Re: DSII Question- Obstacles

Allan Goodall wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
> Finally, it should allow the UN to impose sanctions on nations that
> start purchasing mines later, such as in the case of a nation that's
> government has been overthrown by a military dictatorship.
...Snip...(JTL)
> One thing about the American decision not to sign it is that the US
> has managed to hurt its standing on the world stage. While the US may
> think of itself as the world's policeman, other countries (in
> particular Canada, which was the nation that pushed the treaty) have
> gained some stature in the Third World. This won't help the US' image
> in peacekeeping especially after the Somalia debacle.
> 
> And there's always the possibility of Canada or other countries using
> this as a diplomatic chit when asked to sign another treaty later.
> 
> Allan Goodall        agoodall@sympatico.ca
> 

Allan,
     It is rather unlikely that the UN will impose sanctions on 
a country that is not a signatory of the treaty.   It is also
unlikely that the faction that overthrows a goverment that is
a signatory of the treaty will consider itself a signatory of the
treaty or a continuation of the same goverment.   The 'NEW' 
goverment or nation may ask to sign or not sign the treaty at
its whim.
     Most of the UN votes show our standing in the world, we have
none.	We do not consider ourselves the 'policeman to the world',
only the believers in 'The New World Order' support that.  (Try
looking up to find the one who originated 'The New World Order' as
a social program.   Folks in the U.S.A. have enough problems at
home. 
     Not a bad idea, hae some of the people who have gained stature
go out and try to 'peacekeep' (and pay the operatonal bills) for 
Bosnia, Haiti, and the others.	 It would be interesting to see
just how much stature could be retained after a few operations.

Bye for now,
John L.