In a famous June 1963 speech at American University, Kennedy bucked a reluctant military by promising that the United States would unilaterally stop testing nuclear weapons. Ratification of a global ban followed later that summer. Clinton went to AU himself last week to announce his agenda for the coming months. He quoted Kennedy in calling for national testing and free trade–but failed to even mention the land-mine ban now being drafted in Oslo.
The president’s silence is a surrender to the military. The Joint Chiefs argue against a ban ““in order to minimize the risk to U.S. soldiers and marines in combat.’’ But their case is flawed, and Clinton should side with the bipartisan congressional majorities and the 100 nations that favor a ban. (There’s huge public support, too, thanks in part to a campaign by Diana.) The president might even be facing pressure close to home: Hil- lary and Chelsea reportedly favor abolishing mines.
Of course, we should spare nothing to protect our soldiers. The military’s position, however, overlooks some key facts: mines have killed 29 U.N. and NATO peacekeepers in Bosnia and wounded more than 250. Ten percent of U.S. casualties in Somalia and the gulf were caused by mines, and 64,000 American troops in Vietnam were killed or injured by mines–90 percent of which were either made in America or manufactured by the Viet Cong with American components.
Meanwhile, U.S. negotiators sent to Oslo at the last minute have been stalling the talks by trying to preserve America’s advantage in so-called ““smart’’ mines, designed to self-destruct after a few days in the ground. But these mines aren’t smart enough to distinguish between a soldier and a child, and commanders concede the mines don’t always disarm on cue; army doctrine is already shifting away from dependence on land mines. Moreover, American insistence on this exception invites other nations to craft their own loopholes. As a result of our stonewalling, the Oslo talks are likely to adjourn this week without a fully drafted treaty and without a U.S. commitment to sign the accord when the nations reconvene this December in Ottawa.
That’s a terrible mistake, and the president is wrong not to push for a ban. Aside from the Joint Chiefs, the president is not in good company on this issue. Jesse Helms is leading the fight against the treaty in the Senate. Abroad? The usual suspects: Russia and China, joined by rogue states like Iran, Iraq, Libya and Cuba. So it’s Clinton, Castro, Kaddafi and Helms against the world.
Clinton has the makings of an impressive arms-control record. He’s led the fight for a Chemical Weapons Treaty and a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban. Sullying these achievements by standing in the way of a ban on land mines is unwise policy and inept long-term politics. Presidents are often remembered for moments when they stand up to the military. Think of Truman’s integrating the ranks and Eisenhower’s shot at the ““military-industrial complex.’’ Now Clinton has the chance to save lives and make his- tory by signing this treaty. He shouldn’t pass it up.
