What do these people(articles) got to say about this problem?

            Walking down a road in the country side can be so relaxing, with the breeze blowing through your hair and the warmth of the sun hitting your face. Sounds like a peaceful normal day just like any other right? Well there is always a chance that may change your life forever. One fatal step can result to the end of your life, a step on a landmine. If not dead than scarred, scarred with trauma, loss of large amounts of blood, and blown off nerves, limbs, and flesh. Because of the wars in the past what are left behind by those quarrels are the devices imbedded in the ground and never dug back up which are still active, ready to blow off on whoever unfortunate enough to step on one. Analyzing two articles about this issue they address the matter explicitly and makes assumptions implicitly; explicitly Luke Hunt from the Diplomat addresses the issue going on with landmines and the risk of how it may be prolonged, while Andrew Chambers from The Guardian expresses the problem as well and how it’s being dealt with; in both pieces they imply the need for the ban of landmines with other foreign countries through treaties.

            From the Diplomat, Luke Hunt wrote the article “Landmines Still Blight Southeast Asia” which he uses to address the problem of landmines remaining and still posing a threat to those in the areas. He goes on in his paper explaining about the rates of which how many individuals have suffered from the detonation from stepping on a mine and the trauma they are going through. What’s worse is that the use and production of mines may still happing in these areas. The reason is because the people fear that they may one day have a shortage on ammunition and firearms which results with protests from villagers. In Andrew Chamber’s “From Laos to Libya, Landmines Still Take Their Tolls On Civilians” Chambers explain the effects that landmines are having on civilians, and the progress that are happening to have these problem dealt with. Like for example, he mentions statistics and rates of the clearance of mines in Vietnam, Laos, and other countries and that they have made clearance of mine fields a priority.

            Although Chamber’s article from The Guardian speaks frontally on the subject of aid being needed and the priorities being shifted to the clearance of landmines, he implies that the need for these mines to be banned altogether. The assumptions of the goal in this article is written in the end “Until the moral revulsion at using these weapons is universally recognised through binding treaties, and until the international community is prepared to invest sufficiently in their clearance, countries such as Laos will be paying the price for decades to come.” Chamber’s (The Guardian) he states that unless this weapon is recognize, and “unless blinding treaties with other neighboring countries” are made to make the agreement on not using landmines than the problem would just get worse. He also throws in that the shift in attention should go towards the clearance afterwards, but by mentioning the need to create blind treaties first he is implying that this is the first priority to avoid further embedment of landmines. Assumptions found in Hunt’s article from The Diplomat are found near the end of this piece as well. Hunt’s mention in his work that “Perhaps Vietnam’s push for a regional initiative to resolve the land mine issue can change this picture by enhancing regional ties at a much wider level.” Hunt’s (The Guardian). From this the assumption that a treaty with other countries need to be made to resolve the land mine issues. If Vietnam pushed for a regional initiative by enhancing regional ties at a much wider level, he makes the assumption that from a large scale, Vietnam should take the first step and reach out to neighboring countries nearby and far to make some kind of plan which would help fix or keep the problem with landmines to become further problematic.

            Both piece of work by Chambers and Hunt have similar assumptions that the need for a large scale treaty and ban of landmines must be made to keep further problems to escalate. Although each piece addresses different aspects of the problem where Chamber’s mainly focus on the problem and how it is being dealt with now and Hunt’s focuses more on the problem and that the country is still going through production with landmines because of the fear of shortage with guns; both pieces end with the implication that the need for a treaty between all countries to stop the problem so that it may one day be resolved.

Citation:

Hunt, Luke. "Landmines Still Blight Southeast Asia." The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. 
<http://thediplomat.com/2013/04/landmines-still-blight-southeast-asia/>.

Chambers, Andrew. "From Laos to Libya, Landmines Still Take Their Toll on Civilians."Guardian Weekly. Guardian News and Media, 06 July 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. 
<http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/jul/06/landmines-toll-civilians-laos-bombs>.