Many who lived through the 1990s remember the image of Lady Diana Spencer, otherwise known as Princess Di, walking through a minefield in Angola. She wanted to bring attention to the dangers of unaccounted for landmines. Most mines are left over from civil wars and conflicts that ended as long as twenty years ago. They exist primarily in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and South America. Innocent men, women, and children are bearing the burden of these leftovers, as they are the primary victims. Civilian casualties are estimated at about 60-85 percent of all landmine deaths. (Land Mines are War Crimes) The United Nations, and most the international community, are committed to “put an end to the suffering and casualties used by anti-personnel mines, which kill or injure thousands of people — women, girls, boys and men — every year, and which place people living in affected areas at risk and hinder the development of their communities.” (A/RES/65/48) Furthermore, the UN affirms its belief in and satisfaction with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personal Mines and their Destruction, or simply put the Mine Ban or Ottawa Treaty, and its role in eradicating landmines. (A/RES/65/48) Besides the loss of innocent lives, landmines cover a wide array of issues that affect societies, such as the exclusion of victims from society and the impediment on development and economic growth.
A first step in dealing with landmines is not only locating and deactivating them, but caring for those who have been seriously injured from explosions. The societal impacts of landmine use go well beyond the tragedy of early death and fear; in many cases those who are injured and the families of those killed are outcast from society. In many instances, those who have lost limbs from landmine explosions are given the crude title “mutilados,” and are treated as outside of general society. Those who have lost limbs are often forced to leave their homes and migrate from urbanized to rural areas. Some governments encourage this practice because they believe “mutilados” make their nations impure. When the victim dies from an explosion, their families are often left without a caretaker. The family then must migrate to different areas to find other means of income. The UN reaffirms its belief in the landmine convention by stating its goals “to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims…” (A/RES/65/48) Signatories agree to not persecute or outcast those harmed by landmines, even with social pressures to do so.
Additionally, unaccounted landmines have severe economic impacts on developing states. The prevalence of landmines disallows the use of arable land for agriculture and development. Even land without landmines is seldom used for practical purposes, due to fear of finding a mine. When the land is cleared of landmines, it is often too late to use for agriculture because the land has been unused for decades. The result is land that has not been treated, several droughts have occurred, and the local populations has fled the area. This has created enormous problems for developing nations, whose economies are still very agrarian. Tribes who have spent generations in the areas of Angola and other African nations had to completely change their way of life, rarely finding sustainable work. (Villacampa) Another economic impact is the inability to develop infrastructure in minefield prevalent areas. Southeast Asian nations such as Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand have been heavily restricted due to minefield prevalence. The existence of landmines has constrained governments from building roads, bridges, and other forms of transportation infrastructure. Sound infrastructure is a pre-requisite to economic development, and the prevalence of unknown mines has stagnated progress significantly.
Currently 156 nations have ratified the Mine Ban Treaty and 39 nations who are non-signatories. These nations include Russia, China, and the United States, three of the five permanent members of the Security Council. (Perez) Other non-signatories include regional powers such as South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Some of these nations are non-signatories so that they can utilize land mine for more nefarious purposes. For example, it was recently discovered that Moammar Qaddafi’s land mines that he was using against his people were developed and delivered by a Chinese enterprise with connections to the Chinese government. (Chivers)
The history of landmine use in warfare goes back to 12th century China. (Perez) The heavy use of landmines began during the American Civil War, as the Confederacy used them for defensive measures. Even back then, commentators on warfare agreed that landmine use was lacking in ethical and moral standard, however its effectiveness in defensive combat led to its use. Yet, the current landmine emplacement problem did not start until World War II, when landmines were being used by both sides. Landmines were scattered all throughout the Pacific, Europe, North Africa, and the Soviet Union. (Perez) The problem of unaccounted landmines was addressed in 1948, when Europe destroyed about 95% of the leftover landmines. (Perez) However, after World War II, with the expansive types of new landmines produced and distributed, nations in South America, Africa, Asia, and non-state actors began to use APL’s very frequently. The leftovers from these conflicts are the current problem.
Non-Government organizations (NGO’s) have been at the front of the battle to eradicate landmines. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is a global organization working to permanently ban landmines. It was founded six NGO’s: Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, Medico International, Mines Advisory Group, Physicians for Human Rights, and Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. (Villacampa In 1997, the ICBL was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in raising awareness and moving towards a landmine free world. It is widely agreed that the work of the ICBL, and the subsequent Mine Ban Treaty that sprang from its conception, is a prime example of the potential effectiveness of humanitarian advocacy and one of the most cited arguments affirming the role of transnational civil society in the post-Cold War world. (Villacampa). Some believe the Mine Ban example serves as a model for the possible ban of nuclear and biological weapons. Today, the ICBL is composed of over 1000 organizations with the common goal of eradicating landmines. The ICBL produces an annual report, entitled the Landmine Monitor, which tracks the progress of the movement and the actual destruction of landmines. (Perez)
However, many nations refuse to sign the Mine Ban Treaty because of its complete and absolute ban on antipersonnel landmines. The rational for landmine use over other conventional weapons are tied to two things; the extremely cheap production of landmines and the utility of deterrence for defensive measures. The cost to produce a landmine can vary from $3.00 to $15.00. (Perez) The disorienting nature of landmines, and the psychological effects that come with it, make them a highly effective military weapon against invasion. Landmines channel enemy forces into specific areas where they are more vulnerable to fire, and often protect the flanks (the most vulnerable) part of armed forces.(Matthew) Most notoriously, the United States has not signed the Mine Ban Treaty, although they outwardly support the measure and have given more money than any nation for landmine eradication. (Matthew) The problem lies with the long standing conflict in Korea and the use of landmines to protect the south against northern aggression.
It is clear that the United States has a dilemma by which their liberal ideology conflicts with realist tendencies. Realism believes that states desire power for their own interests, either for the sake of power or relative insecurity. This is a prime example of a liberal nation giving into self-interest. The DMZ (Demilitarized zone) is the most heavily fortified border in the world. It is home to the largest concentration of landmines. And the claim is, if these landmines were not present, the United States would have to send thousands of military personnel to patrol the border. South Korean security along the DMZ is vitally important as their capital, Seoul, is very close to the border and is believed to be at a higher risk of being captured as part of a North Korean invasion. Yet, the utility of landmines in the defense of Korea in particular may be overstated. First, the military balance between the Koreas is decidedly in favor of the South, which spends three times the amount on defense. (Matthew) Most of North Korea’s weapons systems are outdated (ranging from the 1960’s to the 1980’s technology). (Matthew) Any invasion would prove extremely difficult due to the rough and mountainous topography of Korea. Also, the desolate economic situation in North Korea has led to the deaths of as many as 2.5 million North Koreans and the migration of thousands to China. (Matthew) Therefore, according to Brookings Institute military analyst Michael O’Hanlon, any North Korean offensive would be “stopped cold.” (Matthew) This is not due to the prevalence of landmines, which may actually endanger US forces during a counter-invasion of North Korea. (Matthew) The danger of North Korea should not be understated, their artillery and long range surface-to-surface missiles, not to mention a possible nuclear program, cause a great threat to South Korean and pan-pacific security. (Matthew) However, in terms of a ground invasion, landmines would not serve much utility in the protection of South Korea, hence it is wise for the United States to drop the South Korea case and throw their full support behind the Mine Ban Treaty.
The utility of the Mine Ban Treaty is still being evaluated; however, it is clear it has led to the destruction of millions of mines. As of 2009, Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty have destroyed more than 2.2 million emplaced and 44 million stockpiled anti-personnel landmines (APL’s). (Perez) Yet, there is believed to be about 170 million unaccounted for landmines yet to be destroyed, with most being controlled by non-state actors. (Perez) One issue is the process of locating and deactivating a single landmine device can cost hundreds of dollars, compared to the extremely cheap production of APLs. (Perez) Mine detection can be quite difficult and dangerous, exemplified by several nations taking unique steps to detonate landmines. In late 2010, Colombia started using rats to run through minefields so that they are detonated. (Perez) Although this is not exactly humane, it is unarguable better than other countries. Some governments have actually paid families to send their own children to the minefields to check for existing landmines, however this is not a common practice. (Perez) In the past, prisoners of war have been made to run through mine fields. (Perez). Early detection, especially used during World War Two, used more primitive methods and was not used for humanitarian reasons. Mine detectors included specialized metal detectors, aerial lookouts, artillery, heavy rollers, armored bulldozers and canines. Developing mine clearance technology was necessary for soldiers to attempt to advance through minefields. (Perez)
The Mine Ban Treaty is important for two reasons. First, the literal eradication of landmines would result in increased human security, particularly in under-developed states where mines are the most prevalent. Unaccounted for landmines deter investment and development, furthering the desolate economic condition of those in the Third World. Societal exclusion of “mutilados” creates political tension and further violence. And second, the Mine Ban Treaty serves as a possible example of an international humanitarian movement achieving its goals, despite the contention of numerous very powerful states. Some commentators see the treaty as an outline for the future banning of nuclear and chemical weapons.
Questions
1. Is the United States being hypocritical by not signing the Mine Ban Treaty? How does their indifference affect the worldwide movement to enhance human security?
2. Does the Mine Ban Treaty serve as a strong example of humanitarian activism succeeding? What does it say about the role of NGO’s and other international organizations in forming international policy? What are some of their limitations?
3. Is mine warfare less humane than other forms of defensive warfare? If so, how. could we regulate it?
4. Can the Mine Ban Treaty be an example for future agreements on nuclear and chemical weapons? What affects would a ban on Weapon’s of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) have on international security?
Works Cited
Salopek, Paul. “Land Mines are War Crimes.” Foreign Policy . October 27, 2010.
Matthew, Richard A and Gaulin, Ted. “Time to sign the Mine Ban Treaty.” Issues in Science
and Technology. Washington: Spring 2003. 19:3,
Chivers, C.J. “Land Mines Descend on Misurata’s Port, Endangering Libyan City’s Supply
Route.” The New York Times Online. May 6, 2011.
“The Case against the Land-Mine Treaty.” The Wall Street Journal. May 26, 2010.
General Assembly Resolution 65/48. “Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of
the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their
Destruction.” http://daccess-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/515/42/PDF/N1051542.pdf? OpenElement
"Record Breaking Progress for the Mine Ban Treaty." Landmine Monitor 2010.
http://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/seasia/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=126&Itemid=1
Villacampa, J. “The Mine Ban Treaty, New Diplomacy and Human Security Ten Years
Later.” European Political Science: 7(4), 519-529 (2008).