The Economist - USA (2020-02-15)

24 United States The EconomistFebruary 15th 2020

2

1

vices,seeingpovertyandjoblessnessfall

andthepopulationstabilise.TonyFlora,a

unionleaderinthecity,praiseshimfor

standing withorganisedlabour,and for

helpingundocumented workers,notably

Latinos,getidentitypapers.

Yetsomesayheoverstateshissuccess.

SeveralothercitiesintheMidwest—Ann

Arbor, Kalamazoo, Madison—have done

welltoo,partlyliftedbyyearsofnational

economicrecovery.SouthBendwasalso

helpedbythepresenceofNotreDameon

itsboundary.Onepoliticalrivalgrumbles

thatMrButtigiegismostskilledatspin,

takingcredit,andself-promotion.Another

complains that the ex-mayor verges on

monomaniawhenit comestohiscareer.

Some African-Americans in the city

havealsocriticisedMrButtigieg,mostly

becausehedemotedthecity’sfirstblack

policechiefandremoveda blackfirechief

soonaftertakingofficein2011.SouthBend

hasseena fallinthenumbersofblackpo-

liceofficersandsignsofrisingracialsegre-

gationinhousing. Questionsaboutthis

doghimonthetrail.Evensympathisers

agreethatMrButtigiegwastooslowtotake

suchconcernsseriously.Thecandidatehas

admittedhewasnaiveinfailingtoseehow

badlysegregatedthecity’sschoolsstillare.

His polling among African-American

Democratsremainsdire,despite(orper-

hapsbecause of ) making along list of

promisestorightpastwrongsonrace.

Atjust38,helacksanynationaloreven

state-levelgoverningorlegislativeexperi-

ence.Andthoughnoonehaseverbefore

jumpedfromamayor’sofficedirectlyto

theWhiteHouse,hecanatleastsaythat

votersinthefirsttwoprimarystateshave

shruggedoffsuchhistoricniceties.Gram-

sciadvocated“pessimismofthespirit;op-

timismofthewill”.Thatcouldbeanunoffi-

cial Buttigieg campaign slogan as the

primary heads to larger, more racially

mixedstates. 7

D

uring theGulf war of 1991, no fewer

than 117,000 landmines were showered

over Kuwait and Iraq by American planes.

This barely dented the Pentagon’s vast

stockpile of 19m. Just under a quarter of the

devices scattered in the path of Saddam

Hussein’s army were anti-personnel land-

mines (apls), the sort that would soon be

banned by the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban

Convention of 1997, widely known as the

Ottawa treaty, a cause famously champi-

oned by Princess Diana. It was the last occa-

sion on which America made significant

use of apls. But a new ruling by the Trump

administration suggests that the weapons

could make a comeback.

The Ottawa treaty has 164 parties, all of

which ban the production and use of apls

(anti-vehicle mines, among others, are still

allowed). America is not among them.

When the treaty was finalised, America de-

clined to join (other holdouts include Chi-

na, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Syria). President

Bill Clinton said he hoped America would

sign up later but his successor, George W.

Bush, flatly rejected the idea. In 2014 Barack

Obama made an important compromise by

confining the use of apls to the Korean

peninsula, where he pointed to “unique

circumstances”—America’s need to defend

a long border against a large North Korean

army. But everywhere else, America would

at last come into line with the treaty. “We

were signalling our clear aspiration to

eventually accede to the Ottawa Conven-

tion,” said the White House at the time.

Mr Trump, who generally takes the view

that anything favoured by his predecessor

is inherently suspect, and has already loos-

ened rules on cluster munitions since De-

cember 2017, rescinded Mr Obama’s land-

mine policy on January 31st, allowing

senior commanders outside theKorean

peninsula to use apls once more and per-

mitting their production to resume. The

Pentagon said that it had conducted a study

which demonstrated “a critical capability

gap” in its arsenal.

Landmines have a number of military

uses. They are typically used to channel op-

posing armies away from particular areas

and into others. A minefield can force an

enemy to turn, which exposes their flank

and makes them especially vulnerable,

says Vincent Brooks, a retired general who

commanded American forces in South Ko-

rea in 2016-18. They can also be used to “ca-

nalise” the enemy, channelling attackers

into unfavourable terrain, where they may

be more exposed to concentrated artillery

fire. But for all that, America has made little

use of landmines in the past three decades,

having cleared its last minefield, at the

Guantanamo naval base in Cuba, in 1996-99

and having used a single aplin Afghani-

stan in 2002 (the purpose is unknown).

Why has Mr Trump decided he needs

them now? The memorandum setting out

the change in landmine policy opens by

pointing to “the re-emergence of long-

term, strategic competition”, language that

the Pentagon typically uses to refer to Chi-

na and Russia. Some experts suggest that

the need to slow and disrupt a possible

Russian offensive through eastern Europe

is a possible rationale, especially because

nato’s strategy relies on buying time to re-

inforce its frontline positions.

But the policy shift probably has much

more to do with North Korea than either of

those countries. Although Mr Obama’s re-

strictions permitted the use of apls on the

Korean peninsula, after the Pentagon said

it could not do without them, he had earlier

pledged that America would not produce

any new ones, even to replace existing

stocks. Since the batteries and other com-

ponentsinlandminesdegradeovertime,

Donald Trump loosens the rules on landmines—but only on ones that can blow

themselves up

Ethical landmines

Watch your step

No longer a museum piece