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 5 Version 6
U.S. Plans to Reduce Its Land Mine Stockpile U.S. Lays Groundwork to Reduce Land Mines and Join Global Treaty
(about 9 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. After five years of study, the Obama administration put the United States on a course Friday to eventually sign the global treaty that bans antipersonnel land mines, announcing steps that will gradually reduce the American stockpile and find ways to adjust for any military disadvantage in purging the weapons.
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 announcement, made on the final day of a conference in Maputo, Mozambique, assessing the progress of the 15-year-old treaty, was a modest surprise to disarmament advocates. They had grown frustrated with what they viewed as the administration’s ambivalence on the treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention, which 161 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. Many disarmament advocates had hoped that President Obama would move quickly to sign the treaty in his first term. The agreement had been negotiated with American encouragement during President Bill Clinton’s tenure in the 1990s, then renounced during the eight years that President George W. Bush was in office. But the Obama administration repeatedly declined to commit to signing the treaty, saying it was under review.
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. On Friday, the American ambassador to Mozambique, Douglas M. Griffiths, speaking on behalf of an American observer delegation at the conference, announced that the United States would no longer produce or acquire antipersonnel land mines or replace old ones that expire, which will have the practical effect of reducing the estimated 10 million mines in the American stockpile. Mr. Griffiths also said the United States was “diligently pursuing solutions that would be compliant with the convention and that would ultimately allow us to accede to the convention.”
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. While he gave no date, the language was still the first explicit commitment that the United States intended to sign the treaty.
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.” “With this announcement, the U.S. has changed its mine ban stance and has laid the foundation for accession to the treaty,” said Stephen Goose, the executive director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch who led the conference delegation from the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the Nobel laureate group that helped clear the way for the Ottawa Convention in 1999. At the same time, Mr. Goose expressed disappointment, saying the American change had not gone nearly far enough.
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. “No target date has been set for accession by the U.S., and no final decision has been made on whether to join the treaty,” he said. “The U.S. is reserving the right to use its 10 million antipersonnel mines anywhere in the world until the mines 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,” 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. Physicians for Human Rights, a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, also issued a qualified endorsement of the American statement, coupled with a rejoinder that it was insufficient.
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. “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.
“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 disarmament advocates were equally pointed in their criticism. Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, expressed concern about the absence of a timetable to destroy the stockpile. Without that, he said, the announcement would have little practical effect “for many, many years to come.”
Physicians for Human Rights, another founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, also issued a qualified endorsement of the American statement. Mr. Griffiths, in an indication that the United States is researching ways to replicate the strategic value of antipersonnel land mines without their collateral damage, also said in the announcement that the American policy included experimental work “to ascertain how to mitigate the risks associated with the loss of antipersonnel land mines.”
“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.” 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. A number of potential American adversaries — notably Russia, China and Iran — have not signed the treaty.
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.” Disarmament advocates have argued that the American reluctance to sign might be dissuading the other recalcitrant nations from joining.
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. The treaty is regarded as a triumph of the disarmament movement and has sharply reduced the use and destructive effects of antipersonnel land mines, which were killing or maiming 26,000 people a year when it first took effect. That figure has fallen to about 4,000 a year as a growing number of countries have destroyed old buried mines.
Disarmament advocates have argued that the American reluctance to sign may be dissuading the other recalcitrant nations from joining. Antipersonnel land mines, once common but now almost universally regarded as insidious and indiscriminate, are designed to detonate when people step on or near them. They can lie dormant for decades. Half the victims have been children.
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. 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, according to a White House statement.
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. The United States 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, as well as nonmetallic mines that made detection difficult.
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. 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. Mr. Obama’s decision essentially moves toward approval, but makes it unlikely that the United States will become a signer — a decision subject to Senate approval — during his presidency.
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. 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 animals step on them — and they are considered a central element of South Korea’s first-line defense against a North Korean invasion.
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. 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 zone are an outdated Cold War relic.
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.