Landmines Toward a Global Ban

Landmines

Toward a Global Ban on Landmines

Modern warfare has seen the advent of countless weapons which are intended to reign destruction upon their targets. Of those weapons which do not fall into the Mass Destruction category, few levy the type of sustained postwar threat as do land mines. When the guns and tanks roll out of a demilitarized zone, departing armies will often leave these behind. The cost of detecting and dismantling these is seen as too high for nations which have already absorbed the costly toll of a foreign war. This is to imply that countless developed nations have been responsible for the placement of land mines all over the developing world. And as the sharp line of demarcation between signers and non-signers to the International Mine Ban Treaty demonstrates, this relationship between larger war-making nations and smaller, frequently occupied nations stands as one of the biggest obstacles to removing this constant and unpredictable threat to human life. As the discussion here argues, there is a global push and a rational basis for the elimination of land mine usage in any and all contexts but there are, simultaneously, heavily weighted institutional forces designed to prevent this measure from every truly coming to fruition.

Indeed, though great international progress has been made simply through the creation of the Mine Ban Treaty and through its lead advocacy network, the International Campaign to Ban Landmine (ICBL), the very fact that major land-mine producing countries such as the United States and China remain in staunch opposition serves as the determinant force on the worldwide banning horizon. With respect to the progress noted here above, the ICBL (2010) reports that "the so-called Ottawa Process that led to the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty in 1997 was unorthodox, historic and unprecedented. The treaty is the product of an unusually cohesive and strategic partnership between non-governmental organizations, international organizations, United Nations agencies and governments." (ICBL, 1)

This gathering of countries and global NGOs aimed at eliminating served both to demonstrate the global position on the subject and to begin the process of proliferating international awareness of the consequences of rampant landmine usage during and after warfare. Here, our research uncovers a disturbing pattern of disinterest, with countless individuals throughout the developing sphere killed or maimed every year as a result of landmines left behind either through malice or simple neglect. According to the Rutland Herald (2010), "land mines are a particularly insidious weapon because they are activated by the victim, who may be a farmer, a child, or other innocent civilian. About 5,000 people are killed each year from mines strewn about in 70 countries." (p. 1)

The notion that the landmine is activated by the victim is in sharp contrast to the codes of international law and the philosophies of just warfare. The indiscriminate targeting of civilian victims as opposed to the prioritization of military and strategic targets marks this is a distinct form of warfare against which the international community must organize in order to protect innocent lives. Certainly, the scourge of war is categorically destructive enough that it need not be allowed to fester in obscurity as do land mines until ultimately triggered by unintended victims. Today, the greatest example of this threat is also demonstrative of one of the greatest obstacles to its resolution. Namely, the current number of at yet uncovered landmines in the Korean peninsula is particularly high and reflects the involvement of the U.S. In this part of the world. South Korea, a close ally of the United States and a strategic military partner in isolating communist North Korea, is at least partially responsible for the estimated one million unexploded landmines that mark the militarized zone separating North and South. These, the Rutland Herald reports, are under the control of South Korea and have been used to prevent individuals from crossing over from either side.

Though the international community has condemned this proliferation of landmines, the United States has simultaneously allowed this and, over history, has been a major producer and source of this technology. Though the United States would officially end the production of landmines in 1997, it has continued to explore alternate explosive technology that mirrors many of the qualities of the landmine. Thus, it has been a far greater impediment to the achievement of a global ban than it has been a partner in the process. Particularly, the refusal of the United States to sign on to the international Mine Ban Treaty places it out of step with many of its own key strategic partners. According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) (2010), "every NATO member has foresworn the use of antipersonnel mines except for the U.S., as have other key allies, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Australia, and Japan. In the Western Hemisphere, only the U.S. And Cuba have not joined the treaty." (p. 1)

In many ways this type of behavior on the part of a world leader has helped to justify the resistance or inactivity of developing nations or so-called rogue nations. Korea fits this bill and demonstrates the human toll that is inherently related to a failure on the part of the U.S. To ratify this treaty. All evidence suggests that the treaty has been markedly successful in all contexts where it has been applied. According to the recent report in which the Human Rights Watch organization reiterates the call from within Congress and from the global community for the U.S. To ratify the Treaty, there is a detectable connection between the practical efforts associated with the elimination of landmines and the reduction in the lost of innocent lives. Human Rights Watch tells that since the 1997 creation of the Treaty, "some 44 million antipersonnel mines have been destroyed from stockpiles. Large tracts of land have been cleared of these mines and returned to productive use. The number of civilians killed and wounded by mines each year has fallen dramatically." (HRW, 1)

Still, our gaze is drawn both to the political and military policies of nations like the United States and to poorly regulated contexts such as Korea. Here, where the efforts of the ICBL and other groups have not yet been able to penetrate an isolated and entrenched political and military culture, lives continue to be threatened and lost by a well-known but unseen danger. According to the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (VVAF) (2002), the primary justification for the glut of landmines covering the area between North and South Korea is to protect the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed there. Based both on the limited to nonexistent role of military defense that the United States plays in Korea and on the limited danger of ground invasion by guerilla or state-sponsored North Korean forces, the VVAF declares this to be a fully specious justification. Here, they argue that the costs in the long run to the security, safety and lives of innocents far outweigh this flimsy justification.

Certainly, this is danger is compounded by the unpredictable nature of landmines, which are typically planted in the ground by an aggressor or a defending force and left to be found by the victim. Those which are not found remain live and dangerous for as long as several decades. So would this be demonstrated by the events of just this past August, when several dozen Korean War era landmines washed ashore, killing one fisherman and seriously wounding another. According to Hartenstein (2010), "though North and South Korea have been in a ceasefire for over 50 years, land mines from the 1950-1953 Korean War are still scattered along the border. Since Saturday, 35 mines have been discovered in South Korea, apparently washed ashore by torrential rain in the North." (Hartenstein, 1)