Supporting ‘smart’ mines ignores the international=20 landmine crisis, writes David Bruce=20
IT WAS a shock for the Ceasefire Campaign to hear=20 last week that the government had decided to=20 implement a ban on “dumb” or “long-life” mines=20 while adopting a position of support for the use of=20 “smart” or “short-life” mines.=20
While all landmines are indiscriminate weapons, the=20 argument put forward by proponents of “smart” mines=20 is that they are less likely to kill or maim=20 civilians than are ordinary “dumb” mines. “Smart”=20 mines are fitted with “self-destructing” or “self- deactivating” mechanisms intended to render the=20 landmine ineffective after a certain, defined,=20 period of time. They can be placed in an area where=20 they are likely to destruct an enemy force but=20 will, the argument goes, have neutralised=20 themselves by the time the military conflict has=20
In an article on “smart” mines, Steve Goose of=20 Human Rights Watch/Arms Project lists a number of=20 “drawbacks” of these weapons.=20
The first major limitation of “smart” mines is that=20 the “self-destructing” and “self-neutralising”=20 mechanisms have an acknowledged failure rate. This=20 failure rate is put at at least 10 percent, a=20 figure which is accepted by Western military=20 experts. Less sophisticated production methods can=20 result in failure rates as high as 50 percent.=20
Secondly, “some nations are pushing for the self- destruct lifetime to be months, or even a year or=20 more. In the mobile warfare commonly seen today, it=20 is likely that many civilians would be exposed to=20 mines with a life span of more than a few days”.=20
Thirdly, “an emphasis on self-destruct mines could=20 lead to an even larger number of mines being laid=20 around the world, including in areas where there=20 are civilians. Self-destruct mines are primarily=20 intended for use in remote-delivery systems that=20 dispense thousands of mines in a matter of a few=20 minutes, with little precision. The fact that mines=20 do not last for an indefinite period of time could=20 lead some nations to compensate by using greater=20 numbers of mines”.=20
In addition, “smart” mines do not substantially=20 diminish the difficulties associated with the long=20 and arduous task of demining. Part of the=20 difficulty here is that even an area which is in=20 fact totally empty of landmines may have to be=20 searched for them in order, for instance, to=20 reassure returning refugees that the land is safe=20 for them to re-inhabit. Whether there have been=20 “dumb” or “smart” mines used in an area it will=20 continue to be difficult to persuade people that=20 the land is safe for their use. Like “dumb” mines,=20 “smart” mines will therefore continue to present a=20 major obstacle to development in the, mainly=20 poorer, countries where they are most prevalent.=20
In supporting the use of “smart” mines the South=20 African government is aligning itself with more=20 affluent nations for whom the use of these more=20 costly landmines is affordable. Amongst developing=20 nations South Africa is not alone in this. The=20 Indian government is another one of the 13 “less=20 developed” nations represented at the Conference=20 which has expressed its support for “smart” mines.=20 Considering the costs of conversion from “dumb” to=20 “smart” mines and the variety of ways in which all=20 types of landmines obstruct development, it is=20 difficult to see how anyone can reconcile the use=20 of “smart” mines with the interests of less=20 affluent countries.=20
At the end of the day, the South African government=20 has demonstrated a lack of real concern or=20 understanding regarding the international landmine=20
There are an estimated 85 to 110 million unexploded=20 landmines scattered in over 60 countries worldwide.=20 These weapons kill or maim between 600 and 1200=20 people a month.=20
Demining programmes are currently managing to=20 remove roughly 100 thousand landmines per year. As=20 UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali pointed=20 out in his opening address to the Vienna=20 conference, a further two to five million landmines=20 are being laid each year. Most of these are “dumb”=20 anti-personnel landmines. But even if they were all=20 “smart” mines, of which only 10 percent failed to=20 de-activate, simple arithmetic tells us that there=20 will still continue to be an escalation in the=20 scale of the global landmine problem.=20
There is no doubt that the 1980 UN Weapons=20 Convention has failed to prevent the proliferation=20 and indiscriminate use of landmines. Furthermore,=20 there appears to be little reason to believe that=20 the amended Weapons Convention which emerges from=20 the Review Conference, due to finish in Vienna on=20 the 13th October, will be substantially different=20 in its potential to impact on the landmine problem.=20
The only way to effectively limit, or preferably=20 bring an end to, the international landmine crisis,=20 is for the international community to make a=20 concerted effort to restrict the availability of=20 landmines on the international arms market and for=20 individual nations to begin to challenge the idea=20 that landmines are legitimate weapons of war.=20
This is not to say that the South African=20 government delegation at Vienna should not be=20 making a concerted effort to contribute to=20 strengthening the UN Weapons Convention. But they=20 will not be doing so by aligning themselves with=20 governments who are seeking to build credibility=20 for so called “short-life” landmines.=20
David Bruce is co-ordinator of the Ceasefire=20 Campaign and currently working in the International=20 Campaign to Ban Landmines office in Vienna=20
September
Link to the day
29 22 15 08 01
29