Opposing the Land Mine Ban Treaty

In December 1997, the treaty to ban anti-personnel
land mines became a reality when 121 nations signed the accord in
Ottawa, Canada, and pledged $500 million to implement it. Again major
military powers like United States, Russia, China, Turkey and most
Middle Eastern and Asian countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt,
Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Korea, refused to
sign insisting that their need for land mines remained. Japan, that
announced on October 21, 1997, that it would break the ranks, stood
firm with the rest of the signees.

One of my friends recently confided in me that Pakistan is one of the biggest
exporters of the most deadliest land mines in the world to the
troubled parts of Africa. He also attributed several deaths in
Pakistan's ordinance factories to the accidents resulted during
manufacturing and handling of these deadly weapons.

The number of signees were a surprise to the organizers. Canadian
officials said that all 125 countries attending the meeting asked to
sign the treaty. A few delegates did not have proper signing
authority from their governments, are expected to sign the treaty at
the UN in New York.

Every year an estimated 60 million to 100 million mines are in place
in 69 countries, and they kill or mutilate more than 25,000 people
every year -- the equivalent of a victim every 22 minutes. It is
worth mentioning that the treaty is the result of joint efforts of
popular figures like late Princess Diana of Britain, governmental and
non-governmental organizations (NGO) like Red Cross, and the
International Campaign to Ban Land Mines led by an American, Jody
Williams. Williams also shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.

Where majority of American citizens support the ban on land mines, US
President Clinton stood firm on his decision not to support
the treaty being signed in America's backyard. Even when earlier this
fall International Nobel Prize Committee in Geneva, Switzerland
announced the 1997 Nobel Peace prize for Williams, President Clinton
did not congratulate her. However, the thirty-eight national
delegations who declined to sign the treaty, including the United
States, Russia, Israel and Cuba, were present as observers at Land
Mines Ban signing ceremony in Ottawa. In an attempt to explain US
position, US special representative Rick Inderfurth said, "It was not
for lack of common dedication to eliminating anti-personnel land mines
from the face of the Earth."

"I think it's important for those countries to re-think their motives
for not signing," said Dr. Julius Toth of the international medical
assistance group "Doctors Without Borders." "If they can justify to
the children that I have to deal with when I'm working in the
countries, with amputees and the victims of these mines they'd
better come up with a pretty valid reason for not being on line."

Talking to the delegates and donors at the historical moment of
signing the treaty, Canada's Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy said
that removing the mines was not just a humanitarian issue, but a
development problem. He said agricultural production could rise by
one-third in Angola and Cambodia -- and double in Afghanistan -- if
cropland was cleared of land mines.

According to an NGO, CARE, that works in 39 of the 64 countries riddled
with land mines, including such heavily mined nations as Angola,
Afghanistan, Cambodia and Bosnia, approximately 100 million mines are
still buried in the earth all around the Globe. In a last minute
appeal to President Clinton during a press conference held on December
3, 1997, at the Ottawa Land Mine on December 3, 1997, Clarice Taylor,
Communications Officer & Policy Advisor of CARE USA, said, "Ottawa
isn't more than an hour and a half from Washington. The Treaty signing
will go on for another 36 hours. Mr. President, there is still time."

The Land Mine Ban Treaty is a critical step forward in the
establishment of a new international standard of decency. We want
governments who signed on to be swift in setting and
affirming that standard. The land mine issue is not a narrow military
technical argument. It is a broader social and moral question - and it
is to this level that we hope every one will stand up and deliver.