Harry Joyce in Oslo and Ian Black in London
The United States has spurned intense pressure to back a worldwide ban on anti- personnel landmines, saying its security would be compromised if it signed a treaty hailed as a victory for humanity and a tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales.
The treaty, negotiated in the Norwegian capital Oslo, was supported by nearly 90 countries, including Britain, but lacked the vital endorsement of the worlds only superpower.
Nevertheless, campaigners greeted it as an historic step. This is a victory for humanity, said a triumphant Louise Doswald-Beck, heading the International Red Cross team in Oslo. It shows that it is possible, with determination and perseverance, to make significant improvements in international humanitarian law.
Hailing the beginning of the end for landmines, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, said: This achievement is due in part to the work of Diana, Princess of Wales, who did so much to focus the attention of the world on the horrific effects of anti-personnel mines.
The terms agreed in Oslo set out an uncompromising ban on the production, use, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
Anti-mine lobbyists had hoped that a US signature might persuade Russia, China, India and Pakistan to ban weapons which have killed and maimed hundreds of thousands across the world.
But President Bill Clinton, under pressure from his own military, said he could not do it: No one should expect our people to expose our armed forces to unacceptable risks.
Mike McCurry, the White House representative, said: We are determined to continue to press for the eradication of anti-personnel landmines. We regret that the document emerging from Oslo … will not meet some of the necessary precautions that the US insists upon.
The US had demanded special status in any accord. Critics said this would have made the treaty almost worthless. It would have been completely watered down if other countries had joined the Americans, said Pernilla Springfeldt, a Swedish anti-mines activist.
Most campaigners put a brave face on the failure to bring the US in. What was important to us was a good treaty, not numbers, said Jack Selebi, the conference president. I think in a few years time they will find their way to be a part of this treaty.
Cook conspicuously made no comment on the US decision, saying only that Britain would urge as many countries as possible to sign. But one British diplomat said: Its very disappointing that the US felt they were not able to sign. It would have been stronger if theyd felt able to do so.
Britain, which announced a unilateral landmine ban a longstanding Labour Party pledge in May, hopes to use the treaty to give impetus to wider negotiations at the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament.
Stuart Maslen, legal adviser to the Landmines Campaign of the Red Cross, praised the efforts of the Princess of Wales: She stressed the personal angle of the issue. In previous years, people had talked about the military and security implications but she took the humanitarian view and I think that did concentrate peoples minds.
The US sought three opt-outs from the treaty: one to let the US continue to use devices in Korea for nine years; an exemption for smart anti-personnel mines that protect anti-tank mines; and a provision letting countries withdraw from the treaty if they are victims of aggression.
China also poses a threat to the credibility of any ban as it is the largest producer of landmines and has not yet agreed to sign the treaty. Even if no more mines are laid, there are still 300-million devices across the world, according to the Red Cross.