Why ban landmines?
There are thousands 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. Feel free to add your own arguments to this list!
The human costs
Antipersonnel landmines still maim and kill ordinary people every day. Each year these weapons claim between 15,000 and 20,000 new victims. They blow off their victims' legs, feet, toes and hands. They fire shrapnel into their faces and bodies. They kill.
Civilians bear the brunt
The vast majority of victims are civilians and not soldiers. Only 15 percent of reported casualties in 2002 were identified as military personnel, according to Landmine Monitor Report 2003. This is not just during a conflict – most of the countries where casualties are reported are at peace.
Humanitarian law
Antipersonnel mines violate international humanitarian law. Like other weapons of their type (such as dum dum bullets) they are illegal and can and should be outlawed completely.
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.
Long-term affects
Once planted, they 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. You see, landmines don’t obey peace agreements or ceasefires. Most of the countries that report casualties are not involved in armed conflict right now: 41 of the 65 countries that suffered new mine/UXO casualties in 2002-2003 were not experiencing any active armed conflict at the time, according to Landmine Monitor Report 2003. The only way to prevent this long-term damage is to stop any landmine use altogether and devote resources to clearing minefields and helping mine victims.
Lethal obstacles to economic growth
- Landmines slow repatriation of refugees and displaced people, or even prevent it altogether.
- They hamper the provision of aid and relief services and threaten, injure and kill aid workers.
- Medical treatment for landmine victims, where available, is costly, burdening an already overstretched health-care system.
- Communities are deprived of their productive land: farm land, orchards, irrigation canals and water points may be no longer accessible.
- Mines also cut off access to economically important areas, such as roads, electricity pylons and dams.
- A landmine incident may cost a family their breadwinner.
- Vocational training and support may not be available so many survivors struggle to make a living after their accident and become a burden on their families.
- Landmines hinder tourism and the use of land for recreation such as hiking and skiing.
- On the flipside, a mine-affected country stands to gain international assistance for mine clearance and victim assistance once they ban landmines and join the Mine Ban Treaty. Donor governments are understandably reluctant to fund demining in countries until they have given up landmines altogether.
Children are victimised
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 ban works!
Banning landmines makes a difference. We have made a great deal of headway since the Mine Ban Treaty came into force in March 1999. Production of antipersonnel mines has dropped considerably and trade has almost come to a halt; 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. The new international norm against landmine use, production and stockpiling is gathering strength. More and more states are joining the treaty and working hard to implement it fully. An increasing number of non-signatory states are responding to international pressure and abiding by the spirit of the agreement.
The ban is almost universal
Most countries in the world already have prohibitions on antipersonnel landmines. At the time of writing (August 2003) there are a total of 143 member states of the Mine Ban Treaty and a further 9 signatory countries.
That’s 152 countries out of the 192 in the world; every country in the Western Hemisphere, bar Cuba and the USA; 47 out of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa; the whole of the European Union (before expansion), except Finland; and every member of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance or NATO (before enlargement) but the USA! See the latest membership details.
Despite progress, there is still work to be done
Despite headway, we still have a way to go to eradicate landmines completely. Continued mine use by states and non-state actors in several conflicts is of grave concern and has been detailed in the ICBL's Landmine Monitor. Mine production in about a dozen countries is another worry. More work is also needed to implement and consolidate the Mine Ban Treaty and promote the international norm that rejects antipersonnel mines.
Every country has a duty
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.
It is in the interests of mine-affected countries because joining the Mine Ban Treaty 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 Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World observed:
“Kenya is free of mines. We are, however, 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”.
Military arguments don’t hold up
The military arguments for using antipersonnel landmines are flawed.
A study by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1996 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, including high-ranking veterans, support a ban on antipersonnel mines and reject mine use. See what they have to say here and here.
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.
Peace and security
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.
Border protection: there are alternatives
Mines are largely ineffective in protecting border regions, for example from smugglers, illegal immigrants or non state actors. 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.
Take a stand!
Every government in the world has the responsibility to speak out against landmines, even countries with no mine problem and no history of mine production and stockpiling.
They 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 a resolution on the treaty.