According to this CNN article here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/us.landmines/index.html
…the USA will not be joining many, many other nations (including every other member of NATO) in this ban.
From the article: *“This administration undertook a policy review and we decided our landmine policy remains in effect,” Kelly said in response to a question. “We made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention.”
Opponents of the U.S. landmine policy said they were surprised.
“It is a disturbing development,” said Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch. “The administration never said a policy review was under way.”
Goose said the decision to leave the policy in place is at odds with the administration’s professed commitments to international agreements and humanitarian issues.
“The international treaty against landmines has made a a huge difference and it is a very strong deterrent,” Goose said. “It has to have been a very fast and cursory review.”*
I don’t profess to know a lot about landmines, I was in the US Army but landmines weren’t in my purview.
I have to presume that because we are still involved in two wars that we couldn’t ostensibly join such a ban because we are still actively using landmines right now.
Are mines that aren’t buried like Claymores included in this ban? Is there some other reason we wouldn’t join this (eg, because Russia and China won’t join)?
I’m just wondering what the debate surrounding this issue is. The Obama admin strikes me as one that would have been a little less ambiguous about their reasoning.