WASHINGTON (RNS) Leaders from 67 religious and humanitarian organizations have asked President Obama to reconsider U.S. opposition to global treaties that prohibit the use and transfer of landmines and cluster munitions.
“Reconsidering these two treaties — and eliminating the threat that U.S. forces might use weapons that most of the world has condemned — would greatly aid efforts to reassert our nation’s moral leadership,”
the Tuesday (Feb. 10) letter said.
The Mine Ban Treaty was signed by 122 governments in December 1997, and there are currently 156 member states, according to the International Campaign to Band Landmines. The new Convention on Cluster Munitions was signed by 94 states in December 2008. The United States has not signed either.
The letter recognizes that Washington has supported operations to remove landmines, but said such efforts are “undermined” by nonparticipation in the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Obama was asked to begin a review within the next six months of the past U.S. decisions to not join the treaties, and to examine both humanitarian and diplomatic concerns, as well as the interests of the U.S. military.
“The use of weapons that disproportionately takes the lives and limbs of civilians is wholly counterproductive in today’s conflicts, where winning over the local population is essential to mission success,” the letter said.
Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori; Ronald Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action; Ken Hackett, president of Catholic Relief Services; and the Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, were among the religious leaders who signed this letter.
By Karin Hamilton
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved.No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted February 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm
There are some things we do that group us with some of the worst nations in the world. These are two of them. These religious and humanitarian leaders are absolutely right.
posted February 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm
More crap left over from the “W” admin. This sounds like something that President Obama would be willing to do. Am glad the groups have brought this up.
posted February 11, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“The Mine Ban Treaty was signed by 122 governments in December 1997, and there are currently 156 member states, according to the International Campaign to Band Landmines. The new Convention on Cluster Munitions was signed by 94 states in December 2008. The United States has not signed either.”
This makes me feel sad, not just for the United States, but for humanity in general. How can you not be opposed to the use of land mines? And that’s not a rhetorical question: I really do want an answer. You’d think that all these warmongers in the world wouldn’t mind banning this, seeing as we have much more efficient ways of killing innocent civilians these days.
posted February 11, 2009 at 11:19 pm
This lurks at the bottom of the same sludge bucket as the torture decisions. Signing an agreement like this does not take a long time to decide. There is no just or good reason to use these monstrosities. Holding out just in case we should decide they are a valuable strategic wespon is a feeble and meaningless excuse. I hope – and expect – Obama will sign this without much hesitation.
posted February 12, 2009 at 12:40 am
Merely because nations sign a treaty doesn’t necessarily mean they will abide by such a treaty. Does the Geneva Convention ring a bell? Perhaps instead of banning steroids and growth hormones MLB Commisioner Bud Selig can have players sign a prommisary note saying they will not use banned substances. And what happens when nations violate the treaty? Do we take them to small claims court for not honoring the treaty? Sentence them to time at Club Gitmo? Community service working for FEMA? Lower the price of a drum of oil yet another thirty-five cents? Saddam Hussein clearly violated the treaty of the first Persian Gulf War by not allowing UN inspectors in, yet Bush was labeled the evil one in that story (even though I believe he may have acted imprudently).
History dictates that the US of A (and Israel) is heald to a higher standard than other nations worldwide when it comes to military tactics. No one seems to be throwing down the hammer on Hamas for using innocent women and children as human shields when they lob rocket fire into neighboring Israel. Should that not have drawn the eyre of the United Nations, seeing as how they’re the ruling government of Palestine (never mind they threw remaining Fatah members via military coup off of rooftops). If we’re going to be demanding about following wartime rules, then let us be consistent across the board. So far, I see little to no evidence that this has happened.
posted February 12, 2009 at 6:17 am
It’s kind of hard to demand others follow rules you don’t agree to follow.
And clearly no one is holding Israel to any high standards when they leave a million cluster bombs we made and “cover towns” with them as they exit Lebanon, not to mention shelling hospitals (with phosphorous shells we made). Israel has given up any claim it may have had to fighting a clean war.
But wouldn’t you like to be in a country that uses a higher standard? I would. We pay an immense amount of tax money for military development and supply ostensibly to protect our fighting men and women (though that didn’t work so well under the Republicans). We should use some of that money to create munitions that don’t sit in the ground for months waiting to maim a child or kill a farmer.
posted February 12, 2009 at 10:20 am
President Obama has said and promulgated his agenda on changing how Washington works and the changing of “old line thinking”. Participating in the land mine treaty would be a great step. We have created some of the problem with the mines left in Southeast Asia. Innocents should not be killed or maimed because of our unwillingness to correct a bad situation. Our military has sufficient alternatives
to wage war. Having experienced first hand the devastation landmines can cause I would strongly urge President Obama to sign this treaty.
We should be leading this effort not dragging our feet.
posted February 12, 2009 at 11:04 am
No problem here with removing potentially destructive landmines; I simply don’t believe in treaties. They only serve as nooses to hang around our necks (should we miss a landmine here or there) and our adversaries rarely if ever follow them. North Korea and Iran both signed the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty and low and behold (much to the surprise of everyone no doubt) they’re not following them! Iran also manufactured IUDs that killed and maimed American soldiers and blatently denied doing so.