Land mines: Military utility vs human tragedy

By Hasan Kleib

JAKARTA (JP): The question of antipersonnel land mines (APLs) has recently taken center stage in the forum of pressing world issues and has more than ever received significant political attention. This month, two landmark events related to APLs have taken place.

First, more than 120 states signed the "Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction" in Ottawa from Dec. 2 to Dec. 4. The convention was concluded through a series of negotiations held in Ottawa, Vienna, Bonn, Brussels and Oslo.

Second, the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines (ICBL) and its coordinator, Jody Williams, were in Oslo on Dec. 10 to receive the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. The prize was awarded based on ICBL's increasingly successful campaign to eliminate APLs worldwide.

One might examine the issue of APLs from two different perspectives: its military utility and the humanitarian tragedy it causes.

The military utility of APLs has been generally recognized. APLs, since their inception, have always been assumed as being an indispensable weapon of war. As a defensive weapon, they have been used for decades, not only by developing countries but also by developed countries which have modern and sophisticated weaponry systems. These weapons are used to defend a country's border as well as to protect military installations.

One might say that even when used on a massive scale, APLs usually have little effect on the result of a war. The use of these weapons has almost never played a major role in determining the outcome of a conflict.

But APLs are, however, still deemed as effective, reliable and relatively inexpensive defensive weapons that save the lives of soldiers. These weapons also provide a deterrence factor in the defense of a country's territory. Their continued use in several intrastate conflicts as well as their long-time presence along the Korean Demilitarized Zone speak for itself.

From the military point of view, it has been argued that the indiscriminate effects of APLs can be moderated through full compliance with military doctrine and the rules of international humanitarian law. In their deployment, these kind of weapons should be properly laid, mapped, marked, fenced and monitored so as to avoid afflicting noncombatants.

In this context, the international community has actually tried to regulate and restrict the use of APLs through a 1980 international convention: "Protocol II of the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices".

In May 1996, this protocol was amended and strengthened. It prohibits the use of traditional APLs. It only allows the use of "smart" mines which explode automatically 30 days after emplacement through a built-in self-destruct mechanism. If this fails, it deactivates in 120 days through a back-up self- deactivation feature. Such APLs are to provide a response signal equivalent to a signal from 8 grams or more of iron that would enable it to be detected by commonly-available mine detection equipment.

However, the use of a new "smart" generation of APLs is surmised inadequate and is unlikely to significantly reduce the level of civilian casualties.

The humanitarian tragedy from land mines, on the other hand, has long been self-evident. The UN secretary-general estimated that 110 million APLs currently lie scattered in more than 70 countries, such as in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia and Cambodia.

More than 25,000 people worldwide are killed or maimed annually by APLs in which most of the victims are innocent civilians. The situation is further worsened by the fact that the capability to remove 100,000 APLs yearly is followed by the new deployment of two to five million each year.

APLs are extremely cheap, often less than US$5 each. But to find and blow up a single one can cost anywhere between $100 and $1,000. Unlike a bomb or artillery shell which explodes when it hits its target, APLs lie for years, even after the war has ended, until a person, vehicle or animal triggers its firing mechanism. APLs are blind and indiscriminate weapons which cannot distinguish between a soldier or a civilian, a friend or a foe. In contrast to antitank or antivehicle land mines which need more than 200 kg of pressure to explode, antipersonnel land mines need only 5 kg.

Most mine-infested fields are located in developing countries. These countries lack the resources to respond to the medical, social, economic and environmental consequences caused by APLs. The menace of these weapons continues to threaten civilians as they return to their daily lives and rebuild their communities and country after years of debilitating conflicts.

The dissension of views, therefore, surfaced regarding the military utility of APLs versus their humanitarian aspects. From the angle of military utility, it is asserted that the humanitarian tragedy is mostly caused by the irresponsible use of these weapons by irregular or guerrilla forces mainly in intrastate conflicts. The conflicting parties often wield APLs as a trap rather than an obstacle to enemy forces.

Those that take the humanitarian aspect view APLs as deadly weapons that indiscriminately kill and maim innocent civilians. The military effectiveness is believed to be limited, whereas its impact on civilians is very broad. It should, they claim, be banned globally and totally.

Seeing that more than 120 states signed the convention at the Ottawa Conference, it seems that the perspective of humanitarian tragedy has gained the upper hand over the view of military utility.

However, due to the fact that those who do not support the total ban convention include major APL users and producers, the effectiveness and universality of the convention is at stake.

Although the majority of states, as party to the convention, will discontinue the use, production and transfer as well as destroy their stockpiles of APLs, the existence of APLs worldwide will not be significantly reduced since the major users and producers are still outside of the convention.

A compromise solution to accommodate the concerns of both military utility and humanitarian tragedy aspects should then be explored. Possible alternatives to APLs might be the way out.

In the light of recent advances in technology, developed countries particularly should redouble their research to invent new technology to replace APLs. Such as weapon should fill all the functions of APLs -- that is finding, delaying and channeling enemy forces -- without creating the humanitarian consequences to noncombatants.

The writer is an observer of international affairs.