This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/28/us/us-to-cut-its-land-mine-stockpile.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
U.S. Pledges Steps to Comply With Land Mine Treaty U.S. Plans to Reduce Its Land Mine Stockpile
(about 3 hours later)
The Obama administration on Friday announced measures to reduce and eventually eliminate its stockpile of antipersonnel land mines, with the aim of joining the global treaty that prohibits them.The Obama administration on Friday announced measures to reduce and eventually eliminate its stockpile of antipersonnel land mines, with the aim of joining the global treaty that prohibits them.
The announcement, made by an American observer delegation to a conference on the progress of the 15-year-old treaty, was stronger than the previously stated administration position — that it was studying the treaty’s provisions. The announcement, made by an American observer delegation to a conference in Mozambique on the progress of the 15-year-old treaty, was stronger than the previously stated administration position — that it was studying the treaty’s provisions. It appeared to put the United States on a trajectory to signing the treaty.
The administration did not indicate when the United States would join the treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention, which the Clinton administration had originally encouraged and which most nations have signed. The administration did not indicate when the United States would sign the treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention, which the Clinton administration had originally encouraged and which most nations have signed.
Human rights groups and disarmament advocates who have increasingly criticized the United States for its reluctance to sign the treaty cautiously welcomed the announcement, although they had been pressing for more.
“The new thing here is the intent to join the treaty,” Stephen Goose, the executive director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, who is attending the treaty conference in Maputo, Mozambique, said in an email. He also said that many participants at the conference were trying to get a better sense of what the Americans intended to do.
The American delegation said in a statement read out by the United States ambassador to Mozambique, Douglas M. Griffiths, that the United States would no longer produce or acquire antipersonnel land mines, or replace old ones that expire.The American delegation said in a statement read out by the United States ambassador to Mozambique, Douglas M. Griffiths, that the United States would no longer produce or acquire antipersonnel land mines, or replace old ones that expire.
“We are very pleased with the U.S. announcement that it intends to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty, and that it has instituted a new policy banning future production of antipersonnel mines,” Mr. Goose said after the announcement. The United States has not disclosed precise details about the size of its stockpile. Arms control experts have estimated it to be 10 million to 13 million.
But he was also critical. “It makes little sense to acknowledge that the weapons must be banned due to the humanitarian harm they cause, and yet insist on being able to use them,” he said. “The U.S. should set a target date for joining the Mine Ban Treaty, should commit to no use of antipersonnel mines until it accedes, and should begin destruction of its stocks.” The statement by the delegation, which is led by Steven R. Costner, the deputy director of the State Department’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, also said the United States was “diligently pursuing solutions that would be compliant with and ultimately allow the United States to accede to the Ottawa Convention.”
The United States has not disclosed precise details about the size of its stockpile. Arms control experts have estimated it to be between 10 million and 13 million. Human rights groups and disarmament advocates who have increasingly criticized the United States for its reluctance to sign the treaty cautiously welcomed the announcement, although they had been pressing for more.
The statement by the delegation, which is led by Steven R. Costner, the deputy director of the State Department’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, also said that the United States was “diligently pursuing solutions that would be compliant with and ultimately allow the United States to accede to the Ottawa Convention.” “We are very pleased with the U.S. announcement that it intends to accede to the mine ban treaty, and that it has instituted a new policy banning future production of antipersonnel mines,” Stephen Goose, the director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, who was attending the treaty conference in Maputo, the Mozambique capital, said in a statement.
Mr. Griffiths said the policy included experimental work “to ascertain how to mitigate the risks associated with the loss of antipersonnel land mines.” But Mr. Goose, who helped found the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, a group that won a Nobel Peace Prize for its work and is considered largely responsible for the Ottawa Convention, was also critical of the new American position, a view shared by many other disarmament advocates.
American defense officials have argued that these weapons have a strategic value — in deterring ground invasions, for example — and that the United States would put itself at a disadvantage by renouncing them. “It makes little sense to acknowledge that the weapons must be banned due to the humanitarian harm they cause, and yet insist on being able to use them,” he said. “The U.S. should set a target date for joining the mine ban treaty, should commit to no use of antipersonnel mines until it accedes, and should begin destruction of its stocks.”
Other powerful nations and potential American adversaries — notably Russia, China and Iran — have not signed the treaty. Physicians for Human Rights, another founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, also issued a qualified endorsement of the American statement.
“The U.S. government’s announcement that it will stop producing land mines is a step in the right direction, but we remain concerned about anything less than a full commitment to sign the mine ban treaty as soon as possible,” said Widney Brown, the group’s director of programs. “The U.S. government has been missing a key opportunity to lead on a groundbreaking agreement that has achieved great success in preventing deaths of innocent victims, including many children.”
In an indication that the United States is researching ways to replicate the strategic value of antipersonnel land mines without their collateral damage, Ambassador Griffiths said in the statement that the American policy included experimental work “to ascertain how to mitigate the risks associated with the loss of antipersonnel land mines.”
American defense officials have argued that these weapons have an important purpose — in deterring ground invasions, for example — and that the United States would put itself at a disadvantage by renouncing them. Other powerful nations and potential American adversaries — notably Russia, China and Iran — have not signed the treaty.
Disarmament advocates have argued that the American reluctance to sign may be dissuading the other recalcitrant nations from joining.Disarmament advocates have argued that the American reluctance to sign may be dissuading the other recalcitrant nations from joining.
The treaty, which first took effect in 1999, is regarded as a triumph of the disarmament movement and has sharply reduced the use and destructive effects of antipersonnel land mines.The treaty, which first took effect in 1999, is regarded as a triumph of the disarmament movement and has sharply reduced the use and destructive effects of antipersonnel land mines.
These weapons, once common but now almost universally recognized as insidious and indiscriminate, are designed to detonate when unsuspecting victims step on or near them. They can lie dormant for decades in old war zones. These weapons, once common but now almost universally regarded as insidious and indiscriminate, are designed to detonate when unsuspecting victims step on or near them. They can lie dormant for decades in old war zones. Despite the growth in the number of signers to more than 160 countries, thousands of people are killed or maimed annually by residual land mines, roughly half of them children.
Despite the progress in decontamination and a growth in the number of signers to more than 160 countries, thousands of people are killed or maimed annually by residual land mines, roughly half of them children.
Although it has not joined the treaty, the United States remains the largest single donor to the cause of land mine decontamination and medical care for victims, providing more than $2.3 billion since 1993 for conventional weapons destruction programs in other countries.Although it has not joined the treaty, the United States remains the largest single donor to the cause of land mine decontamination and medical care for victims, providing more than $2.3 billion since 1993 for conventional weapons destruction programs in other countries.
It has also taken steps over the years to purge from its stockpile the most dangerous types of antipersonnel land mines, so-called dumb mines that cannot be disarmed.
Several members of the Obama administration, including the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, have argued strongly that the United States cannot be in the position of refusing to sign the treaty. President Obama’s decision essentially moves in that direction, but makes it unlikely that the United States will become a signer — a decision subject to Senate approval — during his presidency.
The Pentagon’s main objection to the treaty focuses on American difficulties defending South Korea from North Korea. The demilitarized zone between them is filled with land mines — periodically they detonate, as wildlife in the zone step on them — and they are considered a key element of the first-line defense against a North Korean invasion.
But to destroy Seoul, the South Korean capital, the North does not need a land invasion: Its artillery could wreak great damage. So advocates of signing the treaty have argued that the mines along the DMZ are an outdated Cold War relic.