Banning land mines

Despite all the optimism being displayed at the international conference to ban land mines, which opened in Oslo on Monday, it seems that a global ban on these inhumane weapons is still some distance away.

With Russia and China -- the world's two leading producers of land mines -- refusing to join, and the United States stubbornly insisting that it maintain its right to use anti-personnel mines on the Korean peninsula, an all-encompassing world ban is unlikely to be forthcoming.

The stubborn stance of the three major producers of armaments must unavoidably temper such optimism, even though delegates from more than 100 countries and 1,000 non-governmental organizations are attending the conference.

Amid all this, it is important to remember that, to each of these major powers, the arguments for rejecting an all-out ban on land mines are legitimate and compelling.

For countries with extensive land borders such as Russia and China, for example, land mines remain one of the most cost- effective weapons. This is all the more true where security conditions are precarious.

The U.S. is insisting on using land mines in Korea because of "the great danger posed by an active and high-alert status army of North Koreans".

According to the U.S. chief delegate at the Oslo conference, Eric Newsom, Korea is a "unique" case that makes it necessary for the U.S. to continue using anti-personnel mines for its defense obligations on the peninsula.

Another obstacle to achieving an effective ban on land mines is the controversy over whether or not to allow the use of "smart mines", as proposed by the U.S.

Smart mines are weapons designed to self-destruct or self- deactivate after a certain amount of time has elapsed so that the possibility of civilian casualties is minimized. However, there are problems with smart mines.

First, they do not always self-destruct or deactivate as intended and remain lethal for a long time after they were supposed to have become harmless.

Second, allowing certain countries to produce and use such mines would certainly act as a justification for countries that lack the technology to continue to make and use conventional anti-personnel mines.

So, at least for the foreseeable future, it seems likely that we will continue to see a proliferation of anti-personnel land mines, especially in the developing world where most of the estimated global total of 110 million undetonated mines remain buried.

In the meantime, new deployments far exceed the mine-clearing capacity of governments. For every mine cleared, it is estimated that 20 new ones are planted.

In this kind of situation, according to estimates given by the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, one person is killed or maimed by a land mine every 20 minutes. In a year, some 26,000 people -- mostly civilians -- are either maimed or killed by the mines.

Yet, in spite of all the obstacles that still have to be overcome, the Oslo conference is an important step toward achieving our goal of abolishing these cruel weapons from the face of the Earth.

It is indeed lamentable that under these circumstances one of the best-known campaigners for the banning on land mines, Diana, Princess of Wales, is no longer able to lend her invaluable services to the cause.

However, as the coordinating director of the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines, Jody Williams, remarked at the Oslo conference, this is not about one person who tragically dies, it is about the 26,000 annually who tragically are maimed and killed by this weapon.

Insensitive as such a remark may sound, its substance is most probably one with which Princess Diana herself would have wholeheartedly agreed.

No effort must be spared to ensure all countries in the world agree to a total ban on land mines.