States Parties 161
States Not Party 36
There are dozens of reasons to ban antipersonnel landmines and to campaign for this goal. Some of the moral, humanitarian, socio-economic and diplomatic arguments are given here.
Antipersonnel landmines still maim and kill ordinary people every day. They blow off their victims' legs, feet, toes and hands. They fire shrapnel into their faces and bodies. They kill.
The vast majority of victims are civilians and not soldiers. Year after year, Landmine Monitor has reported that civilians account for 70 to 85 percent of casualties. This is not just during a conflict – most of the countries where casualties are reported are at peace.
Antipersonnel mines are indiscriminate and inhumane weapons and therefore go against international humanitarian law. The law of war imposes certain restrictions on how combatants operate. It says that they have to distinguish between civilian and military targets and that the injuries inflicted should be proportionate with military objectives. Antipersonnel landmines fail both the discrimination and the proportionality tests. Landmines are indiscriminate because a landmine is triggered by its victim, whether military or civilian. Landmines are inhumane because they inflict brutal injuries and have disastrous long-term consequences.
Once planted, landmines don't go away unless they are cleared away. Landmines sown during the First World War are still causing death and destruction in parts of Europe and North Africa. Landmines don’t obey peace agreements or ceasefires. The only way to prevent long-term damage is to stop any landmine use altogether and devote resources to clearing minefields and helping mine victims.
A child who is injured by a landmine will face months of recovery… if they don't die and if they get treated in time. Many are killed on the spot due to blood loss, shock or damage to vital organs. A growing child with a prosthetic limb will need it refitted and worn in each year. Some never return to school after their accident. Many face social exclusion, for example, they are not seen as fit to marry. Like adult victims, they will face enormous practical, economic, social and psychological challenges in their rehabilitation and reintegration process.
The military arguments for using antipersonnel landmines are flawed. The International Committee of the Red Cross' 1996 study Antipersonnel Landmines - Friend or Foe? concluded that antipersonnel mines are not indispensable weapons of high military value and they don’t necessarily offer any military advantage. In fact "their use in accordance with military doctrine is time-consuming, expensive and dangerous and has seldom occurred under combat conditions", the group of military experts concluded. Landmines are not needed by a modern army. While in the past they may have protected borders and slowed advancing troops, now most armies are mobile and can get through a minefield in less than 30 minutes. Modern motion detection equipment, night detection technology and strategically placed guns can protect military installations, borders and other areas better than landmines. Also, landmines injure and kill soldiers - the very people they are meant to protect. For example, in the 1991 Gulf War, landmines caused 34% of USA casualties. In any case, the long-term humanitarian costs of mines far outweigh any limited military utility. This is why many former military personnel support a ban on antipersonnel mines and reject mine use, such as in this letter to the White House from U.S. military veterans and in this article by Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.), published in the Huffington Post in 2009. If a country’s military insists that antipersonnel landmines are still essential from a military point of view, suggest they look at the ICRC’s study mentioned above. Also, encourage them to do their own study to review their mine policy and its impact, including on their own soldiers.
Banning landmines makes a difference. We have made a great deal of headway since the Mine Ban Treaty came into force in March 1999. The global stigma attached to these weapons has led to a virtual halt in the global trade in antipersonnel mines, a sharp drop in the number of producers and a startling reduction in the number of governments laying mines, even among states that still refuse to officially join the treaty. Vast tracts of land have been cleared and put back into productive use; there has been widespread and extensive destruction of stockpiled mines; and most importantly, there are now fewer new mine victims each year.
Banning landmines increases peace and security and can be a valuable peace-building tool. For example, Greece and Turkey, both long-term rivals with border disputes used their shared commitment to joining the Mine Ban Treaty as a confidence building measure. Some states have joined the Mine Ban Treaty despite ongoing internal conflict e.g. Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In the case of Cyprus, the government joined the treaty although they are not in full control of the territory.
Mines are largely ineffective in protecting border regions, for example from smugglers, illegal immigrants or non-state armed groups. Ask your target government to provide information on whether and how landmines have been an effective deterrent for a specific stated purpose e.g. to stop smuggling. (Usually they cannot prove effectiveness.) Instead of offering protection, minefields terrorise and impoverish the communities living in the area. Alternatives exist and include: engaging in dialogue with a neighbour, mobile and fixed border patrol and motion detection equipments and barriers.
Everyone’s support is needed along the road to a mine-free world -- no matter whether the country is mine-affected or not or whether they are large or small. Joining the Mine Ban Treaty is in the interests of mine-affected countries because it will spur international support for their landmine problem. For countries with no mines in stockpile or in the ground, joining the Mine Ban Treaty is also in their interests as they will gain a higher moral standing within the diplomatic world. As Kenya’s Ambassador Peter O. Ole Nkuraiyia, Secretary-General of the 2004 Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World observed: “We are hosting this landmark Summit as an act of solidarity with mine-affected countries in our sub-region, in Africa as a whole, and throughout the world, with a view to addressing the plight of mine victims.” All governments should listen to their citizens and the international community who demand that they take a stand, otherwise they risk becoming moral outcasts. Even interim steps that fall short of joining the Mine Ban Treaty are valuable e.g. the provision of information on landmine stockpiles, or voting in favour of the annual United Nations' General Assembly resolution on the treaty.