A Clinton Waffle That May Blow Up

Land mines are a clear example of President Clinton’s well honed skill of being on both sides of an issue: saying one thing and then doing another.

In the fall of 1994, the president gave an address at the United Nations, greeted with much applause, in which he promised to work to rid land mines from the earth. I believed he meant what he said. So did many others. We were wrong.

When it came time to actually draft the policy, Clinton, influenced by Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, decided to support “smart mines.” Smart mines are designed to self-destruct after 30 to 90 days. The U.S. policy supports the elimination of “dumb mines”, the lethal ones that now pock the earth by the millions and remain dangerous years after the wars are over and the soldiers have gone home.

This virtually assures that millions of land mines will continue to pollute the earth, because smart mines are expensive. Dumb mines cost just a few dollars. So we are saying to other countries that we will keep land mines, the expensive kind; but they will have to get rid of their land mines. This is a policy designed not to make any difference at all.

There are a number of angry, disappointed and outraged groups following this administration double-talk on land mines. Human rights groups, religious groups, Vietnam veterans organizations and relief agencies have all joined together in a campaign to ban the use of all land mines. The United Nations leadership supports a ban on land mines. The Senate, led by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), has adopted a one-year moratorium on land mines to begin in 1999. The ban land mines campaign has picked up powerful support in Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. On a recent visit to Angola, Albright was distressed by the maimed land mine victims. She has written other Cabinet members urging a change in U.S. policy. All of these efforts are aimed at a constituency of one, Clinton.

Even Shalikashvili has called for a Pentagon review, saying he now is inclined to oppose all land mines. But Clinton has not yet agreed to a change in land mine policy. Renowned for sticking like glue to whatever the military recommends, Clinton should have the courage to put into practice what he promised two years ago.

A conference on limiting land mines is planned for April in Geneva. Canada and many European countries have taken strong anti-land mine positions. Clinton should not dilly-dally, waiting for a further military blessing. He should do what’s right: Promise to implement and extend the Leahy bill banning land mine use. Further, he should pledge to prohibit land mine manufacture in the U.S. and to destroy existing stocks of land mines. It’s time to be commander in chief, not follower in chief.