|
|
Post by Chloe Fetter on May 14, 2018 3:58:50 GMT
According to Robert Ireland, a write for The WorldWeekly “live mines restrict the expansion of commercial farming, kill and injure civilians, and hamper the government’s plans to attract tourism” (WorldWeekly) yet, not much action is taken in order to prevent the destructive usage of mines. Live mines might be brushed off as a humanitarian issue because there is such little funding for the countries that are affected. Since nobody is willing to help pay up, these areas of the world continue to silently suffer. Silence is one of the main issues with this epidemic, reflecting Princess Diana of Wales view on the weapon as she calls them “stealthy killers”. This leads to the question about how the future of the countries will look. The usage of landmines in areas which would otherwise be usable property of farmland “leads to what country managers have described as “denial of use”, where safe land for agriculture is limited and increasingly in demand” (WorldWeekly). Knowing this, the socioeconomic of the countries are most likely tremendously impoverished and since land is hard to come by already, the prices will only continue to rise as land becomes less available. Countries are not willing to give up their ability to use such weaponry due to their omnipresence. They are just barely noticeable so they are great for stealthy kills and also have a great advantage in militaristic use however, any undetonated mines will continue to “stall post-conflict recovery” (WorldWeekly) as they remain effective long after wartime has passed. Some countries must be trying to provide a safer place for their citizens by getting on board with the Ottawa Treaty and banning mines as their use can “pose a humanitarian threat and hinder socioeconomic development” (WorldWeekly). The use of landmines does cost in both lives, currency, and the stability of strength of a country. Hopefully more countries will sign off on this treaty as this is a terrible epidemic that needs to be stopped for the safety of innocent lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Makayla Rieder on May 14, 2018 17:02:47 GMT
@meghan I think that if the people of a country become more educated on this subject, then maybe they will want to do something about it. If there is a big enough outcry by the people about landmines, which is quite unlikely because there is not much news coverage on it, then they may start to consider signing on and giving up landmines. Countries like the United States like to have as much power as they can get, and not being able to use landmines may seem like a decrease in power to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Makayla Rieder on May 14, 2018 17:03:19 GMT
@hunter The United States would not really obtain much from being involved in ANgola other than oil that they can’t get to because of the landmines. One of the only reasons that big countries like to help smaller countries is publicity, and because there is nearly no publicity on Angola at the moment, they won’t be receiving the attention they want by helping a country in need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maya French on May 15, 2018 2:22:31 GMT
@olivia, in response to the question in your peer reply, it is very possible that the landmines may serve a purpose in controlling smaller, weaker countries. Though it is clearly not their original intentions, seeing how they were meant to divert the enemy when they were originally placed, larger countries who would be able to provide aid may chose not to in order to keep these countries "down". When a county can not expand itself, it makes them dependent on exports from other countries. The countries providing the exports are able to prosper from the smaller countries misfortune. This could be a form of neo-colonialism, but it would be nearly impossible to stop countries from taking advantage like this because on paper it would seem as though they are helping the country in need by supplying them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maya French on May 15, 2018 3:01:09 GMT
@laura, I believe that the Ottawa treaty has been successful in increments. The treaty brought more awareness to the world about the landmine epidemic and was also successful in gaining support from many countries. Unfortunately, with the way the treaty stands today it offers no gain for major countries to sign on which is holding back many other countries and allowing for landmines to be produced everyday. If there were incentive for these major countries to sign the treaty, such as intense pressure or personal gain, then the world would be able to move forward and take large steps toward irradiating landmines. Until these major influences sign on it is unlikely the Ottawa treaty can surpass its current sate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddy Crighton on May 15, 2018 3:08:58 GMT
@hunter In regards to your question, I am assuming you are asking if Angola would benefit and honestly I am not sure. The United States does have the reputation of being the "good guy" and "leader" but I feel that if it was involved, Angola would still be in the same condition it is today. On the other side, maybe the U.S. would try to intervene and remove some of the landmines but then again, these landmines are a result of Angola's cold war, not the U.S's.
|
|
|
|
Post by maddy Crighton on May 15, 2018 3:14:15 GMT
jonah as I was reading your response, I began to think about what you said about the United States not being part of the Ottawa Treaty. I like how you brought up the point that they do not want to sign it in case of severe or extreme circumstances, which got me thinking. I feel as though the United States is just going along with the treaty and its rules but will not sign it because, like you said, a major event or war may break out where the use of landmines may be beneficial or even a life or death situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura Gutauskas on May 15, 2018 3:14:34 GMT
@oliviagirdwood Answering this depends on which countries you’re talking about; those that are ridden with the landmines, or outside countries that more than likely placed them themselves. For those that harness the mines, it is very likely that they DO pin blame on the ones who put this burden on them in the first place, but since media coverage does not reach this topic in those areas, their cries for help are not heard. As for the countries that probably, or definitely, placed them there, they don’t want to take the responsibility for their past actions now that it is deemed no longer acceptable. Another instance could be the countries that do not have landmines themselves, and also did not place any in the past, may not want to stir trouble by placing the blame of an epidemic on a sole country, since usually that is how information ends up being interpreted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura Gutauskas on May 15, 2018 3:17:15 GMT
By my above reply, I meant this in terms of which country's perspective was being looked at*
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura Gutauskas on May 15, 2018 3:30:45 GMT
@meghanmiller The only point where superpowers will agree to limit specific weapon use is if they have a replacement in their back pocket beforehand, and typically one that is better than what they would plan to sacrifice anyway. Otherwise, to them it would be pointless.
It seems as if the three non-signatory superpowers are ALL fearful for the apparent loss of power which would be the result of adding their name to the contract. Although, if they could diplomatically agree to all sign together, that wouldn’t happen. The problem is getting them to come to these terms, which is what they should be doing instead of worrying about their current competitive situation. If they all make the sacrifice together, then really no one is making a sacrifice at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coel on May 15, 2018 3:45:43 GMT
@hunter If the US was more involved, it’d be a completely different story. Things would be going way better. The US is like the big brother and if they got involved, all of it’s younger siblings (other super powers) would follow in their footsteps and then everyone would be there to help. Once the US steps in, things will take a great turn for the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole on May 15, 2018 3:49:10 GMT
@matt these are destructive weapons that are meant to withstand drastic climate and terrain changes. If they would be easy to diffuse/disarm, they would not be very good weapons. They are meant to kill people when they are supposed to. If they can’t do their job then they wouldn’t be used. They need to be strong and difficult to do their job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunter Prementine on May 15, 2018 13:10:11 GMT
@meghan I don't believe that the world will see a treaty that restricts the use of any type of conventional weapons anytime soon, but in general they have committed to restricting the use of chemical weapons as a result of the Chemical Weapons Convention. (US and Russia committed) As for world powers getting toghether to restrict the use of conventional weapons like landmines, I do not see that happening. I believe the only way the use of conventional weapons will decline is when we are so advanced as a society that we don't need to use them anymore honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on May 15, 2018 13:19:21 GMT
@meghan
To answer your question as to "Do you feel as if there will ever be a time where the superpowers will willingly sign an agreement that takes away the rights to use certain weapons?" I would have to say that I do not think that an agreement like this will happen any time soon. The superpowers like to keep things how they are, and make minor changes along that way in order to create little to no controversy. These powers, no matter how many movements or how many people die, in my opinion they will not sign any further agreements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunter Prementine on May 15, 2018 13:25:00 GMT
@olivia I really like your point at the end. I think it would be interesting if we held every country involved in a war or conflict responsible for their own clean up once it ended. Even though that will never happen it is a cool thought to ponder. I think that would've definitely been a help to Angola if it was like an actual rule that once war was over you had to clean up after yourself.
|
|
