This House (as the USA) Would Sign the Ottawa Convention banning landmines

Landmines are a terrible and immoral tool of war. America should neither practise nor condone this kind of warfare. Unlike other weaponry, landmines remain hidden in the ground long after conflicts have ended, killing and maiming civilians in some of the world’s poorest countries years, even decades later.[1] In Afghanistan 17% of victims are children.[2] Even if other weaponry has similar effects, it doesn’t mean landmines are acceptable – it means they are bad, too. But we must start somewhere – we can make a difference by capitalising on the global movement against landmines, and we should.

[1] United Nations cyberschoolbus, http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/banmines/units/unit1a.asp

[2] Mine Clearance Planning Agency, Landmine Impact Survey Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, August 2005, http://www.sac-na.org/pdf_text/afghanistan/AFG_ExecSummary_Engl.pdf

Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not uniquely unpleasant and the debate about them has distorted the public perception of landmines – in truth, they are little different to a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban.

In particular, landmines are an entirely defensive weapon.  They can render large areas un-enterable until cleared but in this they are analogous to the long term harm of a chemical spill – the harm can largely be mitigated by simply avoiding the area until it can be cleared.

The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented. They are easily removed by quite low-technology military equipment – which means that they are not very dangerous to armed forces whose mobility is not significantly restricted, this is after-all the purpose of the mines, but are incredibly harmful to civilians.[1]

A significant problem is that many minefields have been left unmarked and that they can remain active for more than 50 years. Removing a landmine can be fairly easy, but detecting them is not. 

[1] ICRC, ‘Anti-personnel mines: not an indispensable weapon of high military value’, 28 March 1996, http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmud.htm

Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defence of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground.

They can be easily removed, but not quickly, which is what provides their military utility.

The fact that landmines can be easily removed (if someone actually goes about that process) highlights the real root of the suffering caused by landmines – it is the on-going military conflicts which prevent removal and cause more mines to be planted which are the true cause of civilian suffering.  If those conflicts ended
 then the harm to civilians would dissipate anyway.

Landmines provide a false sense of security. They are often purchased and placed by nations that are fearful of their surrounding neighbours, rather than entering into diplomatic arena to improve relations. They are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Small, underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies – they should not be encouraged (or frightened by scaremongering) by the USA into buying the USA’s military equipment.

Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the higher-technology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Because of this, banning landmines harms precisely the kind of nation most likely to need them for defensive purposes.

It is absurd to suggest that landmines are the prime protector of US forces, or even an important one. It is well known that the principal benefit the USA’s troops (as opposed to those of other nations) have in peacekeeping is the threat of the deployment of overwhelming force if they are defied. Landmines are nothing to do with it. US troops have not been pinned down in the way the opposition suggests since World War Two, except in Iraq: and there, as elsewhere, the damage done to relations with the civilian community would far outweigh any narrow military benefit garnered from landmine deployment. Indeed the use of landmines by the US has slowly been changing, since 2004 the US has only allowed the use of landmines with deactivation mechanisms however it has not actually used landmines in more than 20 years.[1]

[1] Good, Rachel, ‘Yes We Should: Why the U.S. Should Change Its Policy Toward the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty’, Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, Vol. 9, Issue 2, (Spring 2011), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v9/n2/4/

These mines, used in peacekeeping initiatives, protect US troops and present little danger to civilians. Stopping their use would endanger the lives of peacekeepers and make the USA less likely to enter into such operations – part of the reason the USA refused to sign the Ottawa treaty in 1997, and has declined to do so since.

Landmines are a terrible and immoral tool of war. America should neither practise nor condone this kind of warfare. Unlike other weaponry, landmines remain hidden in the ground long after conflicts have ended, killing and maiming civilians in some of the world’s poorest countries years, even decades later.[1] In Afghanistan 17% of victims are children.[2] Even if other weaponry has similar effects, it doesn’t mean landmines are acceptable – it means they are bad, too. But we must start somewhere – we can make a difference by capitalising on the global movement against landmines, and we should.

[1] United Nations cyberschoolbus, http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/banmines/units/unit1a.asp

[2] Mine Clearance Planning Agency, Landmine Impact Survey Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, August 2005, http://www.sac-na.org/pdf_text/afghanistan/AFG_ExecSummary_Engl.pdf

Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not uniquely unpleasant and the debate about them has distorted the public perception of landmines – in truth, they are little different to a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban.

In particular, landmines are an entirely defensive weapon.  They can render large areas un-enterable until cleared but in this they are analogous to the long term harm of a chemical spill – the harm can largely be mitigated by simply avoiding the area until it can be cleared.

The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented. They are easily removed by quite low-technology military equipment – which means that they are not very dangerous to armed forces whose mobility is not significantly restricted, this is after-all the purpose of the mines, but are incredibly harmful to civilians.[1]

A significant problem is that many minefields have been left unmarked and that they can remain active for more than 50 years. Removing a landmine can be fairly easy, but detecting them is not. 

[1] ICRC, ‘Anti-personnel mines: not an indispensable weapon of high military value’, 28 March 1996, http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmud.htm

Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defence of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground.

They can be easily removed, but not quickly, which is what provides their military utility.

The fact that landmines can be easily removed (if someone actually goes about that process) highlights the real root of the suffering caused by landmines – it is the on-going military conflicts which prevent removal and cause more mines to be planted which are the true cause of civilian suffering.  If those conflicts ended
 then the harm to civilians would dissipate anyway.

Landmines provide a false sense of security. They are often purchased and placed by nations that are fearful of their surrounding neighbours, rather than entering into diplomatic arena to improve relations. They are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Small, underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies – they should not be encouraged (or frightened by scaremongering) by the USA into buying the USA’s military equipment.

Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the higher-technology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Because of this, banning landmines harms precisely the kind of nation most likely to need them for defensive purposes.

It is absurd to suggest that landmines are the prime protector of US forces, or even an important one. It is well known that the principal benefit the USA’s troops (as opposed to those of other nations) have in peacekeeping is the threat of the deployment of overwhelming force if they are defied. Landmines are nothing to do with it. US troops have not been pinned down in the way the opposition suggests since World War Two, except in Iraq: and there, as elsewhere, the damage done to relations with the civilian community would far outweigh any narrow military benefit garnered from landmine deployment. Indeed the use of landmines by the US has slowly been changing, since 2004 the US has only allowed the use of landmines with deactivation mechanisms however it has not actually used landmines in more than 20 years.[1]

[1] Good, Rachel, ‘Yes We Should: Why the U.S. Should Change Its Policy Toward the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty’, Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, Vol. 9, Issue 2, (Spring 2011), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v9/n2/4/

These mines, used in peacekeeping initiatives, protect US troops and present little danger to civilians. Stopping their use would endanger the lives of peacekeepers and make the USA less likely to enter into such operations – part of the reason the USA refused to sign the Ottawa treaty in 1997, and has declined to do so since.

In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance by breaking up an attack and forcing attackers to go certain routes,[1] delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place.[2] By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance

[1] ICRC, Anti-personnel Landmines. Friend of foe? A study of the military use and effectiveness of anti-personnel mines, 1996, pp.14-15 http://www.scribd.com/doc/21699394/Anti-personnel-Landmines-Friend-or-foe-A-study-of-the-military-use-and-effectiveness-of-anti-personnel-mines#outer_page_16

[2] Marin, Albert and Litzelman, Michael, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ: Non-Self Destruct Landmines in the Republic of Korea’, Journal of Mine Action, Issue 6.1, April 2002, http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/6.1/notes/marin/marin.htm

Chemical weapons are also cheap and highly effective.  The use of chemical agents was widespread in the First World War and domestic terrorists groups have been able to manufacture and use Sarin gas in attacks.[1]

These weapons are banned despite being cheap and effective because of the unnecessary suffering they cause and because of their indiscriminate nature.  Mines and gas are both ‘area denial’ weapons whose effects can linger long after the conflict in which they were employed has faded into history.

[1] Wikipedia, Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

Landmines are merely a convenient way of providing what can be rigged in many ways – an explosion triggered when movement occurs in a particular area. Without landmines being legally available, troops will improvise landmines – they will wire up pressure plates and hand grenades and trip wires and high explosive charges, with much the same result. These will then be much more difficult to disarm as they will not have a standard design and they may also have much more explosive power.[1]  This behaviour was widespread in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The only differences are that these weapons are less efficient, and more dangerous to the user that prepares them.

[1] Maresca, Louis, Maslen, Stuart, The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, p.316, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R_CjjO8-4-wC

That is true if we are discussing a single tripwire or booby trap. But the argument avoids the real point of landmines – blanket deployment over very wide areas, making them impassable for military units in the short term, and deadly for the indigenous population in the long term. Nobody rigs up a few thousand pressure plates at a time. Removing landmines from the available military options would mean that this kind of deployment would become impossible – it would mean the end of the mine field.

The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent.[1] The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner.

[1] Hillen, John and Spring, Baker, ‘Why A Global Ban On Land Mines Won’t Work’, Heritage.org, 17 January 1997, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1997/01/why-a-global-ban-on-land-mines

Faith in these so called ‘smart’ mines is hugely misplaced. Conditions under testing will always vary from those in the field, where all is confusion and areas of deployment are often not properly recorded or marked. Even if they work as claimed, there is no guarantee that regimes that use them will wish to deactivate them upon ceasefire, if left in the territory of a neighbour or enemy with whom a dispute still smoulders. The equipment required for deactivation may be lost or destroyed. The best way to ensure that these weapons aren’t left in the soil is never to put them there in the first place.

That some users might be responsible is not good enough, since if anyone has landmines everyone will.  Even that assumes that it is possible to be a ‘responsible’ user of landmines – once they are in the ground the user has lost all practical control over them. The only way to take back control is to disarm them.

The defence of South Korea from Communist aggression depends upon the thick belt of landmines that lines the demilitarized zone. Without it, North Korea’s million man army could easily cross into South Korea and take Seoul before defences could be organised.[1] South Korea is a key ally of the USA and to join in the ban on landmines would be to betray that ally. The failure of the Ottawa Convention to grant an exception for the Korean peninsula was the key reason for USA non-participation.

With regards to the tunnel network: North Korea would never be able to perform an invasion through a dozen half-finished tunnels just big enough for a man to pass though.  Troops passing under the DMZ without any heavy equipment or armour would have to assemble in the open with no protection from RoK and US firepower and air support.  The main force of any invasion would have to travel over ground.

[1] Marin, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ’, 2002

North Korea has an extensive tunnel network under the DMZ that will facilitate the circumvention of the largest minefield on Earth, if the North Koreans were ever stupid enough to attempt invasion (and there is nothing to suggest that they are going to). This fact demonstrates the uselessness of landmines – the world’s biggest minefield is militarily redundant, a danger only to those that will live in this area in future years. The USA knows this – the defence of South Korea is a hollow, false excuse offered in defence of landmines – the real reason is the unwillingness on the part of the military machine to relinquish the capability of any weapon, no matter how horrible. Of course, there is a healthy profit to be made in their distribution, too.