Call on "Peace Laureate" Obama to Ban Mines for Good

Here's a draw-dropper from the Cartegena Summit on the Mine Ban Treaty. Apparently, the Obama Administration has concluded not to change the Bush-era US policy on landmines and may not endorse the Mine Ban Treaty. Say wha-?

Many of us have been patient with the Obama Administration on foreign affairs only because if he moves too fast the right may rally and shave off the moderates needed to get pro-peace foreign ops legislation passed though the US Congress. But the Mine Ban Treaty? Seriously? President Obama was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? How many more legs need to be blown off to get a progressive peace laureate to ban an explosive which kills more civilians than combatants?

Reasons posed by the Obama Administration, as with the Clinton Administration, remain vague, alluding to responsibilities to allies (South Korea perhaps, hat tip to True/Slant's MP Nunan). But the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, also a Nobel Peace Prize winner, reminds all that 158 countries, including all of the US allies in NATO, have endorsed the Mine Ban Treaty.

Please join the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross and just about everybody else on the planet except for Al Qaeda and your estranged cousin Phil, in calling on the Obama Administration to clarify its position, have an open discussion of the subject, and consider the millions of legless and dead reasons to endorse this treaty and make it happen. To "arm" you, here are some mine-sweeping tools:

• Read all the updates on the ICBL website.
• Copy this letter to President Obama by Human Rights Watch or write your own, collect signatures backing it and mail it to the White House.
• Make similar efforts targeting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
• Most advocacy has already stressed the huge numbers of civilians killed and mamed after conflict by mines (as well as cluster bombs, mortars, etc); the administration understands this argument. It may help to also emphasize when collecting signatures and/or communicating to officials that it even if one were to accept the cost in civilian casualties (!) there are also strategic military reasons not to use anti-personel mines: a) Even when militaries map the location of mines for later removal, the mines can shift when rain loosens the earth, thus re-locating the mines from their original positions, b) Opponents are just as likely to sweep for mines and potentially use found materials in bombs targeting American forces, and c) Knowledge of mine use can turn local populations against American forces.
• There are certain companies innovating new kinds of mines such as spider mines which theoretically can be "switched off" when not in use. Also, pro-mine companies may argue that satellite imagery can be used to more effectively map locations of newly planted mines for future removal. Again, see the points above. Spider mines may be "switched off" but the explosive remains behind for opponents to sweep, dig up, and use. And satellite imagery may not be able to see mines which shift in mud and sand slides during heavy rains.
• Here's just one of a huge number of maps which shows not just the location of mines, but also how many roads and farmlands can not be used in a region of South Sudan which has critical trouble with post-war poverty. Thus, mine use not only kills and mames, it prevents the use of land in areas affected by hunger which billions of dollars in US funds are spent trying to address. Mines are a serious factor in hunger and poverty.
• And some overviews from the International Committee of the Red Cross, +1.

[Photo: Survivor in cambodia, Emilio Labrador]