The administration position on the Mine treaty is being taken as a disappointment by many, with little analysis. It seems that many people don't know how their country constitutional system works. Even if the president had this as his most important issue he could not have it done. There were zero possibilities.
In our democratic system the president can sign treaties, but that signing is only a declaration of intentions. It's not binding. The Senate has to ratify any treaty and has to do it by a 3/4 majority vote. That means 67 senators have to vote yes.
The chances of getting this amount of yes is so little that less than 20 significant international treaties had been signed since WWII. Less than 20.
Many will ask why will our good Senators not have in mind the suffering of the victims of the land mines and vote to ratify this good treaty? Look at the Health Care Reform "debate" for a clear answer to that question. The GOP is in total war, absolute stone walling anything that comes from the Obama administration from day one. So even if we got the 60 Democrats to vote Yes, and on a matter that will be painted as national security we all know that at least 10 or 15 Democratic senators will run to hug a tank as soon as this is mentioned, the treaty will not be ratified. Also the Pentagon is opposed to the treaty and we know how leaky the can become as soon as one of their interest is at risk.
So Obama had three options:
Option A: Not sign it and try to do some work in the land mines field through the administration and national legislation.
Option B: Signed it and Harry Reid will put it on freeze because he knows there are no votes, so the treaty will be like other treaties that we have signed but are in the limbo.That has a clear international cost.
Option C: Signed it pressure Harry to bring it to the floor , loose the votes by "bipartisan opposition", get painted as weak on defense loose face here in the USA and internationally and accomplish nothing.
Vote on what Obama should have done