U.S. to Join Talks to End Use of Land Mines

EDGARTOWN, Mass. — President Clinton abruptly shifted tactics Monday in the dispute over how to curb the use of land mines worldwide, agreeing to join Canadian-led talks aimed at securing no-use pledges from the United States and other key countries.

Rather than waiting for a firm global ban, the White House announced that the United States will participate in the Canadian-sponsored negotiations--scheduled to begin in Oslo on Sept. 1--with hopes of signing a scaled-back no-use treaty in Ottawa by December.

At the same time, however, White House officials said the administration will renew its effort to beef up parallel negotiations to hammer out a formal global ban. Those Geneva talks have become bogged down amid the refusal of nations such as North Korea to sign.

The administration’s shift came in the face of increasing pressure, both from major U.S. allies and from domestic advocates of a land mine ban, to participate in the Oslo talks. There had been fears that Washington’s previous refusal might scuttle the Canadian-led effort.

Monday’s announcement, distributed to journalists while Clinton was vacationing here on the resort island of Martha’s Vineyard, was designed to ward off criticism by advocates of an immediate ban on the use of land mines while the administration makes a last-ditch effort to strengthen the Geneva talks.

The White House also urged the Senate to approve a pending diplomatic protocol on the use of land mines, designed as a stopgap in the push toward an eventual worldwide ban. The measure has been held up by liberals who want to force the president to halt U.S. use of land mines unilaterally.

The administration’s announcement drew guarded praise from congressional critics of its previous stance.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), co-sponsor of a bill that would force the United States to renounce the use of land mines by 2000, praised the move as “the right decision” and said he will continue to hold his bill in abeyance “as long as the United States is constructively engaged.”

He urged the administration to “apply all of its good faith and intelligence to the task of helping to force this [Oslo] treaty.” Leahy’s bill has 60 co-sponsors from both parties, including several senators who were injured by land mines during the Vietnam War.

Clinton formally dropped an earlier Pentagon demand that the U.S. seek approval for the continued use of “smart” land mines, which are equipped with mechanisms that can be used to automatically disarm them after a conflict has ended. Only the United States has such mines in its arsenal.

Asked about the issue at a briefing on Monday, State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said unequivocally that the United States seeks to ban all anti-personnel land mines. “We’re not seeking an exception for self-destructing or smart mines,” he said.

Nevertheless, U.S. officials cautioned privately that the administration’s decision to take part in the Oslo talks does not necessarily mean Washington would go along with an accord that committed the United States to no longer deploying land mines.

They said administration envoys still will push to add several key provisions to a current draft treaty, including an exemption allowing U.S. troops to use land mines on the Korean peninsula; stronger verification procedures; and a proviso to delay the effective date of the pact until all signatories have ratified it.

*

The proposed U.S. changes in the Oslo pact are designed to accommodate reservations of the Pentagon, which insists that land mines are an important weapon in keeping North Korea at bay and wants to make sure potential U.S. adversaries have sworn off the weapons before Washington agrees to do so.

Those advocating an immediate ban on the use of land mines say the weapons are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries each year.

Clinton has argued repeatedly that having the United States issue a unilateral pledge to halt the manufacture, deployment and use of land mines, as the Canadian-led talks would ask, would not have much impact because some of the major users of the weapons, such as North Korea, would not be included in the pact.