Laws and Landmines

Turns out the U.S. will continue to NOT take part in the International Mine Ban Treaty. Why? Partly due to the actual difficulty of ratifying international treaties.

First, the facts of the Mine Ban Treaty: conceived in 1997, 156 signatories, 37 non-signatories (including China, India, Russia). Now, while the treaty has been in existence for nearly twelve years, the U.S. has never signed it (even though they were a party in its creation) as it would conflict with official policy. As noted:

The United States refuses to sign the treaty because it does not offer a “Korean exception”, as landmines are said to be a crucial component of the U.S. military strategy in South Korea. According to the US government, the one million mines along the DMZ between North and South help maintain the delicate peace by deterring a North Korean attack.

Yet that doesn’t make the Obama administration’s announcement any less surprising—many were expecting a turnabout on par with the more prominent (albeit unsatisfied) promise to close Guantánamo.

But, as Drezner says, would a policy reversal even be possible? After all, a massive 67 Senate votes are needed to ratify any international treaty. Which isn’t a terribly bad rule; in theory, choosing to adhere to an international treaty could effect a great deal of future foreign policy legislation, moreso than any single law passed internally. A greater consensus should be required.

The real question is, could another type of defense mechanism replace the land mine in the DMZ? Finding an answer could be good news for both defense contractors otherwise worried about military cutbacks (hawks), as well as for anti-landmine types (the rest of the world). Until then, though, there probably won’t be much change to look forward to.