‘Let Us Count the Ways’ The Landmine Ban Would Disserve U.S. Interests

(Washington, D.C.): With the latest convocation of wishful thinkers now underway in Ottawa for
the purpose of signing the international ban on anti-personnel landmines (APLs), it is an
opportune moment to reflect on some of the key reasons why the United States is correct in not
signing on:

• It is impossible to ‘disinvent’ landmines. It is fatuous nonsense to suggest that technology
  that is as widely available, easily employed and tactically useful as anti-personnel landmines can
  be prohibited by international fiat. There is no way to ban the manufacture, stockpiling,
  transfer or use of such weapons in countries given to making irresponsible use of APLs (i.e.,
  for terrorizing, maiming and driving away civilian populations). Consequently, a treaty — like
  the Ottawa one — that purports to effect such a ban is doomed to be unverifiable,
  unenforceable and ineffective.
• The U.S. military must retain the ability — and the right — to use anti-personnel
  landmines responsibly. With the exception of the Korean peninsula (where long-duration
  landmines are deployed in marked areas off-limits to and devoid of civilians), the American
  armed forces use exclusively short-duration (i.e., self-deactivating or self-destructing) APLs.
  Such “smart” landmines are not causing the present humanitarian problem.

Were the United States to be denied the use of such weapons, however, the ability of
its troops to survive and succeed on the battlefield will be significantly degraded.⁽¹⁾ It
must be noted that, although the U.S. has declined to sign on to this treaty, a number of
its allies have. As a result, American troops may be put in the absurd position of being
barred the use of APLs necessary not only for their own protection but also for the
security of nations they are being asked to defend.

• The landmine ban is diverting resources and energy from the real problem — clearing
  mines that have already been laid. Paul Jefferson, a hugely courageous individual whose
  credibility in opposing the landmine ban is enhanced by his experience as a British army
  munitions disposal officer and free-lance mine-clearer, has pointed out:

“The International Campaign to Ban Landmines’ publicity machine diverts resources and
attention from urgently needed mine-clearance efforts. Even if a mine ban fulfilled its proponents’
wildest dreams, it would not begin to reduce casualties for at least 15 years, by which time
concerted and properly funded clearance could have removed 80% of the problem.”⁽²⁾

• The landmine ban will serve as a precedent — and excuse — for other, no-less-ill-advised
  abolitionist schemes. For example, the Canadian government has signaled its determination
  to interpret the present ban on anti-personnel landmines in a way that would capture anti-tank
  landmines, as well. As Robert Lawson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs observed at a
  discussion before the Non-Governmental Organization Panel on Disarmament on 21 October
  1997: “[Do] devices which are attached to anti-vehicle mines which may cause them to
  function like anti-personnel mines, make anti-vehicle mines anti-personnel mines? I think the
  short answer is ‘yes.'”

What is more, Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy declared that the next step
would be to ban small caliber munitions. Other “disinventers” have announced their
intention to pursue prohibitions on depleted uranium rounds, fuel-air explosives, naval
mines, directed energy systems and nuclear weapons. It is no more possible to
“prevent wars from being fought,” as one activist put it, by unverifiably, ineffectively
banning one class of weapons after another than it is to ban war itself — as the bitter
experience of World War II demonstrated in the wake of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of
1929.

The Bottom Line

The Clinton Administration is to be commended for having decided, however reluctantly, to side
with the U.S. military in opposing the APL ban. It is also to be encouraged to make good on Mr.
Clinton’s pledge to lead international efforts to support mine-clearing operations so as, wherever
possible, to reduce the carnage being inflicted on civilians by anti-personnel landmines. By so
doing, the United States has made clear its willingness to address in a direct and effective manner
a serious humanitarian disaster, while eschewing a course of action that will have no such salutary
effect — but which will, instead, endanger American lives, security and interests.

– 30 –

1. Twenty-four of the Nation’s most respected and senior former ground commanders have
attested to this point, as have every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and every U.S. regional
commander. See the following Center products: Celestial Navigation: Pentagon’s
Extraordinary ’64-Star’ Letter Shows Why The U.S. Cannot Agree to Ban All Landmines
(No. 97-D 97, 14 July 1997) and Many of Nation’s Most Respected Military Leaders Join
Forces to Oppose Bans On Use of Self-Destructing Landmines (No. 97-P 101, 21 July 1997).

2. See the Center’s Press Release entitled More Good Reasons To Reject a Landmine Ban:
Radical Scheme Won’t Reduce Existing Menace, Prevent New Ones (No. 97-P 154, 15
October 1997) to which is attached a Wall Street Journal article by Paul Jefferson entitled “A
Political Minefield.”