What Will the President's Disarmament Legacy Be?
by Jody Williams
1997 Nobel Laureate for Peace
Last year on December 3-4, 122 countries descended on Ottawa, Canada to sign the Mine Ban Treaty. Dozens more, including the United States, came to witness this historic event. Just a few days later in Oslo, Norway, the Norwegian Nobel Committee in awarding the 1997 Nobel Prize for Peace to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and myself largely for taking the ban on the production, trade, use and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines "from a vision to a feasible reality".
Some believed that the ICBL would view the achievement of the Treaty as the end of our work; I would imagine many hoped that would be the case and the ICBL would quietly disappear. But few saw final victory in the Treaty itself. The Campaign rightly understands the Treaty to be only the framework for the establishment of a new international norm and for mine clearance and victim assistance. Taking stock one year later, the ICBL continues its momentum with unprecedented successes. But there are few illusions about the work before us to completely eradicate antipersonnel landmines and provide care for their victims.
First, our successes. Just as the Mine Ban Treaty was negotiated in record time, it will become binding international law more quickly than any other major treaty in history. A short ten months after the Treated was signed, its 40th ratification was deposited at the United Nations on 16 September. The unprecedented and continued successes of the 'Ottawa Process' is a clear demonstration of the continued strength of the ICBL and its partnership with truly like-minded governments. On this first anniversary of the treaty-signing, the ratification drive continues unabated with 52 countries having ratified the Treaty. Those who have ratified are not content to just see it enter into force on March 1, 1999. To maintain the momentum, preparations are already underway to hold the first meeting of parties to the Treaty in the first days of May in Maputo, Mozambique.
The ICBL and its partners in the movement such as the Red Cross and United Nations pushed hard for rapid entry into force. And, yes, 133 nations have signed the Treaty -- all of the Western Hemisphere except the United States and Cuba, all of the European Union except for Finland, all of NATO except for the United States and Turkey, 17 in Asia and 43 in Africa. In addition to the U.S., there remain notable exceptions: China, India, Pakistan, Russia and too many countries in the Middle East and former soviet republics.
The United States, in particular, remains a particular thorn in the side of many who have championed the elimination of landmines. Early, critical, leadership on Capitol Hill was shown by Senator Patrick Leahy with his moratorium on the export of AP mines, which subsequently was converted into a total ban on exports. This call to leadership for the Clinton Administration has consistently been met primarily with stirring rhetoric that falls far short in concrete action.
After the stinging rebuke of U.S. negotiating positions in Oslo last September, the U.S. has struggled to show some leadership on the landmine issue. In May 97 the administration announced its willingness to give up antipersonnel mines and thus sign the Treaty by 2006 IF alternatives to the weapon are found. The administration and the Pentagon continue to hide behind the "need for alternatives" -- which so many of our most important allies have been able to forswear -- to avoid a true commitment to the Treaty.
To this day the President continues to erroneously claim that the way the Treaty is written, other countries are allowed to continue to use anti-tank mines except for the U.S. The problem is that the millions of antitank mines in the U.S. arsenal, unlike those of other countries, are mixed in canisters with antipersonnel mines. The answer to solve this dilemma is simple - remove the antipersonnel mines from the antitank mine canisters -- as was originally envisioned by the Pentagon. The nations negotiating the Treaty refused to accept a redefinition of the U.S. weapon to call these mixed mine systems "anti-tank" when they clearly include anti-personnel mines. While proporting to be prepared to sign the Treaty in 2006, the U.S. continues with multi-million dollar plans to create new mixed mine systems that will include antipersonnel landmines.
The "alternatives argument" masks more serious flaws in U.S policy. The military continues to hold one million dumb mines for new use in Korea, if needed. The Clinton administration continues to claim that antipersonnel mines are the only way to protect Seoul from the North Korean army should they mass along the border. I visited the DMZ earlier this year and viewed the heavily fortified defenses. Briefings by the ROK military were completely unconvincing. Not only does the ban movement refuse to accept that the only weapon holding back an invasion of Seoul is the antipersonnel mine, but also but by former U.S. Commanders in Korea share this view. Korea is, as with the alternatives argument, yet another roadblock set in place by a Pentagon reluctant to give up a weapon so despised by the international community.
For the first time in history, governments of the world have agreed to ban a conventional weapon in widespread use for decades. And when these true leaders of the movement to eradicate landmines meet again in May in Mozambique, this time, instead of standing on the sidelines as they did a year ago this week, the US and all non-Treaty signatory have an opportunity to stand with the international community, to join the tide of history. The US can and should sign the Treaty now - eight years is too long for the world to wait. By signing now, the President would leave a fitting disarmament legacy for the children of the next century. As commander-in-chief, the choice is clearly his to make.
