frontier. The only legitimate use
of mines is to protect advanced military units from surprise attack.
(4) Minefields must be carefully recorded.
(5) Mines should either have credible self-destruct capability, or be
made from materials (eg metal) that are detectable.
The Euro-socialist countries who negotiated the total ban might
want to send one or two observers to the negotiations of a more
limited treaty. That might be helpful, but only if the observers were
moderates, not trying to recreate the media hothouse surrounding their
first treaty.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Alex
"Hugo S. Cunningham" wrote:
> Amid great publicity, on 3 Dec 1997, Canada and various
> Euro-Socialists agreed to a total ban on land-mines, and lobbied the
> rest of the world to join them, starting with the USA.
The rest of the world is so inspired by the latest successes of the
western pacifists in Yougoslavia, Iraq, Sudan, Haiti, Panama, Somalia, etc
that they will definitely joyfully ban this effective and cheap defence
weapon. What else globalists need to conquire the world?
Want to keep your legs for yourself - don't wage the wars of weaker
peoples!
Alex.
ben meyer
How about no new rules for landmines except that they must have a built in
(exact time) deactivation mechanism after say 1 year. Obviously landmines
have a use or they wouldn't be bought. I just think if the use is over,
they ought to be made fail-safe. (Aren't people in Cambodia are still being
killed by ancient mines?)
--Ben
Alex
Sure they are. Americans still deny Vietnam's requests for the maps of
minefields Americans set up during Vietnam war. What to the deactivation
mechanism - once again, it will make mines more expensive, and many poor
countries don't have necessary technology, say making battaries that could last
for several years or so. In fact exactly those countries which are the most
likely to be victimized by the aggressors will be denied that effective and
cheap defensive weapon. The west has no problem with manufacturing "safe mines".
The Third World has. And it is exactly the Third Word, whoose security is
threatened by NATO's imperialism.
The land mine ban, as well as calls for "safe land mines" is a cunning attempt
to make the world safer for the imperialist aggressors. Note, they did not call
for land mine ban 20 years ago. Guess why. Lets first ban bombers and cruise
missiles, then talk about land mines.
Alex
Hugo S. Cunningham
>ben meyer wrote:
>> Knowing nothing about this issue until reading these posts...
>>
>> How about no new rules for landmines except that they must have a built in
>> (exact time) deactivation mechanism after say 1 year. Obviously landmines
>> have a use or they wouldn't be bought. I just think if the use is over,
>> they ought to be made fail-safe. (Aren't people in Cambodia are still being
>> killed by ancient mines?)
>Sure they are. Americans still deny Vietnam's requests for the maps of
>minefields Americans set up during Vietnam war. What to the deactivation
>mechanism - once again, it will make mines more expensive, and many poor
>countries don't have necessary technology, say making battaries that could last
>for several years or so.
Another point is that deactivation mechanisms are not 100% fail-safe.
They might be damaged by a nearby explosion, or simply have a
manufacturing defect. I would not want to risk my legs in a field of
supposedly de-activated mines, nor would a Cambodian peasant, unless
driven (as is usually the case) by hunger and the lack of
alternatives.
Nevertheless, even if not perfect, they are better than
permanently-active alternatives.
>In fact exactly those countries which are the most
>likely to be victimized by the aggressors will be denied that effective and
>cheap defensive weapon. The west has no problem with manufacturing "safe mines".
>The Third World has.
True. For that reason, US proposals to allow *only* "safe mines" have
been ignored as disingenuous and self-serving. Perhaps at some point
self-deactivating technology will become cheap enough for everyone,
but that does not seem to be an immediate prospect.
As an interim measure, I would suggest that cheap mines should be
made of metal or some other material detectable by postwar clearance
efforts (but I lack the expertise to say this proposal is realistic).
>And it is exactly the Third Word, whoose security is
>threatened by NATO's imperialism.
>The land mine ban, as well as calls for "safe land mines" is a cunning attempt
>to make the world safer for the imperialist aggressors. Note, they did not call
>for land mine ban 20 years ago. Guess why. Lets first ban bombers and cruise
>missiles, then talk about land mines.
The Third World does not speak with one voice on this issue.
Organized Third-World countries able to defend their frontiers from
insurgencies (eg India and China) have rejected the land-mine ban, but
African countries, weak and highly vulnerable to insurgencies, join
Europe in supporting it. Most victims of land-mines in Africa are
local civilians, not Western "peacekeepers" (or, if you prefer,
"imperialist aggressors"). The ambush that drove America to quit
Somalia in 1993 did not involve land-mines.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Alex
> Alex <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
> >The land mine ban, as well as calls for "safe land mines" is a cunning attempt
> >to make the world safer for the imperialist aggressors. Note, they did not call
> >for land mine ban 20 years ago. Guess why. Lets first ban bombers and cruise
> >missiles, then talk about land mines.
>
> The Third World does not speak with one voice on this issue.
> Organized Third-World countries able to defend their frontiers from
> insurgencies (eg India and China) have rejected the land-mine ban,
You definitely misinterpret it. The *INDEPENDENT* Third world countries such as India
and China rejected the idea. But poor countries with puppet regimes agree, which is
not surprising after all.
but
> African countries, weak and highly vulnerable to insurgencies, join
> Europe in supporting it. Most victims of land-mines in Africa are
> local civilians, not Western "peacekeepers" (or, if you prefer,
> "imperialist aggressors"). The ambush that drove America to quit
> Somalia in 1993 did not involve land-mines.
What about Bay of Pigs? (My congratulations to the heroic Cuban people for the 40th
anniversary of their glorious victory.) Do you know what is infant mortality rate in
Cuba? Compare to the other nations in the region, and you will understand why land
mines save much more children than kill.
Alex.
Hugo S. Cunningham
Alex (as69...@bcm.tmc.edu) wrote on
2001-04-22 11:44:03 PST:
[recovered from Deja/Google]
>"Hugo S. Cunningham" wrote:
[...]
>> African countries, weak and highly vulnerable to insurgencies, join
>> Europe in supporting
[a ban on landmines].
>> Most victims of land-mines in Africa are
>> local civilians, not Western "peacekeepers" (or, if you prefer,
>> "imperialist aggressors"). The ambush that drove America to quit
>> Somalia in 1993 did not involve land-mines.
>What about Bay of Pigs? (My congratulations to the heroic
> Cuban people for the 40th anniversary of their glorious
> victory.) Do you know what is infant mortality rate in
>Cuba? Compare to the other nations in the region, and you
> will understand why land mines save much more children
> than kill.
Are you claiming Castro's victory at the Bay of Pigs was due to land
mines? What startling news, never before revealed in any source
either pro-Castro or anti-Castro! Would you care to post a URL
backing this claim?
Just about every previous account points out that the 1200-man
exile army was heavily outnumbered by Castro's forces, and had no
chance without direct US air and other support. The only point at
issue is whether JFK's refusal to offer such support (even to evacuate
the exiles) was belated statesmanship or extreme incompetence.
--Hugo S. Cunningham