Another German here. While constanze seems overly antagonistic, I can see where she’s coming from.
And its because I’m German that I feel this way. I’m well aware of Germany’s past, but guilt doesn’t really describe how I feel about it. I was born 39 years after the war ended, and I think it’s fair to judge countries how they behave at the moment, not reduce them to what they did almost a lifetime ago.
The German army is now trying to be a moral one, and in a case like the bombing of captured fuel trucks with a lot of civilian casualties, the responsible officer may face criminal charges, and the Defense Minister stepped down because of his information policy.
And it’s not anymore to atone for the past, but to apply the lessons we learned the hard way, and try to take the moral high ground. You may think that’s naive, but I think it makes a difference, not so much on the political level, but in the population of a potentially hostile country, whether they perceive you using your powers in a just and fair way.
It’s not about using mines in a “responsible” manner, it’s not using them at all in order to pressure others not use them either. And it would be better to have a treaty that bans only buried anti-personnel mines and lets you keep the ones you feel you need to have, than not have a treaty at all.
It may be difficult to make that work, but that’s the only way we have - “might makes right” doesn’t work to win hearts and minds, and wars and embargos are the only tools you have if that’s the extent of your diplomacy. I feel similarly about Iran’s bomb - of course internationally that’s very problematic, but it’s difficult to convince the average Iranian that Israel can have a “secret” bomb but they can’t.
But isn’t the bolded part the sticking point? I have to assume that were there an exception for the minefields that help seperate North and South Korea that the USA would sign it, unless there’s other language in the treaty that somehow detracts from our ability to use anti-personnel mines in the conflicts that we are currently engaged in, like Claymores, which are of the non-buried, transportable variety.
I feel compelled to point out that keeping North Korea in check is not only just good for the USA and South Korea, but the stability of the entire region and maybe the world as a whole. So perhaps an exception in this case is warranted.
Is there a link somewhere to the actual language of the treaty so that we can find out just why the USA won’t sign it, besides the obvious Korean issue?
Yes, but not all of the relevant factors were “a lifetime ago”. Right up until 1989 or so was the prevailing threat that West Germany could be over-run by Soviets (and there is adequate precedent showing these guys weren’t fooling around) but what was stopping it wasn’t that the USSR had gotten some hard-learned moral lesson about the evils of war, but NATO and its military strength. West Germany, if left to fend for itself, certainly would have been absorbed into the Soviet sphere as the East was.
There are a number of perfectly valid criticisms that can be leveled at Americans, and I’m eager to jump in when they say dumb things about my country, but for someone to call them imperialist while ignoring the far closer imperialist threat that the Americans were protecting them from is something I think deserving of scorn.
Not much to add that hasn’t already been said, but…isn’t Bryan Ekers a Canadian? Why is everyone going on about him like he’s from America? Or do Europeans think we all look alike…?
I just figured some people were reacting to the post but not actually reading it, which is amusing in a way, especially when my Canadian-ness is actually cited in the portion they quoted.
But since getting “guest” status and losing my location tag, I guess it’s an easy enough mistake to make.
Yes, sure, that comment was about the assertion that Germans had no right to criticize other countries.
But even there - NATO didn’t rely on minefields to keep the Soviets in check, did it? I think the North Koreans wouldn’t be so suicidal to attack the South minefields or no.
And I’m perfectly aware of and grateful for the way the Americans treated Europe after the war. Even if they of course still were motivated by self-interested in a way, Western Germany became a peaceful and prosperous country again.
The landmine issue, however, is no longer a topic in Europe.
(I’m not sure why Finland didn’t join NATO, but I feel that would be a better way of deterring invasion than minefields).
The landmine treaty tries to ban mines that are mainly used in the third world, and take a horrific toll under civilians. The way the US uses mines is not in itself a problem, in my opinion, but making exceptions and excuses for the “good guys” undermines the acceptance in the countries where the problem lies.
I admit I don’t know the exact details of the agreement, and would be interested in learning more as well.
Wikipedia at least lists the Korean situation as the reason they didn’t sign.
But as far as I know, the Americans didn’t try to work on the treaty and get it signed by as many nations as possible, even if in a modified form, they just won’t sign it.
And alternatives to the minefields are not completely out of the question, are they?
This is a more general argument about how I perceive they are acting: because they feel they are the good guys (and they often are!) and they use a certain technology, they want to keep it and that’s it.
If they trusted organizations like the UN more, and tried to use them and help them to achieve the often shared goals instead of trying to act unilaterally the results would be much better.
I think the Copenhagen treaty is a similar situation, and any number of things.
What’s the U.N.'s track record for setting and enforcing treaties? I’m just curious what could be considered a U.N. success story and could inspire trust.
She was talking about the Death Strip that kept Eastern Germans from fleeing to the West, not a military application and certainly not from NATO.
Her comparison of that to the DMZ is a bit muddled, though.
Now that I think about it again, I think I found her point:
The minefields stop North Koreans from fleeing to the South.
That is not their intended effect, and not something the Kims need help from the Americans for, but one similarity nevertheless.
I agree that the UN’s track record is not stellar.
But the EU’s story proves that it is possible for former mortal enemies to work together peacefully and for mutual benefit.
It, too, is often plagued by bureaucracy, often stemming from special interests, being a bit unaccessible for the common citizens, so it’s not working as good as it could.
But still, look what it has accomplished: One of the areas most plagued by wars is now one of the most peaceful, the countries in Western Europe are stable and rich.
So I firmly believe the UN could do much more than it does at the moment - the cold war is over, and Russia and China can be convinced to go along with something if it’s not to their detriment.
The American approach doesn’t help, though, resisting other countries’ initiatives instead of trying to lead in this area of politics as well.
Leading just invites more accusations of imperialism. As far as I can tell, someone who has decided that Americans are imperialist gets the benefit of being able to claim so no what the Americans do or don’t do.
Well, proposing treaties and international regulations is certainly less imperialist than an invasion of a country that “will pay for itself”.
But it’s true, as long as the US has the world’s biggest economy and military, these accusations will be there. There might be less truth to them when America joins organizations like the International Criminal Court, and many more.
It wasn’t the EU that made it possible for former mortal enemies to work together peacefully and for mutual benefit. As we say in the U.S., you’re putting the cart before the horse. Western Europeans achieved peace and mutual cooperation and then the EU came into existence. It helps that most of them were fairly liberal democracies and following World War II they largely came to the conclusion that mutual trade was a good thing and that there wasn’t anything left for them to fight about.
Yes, exactly. The existence of the EU proves that, not what the EU has done.
To me this means that everybody should try to improve and support the UN, not just complain that it doesn’t work. That would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course the differences around the world are much greater than those within Europe in 1950, say, but then again the level of cooperation is much looser in the UN and will remain so for quite a long time.
Mostly because Finland didn’t want to needlessly antagonize the Russians. Finland had weird love hate relationship going on with the Soviets post WW2 (Finlandization). We did a lot of trade with them but at the same time feared them. There’s also a doing by yourself mentality in the Finnish psyche. A pride that refuses outside help if you will. The Alliance with Nazi Germany was sold to the people as military cooperation between equals rather than help from a much bigger nation. Finland also declined the Marshall plan.
There does exist desire by some politicians and parties to join NATO today, but the people are largely against it. One of the biggest reason of opposing NATO is the unwillingness to risk our conscripted soldiers in foreign conflicts should Finland join.
I can’t believe a German just got all snotty about mistakes Americans made over a century ago with regards to ethnic groups. I may bronze it and keep it on a bookshelf.
Does anybody have any citations for what the South Koreans think about us and the landmines? Do they think we should sign, or not? (Knowing that if North Korea ever does invade it’ll be hand to hand in the streets of Seoul?) That’s an actual honest question, as I don’t read Korean and haven’t seen anything in English on the subject.
