Mine, mine, mine!
by Michael Maiello

The global ban on land mines is being rushed through on the coattails of Dianamania. Rich debutante royalty gets killed in car wreck, entire world bends to her memory. But it is being rushed, and the United States has taken a lot of unfair criticism from the international community for not jumping on the bandwagon.

The minefield between North and South Korea effectively deters a land based invasion from the North. North Korean troops have massed at the edge of the field since it was planted, and nothing has changed politically between the North and South since the end of the Korean war. These two countries are still enemies.

Worse, the North Koreans are starving and have been living in the grip of famine for two years. When a nation with a history of aggression starves but still maintains an active and ready military, they become a likely threat. Without the Soviet Union to help them, without much aid from China, the North Koreans have been left to fend for themselves. Like Germany after World War I, the North Koreans may feel backed into a corner where lightning aggression against their neighbors is the only solution.

The minefield serves a tactical purpose in the Korean theatre. They canít launch an invasion without incurring heavy losses on the border and a slow march through the demilitarized zone which would allow the South Koreans and the United States time to respond. I think the Pentagon is actually being honest here, they need that minefield as a deterrent, and the Korean Theatre is more of a potential hot spot now than it was ten years ago.

If the United Nations offered an exemption for the Korean minefield, I would support signing the treaty, promising we would not erect further minefields, and clear all other mines we have planted throughout the world. I don't think this is a disingenuous signing of the treaty. Land mines were legal and accepted when we placed the field, and the field has become the foundation for defense in that region. Our troops are at risk in the case of North Korean aggression, and we can't just agree to remove a key ingredient of our defense because of global opinion and a dead heiress.

The news media in England and Ireland have been hitting the United States on this point. Criticisms have also come from the Dutch and French. I understand that the international community might be frustrated with the United States. No doubt, we've ignored global mandates before because they didn't suit our particular agendas. But this is a case of practicality and military tactics in a region where we have troops at risk.

So, I find myself for the United States and against Europe on this issue. It doesn't have to be that way, though. If, all the countries with complaints said something like "Look, agree to pull the land mines out of that region, and the United Nations will set up a task force to help you safely clear the mines, and to patrol the border for as long as this situation lasts," then I'd be all for the signing the agreement.

It isn't fair to say we have to remove part of our South Korean defense strategy while the rest of the world offers no help to guard the border against aggression. If the world wants the minefield gone, then the world should offer to fill the tactical gap left by their removal. I want to see French, British, Dutch, and Irish, troops on that border, alongside our troops.

It's not as simple as just banning weapons. There are military and political consequences to these actions. Lives could be lost on that border. But before the whole world points an accusing finger at any one country, they should at least look at how a global treaty affects existing situations, offer assistance to aide and encourage compliance. That's how a true world government will have to function, and I think member states of the U.N. are missing an opportunity here.

The U.S. has acted like a global bully, and we have ignored U.N. mandates in the past. We have done this because our sphere of influence is so large, and there are so many hot spots in the world that the U.S. can realistically call "our show." We can always claim that those are our troops at risk, our treaty being negotiated, and our business. For the U.N. to become an effective political force, it will have to start joining us in our business, and making it their own. Power in any region comes from those taking responsibility. The U.S. has always been willing to take responsibility in exchange for power and freedom. Those are our mines, our troops, our concern. But the world could step forward, if they truly believe land mines are such a threat, and offer to take over some of that business in exchange for the removal of the mines. It would become a global theatre, and start the United States down a path of working with the world, rather than alone and on its own behalf.

Michael Maello has abdicated the LCN Ireland bureau. He has set his sights on New York City as the next point of repose in his journey.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page