[EMAIL PROTECTED]
du To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: cc:
owner-BRIN-L@c Subject: Landmines Compromising Re: US
ornell.edu Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
civilization?
08/05/01 11:13
PM
Please respond
to BRIN-L
At 09:42 AM 8/5/01 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
>I think you miss the point. When/if we finally resolve the conflict in
>Korea, I would think it reasonable for the Korean/US armies to be expected
>to use their maps to remove the mines themselves. If this one area was
>given what seems like an acceptable exemption, it appears that the US
would
>have been willing to sign the treaty.
I should point out that the US also pushed for an exmpetion for
smart-mines. These are landmines that are not triggered by individuals, or
even personal vehicles, but instead, require a tank to set them off. The
US appeared likely to be willing to agree to stringent regulations
regarding use, deployment, recording, marking, and clean-up of these
smart-mines - but were rebuffed.
I don't know if the smart-mine issue would have been a deal-killer, but
given the relative strength of the North Korean and allied forces, the
Korean DMV exemption was certainly a deal-killer.
JDG
Actually, John, I believe that this is not exactly the case. What you're
describing are anti-tank mines, which are simply fused not to detonate
unless a multi-ton vehicle goes over them. I'm not actually sure if the
International Treaty to Ban Land Mines covers them - I have a vague feeling
that it does not, in fact, do so. Smart mines - which the United States is
asking for an exemption for - are computer-controlled mines that are
designed to be cleared automatically. In my opinion, although I am not an
expert on the issue, the American government is wrong on this one. It
stems from a misunderstanding between cleared for military and civilian
purposes. Smart minefields can be cleared automatically for military
purposes. They cannot, however, be cleared for civilian purposes, because
even the best smart mines don't have a 100% success rate on this issue.
The reason that the United States needed an exemption for the Korean
Peninsula is that the anti-tank minefields that line the (Southern) side of
the DMZ are protected by anti-personnel minefields, to make it more
difficult for North Korean sappers to clear the fields. That's why we
needed an exemption for the Peninsula.
I'm not sure if Jeroen is reading this, but if he is, I wanted to point
this out as a larger issue in the difference between American and European
positions. In the Korean Peninsula, the United States has
_responsibilities_. We have 35,000 soldiers - some of whom are friends of
mine - protecting a fledgling democracy from the world's last Stalinist
dictatorship. No European country has any similar responsibilities - to be
blunt, no European country has such responsibilties anywhere in the world,
while we have such commitments all over the world. So when European
countries sign the Land-Mine Treaty it is a meaningless gesture on their
part - they experience no costs and undergo no risks by doing so. The
United States asked only for an exemption for the Korean Peninsula, because
had we not gotten that exemption and been forced to clear the minefields,
we would have put not only our soldiers, but millions of Korean civilians,
at risk. Those minefields pose absolutely no risk to any Korean civilians
- they are all guarded by Korean and American soldiers, in fact, who, among
other things, prevent civilians from crossing into the minefields. Yet
European countries were unwilling to grant even a temporary exemption for
the Korean peninsula. Nor, I must point out, are any of them exactly
putting the lives of _their_ citizens at risk to protect the people of
South Korea. When this happens, I think that the American view of European
diplomacy becomes rather jaundiced - we tend to believe that the purpose of
the exercise was to embarass the United States, not actually to achieve
anything. I make, I think, an honest effort not to attribute the actions
of anyone to malice without strong efforts. Yet I am unable to generate
another explanation for the refusal to grant the United States (and South
Korea, of course) a temporary exemption for the Korean peninsula, given the
rather unique situation there. Can you supply one? And do you understand
why a nation with responsibilties - one that is spending billions of
dollars and risking thousands of lives to defend South Korea - might not be
particularly amenable to criticism from countries that are not taking
similar steps?
Gautam
