Norms v. National Security

Obama Says No to Landmines, with Steve Groves, National Review Online, September 29, 2014. "On March 6, 2014, America’s highest-ranking military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, called anti-personnel landmines (APLs) “an important tool in the arsenal of the armed forces of the United States.” Yesterday, President Obama banned the armed forces from using them. Why? To comply with a treaty — the Ottawa Convention — that the United States hasn’t even ratified. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty, but the Obama administration still feels compelled, in the words of a State Department spokesman, to “underscore its commitment to the spirit and humanitarian aims of the Ottawa Convention.”

The Flaws of the Land Mines Ban

The Flaws of the Ottawa Convention, National Security Policy Proceedings, Spring 2011. "The Ottawa Convention looks likely to become another ABM Treaty or International Criminal Court: a commitment made by one administration that—because it poses dangers to our security and our sovereignty—will force a sensible future administration to spend a good deal of time, energy, and political capital setting it right. Indeed, if we are not careful now, it will become a commitment from which any future administration will find it very difficult to escape."

VIDEO: U.S. Landmine Policy: Status and Prospects

U.S. Landmine Policy: Status and Prospects, lecture given to Center for Security Policy's National Security Lunch, February 25, 2011.

The Flawed Ottawa Convention

The Ottawa Mine Ban Convention: Unacceptable on Substance and Process, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2496, December 13, 2010. "By announcing a review of U.S. landmine policy, the Obama Administration has reopened the possibility that the U.S. could become a party to the fatally flawed Ottawa Convention, which bans the use of all anti-personnel landmines. Such a ban applied to the U.S. would seriously degrade the ability of the U.S. to defend itself and its allies, particularly in Korea. Furthermore, the very process by which the convention was created is objectionable because it undermines responsible diplomacy and the sovereignty of the United States and other nation-states. The U.S. should shun the Ottawa Convention and the associated process, and instead pursue reasonable arms control through serious diplomacy."

Example #7: Why the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty Is a Bad Idea

In Pursuit of Arms Trade Treaty, Slogans Substitute for Sanity, Heritage Foundation Foundry, May 28, 2010. "Amnesty International has a new slogan designed to drum up support for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty: it’s calling on its supporters to demand a “bullet-proof” treaty. That’s cute. Unfortunately, what’s cute is not necessarily good policy, as Amnesty’s slogan illustrates all too clearly."