DISARMAMENT: U.S. Could Undermine Landmine Ban, say NGOs

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 19 1997 (IPS) - A coalition of more than 165 non- governmental organisations (NGOs) has accused the United States of bad faith in wanting modifications to a proposed treaty outlawing the use of landmines, even though Washington has belatedly joined negotiations to ban the deadly weapons.

“The fact that the United States is seeking all kinds of exceptions represents an attempt to negotiate in bad faith,” says Stephen Goose who chairs the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines, a coalition of NGOs and human rights groups.

The Washington-based coalition supports the international call for a simple ban treaty with “no exceptions, no reservations and no loopholes”.

State Department spokesman James Rubin told reporters Monday that Washington will attend talks beginning Sept. 1 in Oslo on the landmine treaty but it wants exceptions to any outright ban.

The United States is a global power and “we have global interests, ” Rubin said. “We will be seeking to reconcile our humanitarian objectives, which are real and profound, with our national security objectives..and those include a geographic exception for anti-personnel landmines in Korea.

“We hope that other countries understand that when you seek a ban and you want to achieve a ban, you have to be logical and thoughtful about what the exceptions might be.”

Goose said the U.S. decision to join the negotiations will only weaken the proposed treaty significantly. “It would have been better if they stayed away,” he told IPS. “The use of landmines in Korea is not uniquely justified under international law, thus the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines rejects any exception for Korea or any other geographical area in the ban treaty.”

Goose also said that an exception for Korea would permit the U.S. to keep its stockpile of 10 million “smart mines”.

Mary Wareham of the Washington-based Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation said that while Korea may be in a unique political situation, the Unityed States cannot make the case that Korea is unique with regard to the use of landmines – particularly when it bases its argument on flawed computer war-games.

“Among other serious flaws, the model assumes the removal of all anti-tank as well as anti-personnel mines when contemplating the defence of South Korea,” she said. “We remain hopeful a ban treaty will be signed this December, but we would prefer that the United States stay outside of the process rather than to contribute to the creation of a treaty full of loopholes, exceptions and reservations.”

The three-week Oslo meeting is expected to finalise the ban on landmines treaty which would then be ready for signature in December – the culmination of the so-called “Ottawa process” in which Canada has been in the lead.

Goose declared the United States also sought to make a distinction between “smart mines” and “dumb mines” – mines that are self-destructive and mines that are not, but Rubin denied this saying Washington would not be seeking an exception for self- destructing landmines.

Goose also said that, under the Ottawa process, the proposed treaty will come into force when it is ratified by 40 countries. This would take about four years, he said, but added that Washington’s time frame allowed for about nine years for the treaty to come into force.

The U.S. objections “are not acceptable…they are fundmental attacks on the integrity of the treaty,” Goose said.

The fact that the United States had joined the Ottawa process would, under normal circumstances, be a sign of hope, he said. “But what is going to happen is that the U.S. will be embarrassed. They will be poorly received if they seek all these exceptions,” Goose added.

In November the United Nations agreed for the first time to “pursue vigorously” a legally-binding global agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines.

The 10 countries expressing reservations – Belarus, China, Cuba, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, South Korea, Russia, Syria and Turkey – were for the most part defending their right to use landmines as a weapon of self-defence.

Grigory Berdennikov of the Russian delegation said that while his country shared “feelings of solidarity” with innocent victims, such solidarity should be expressed through intensification of mine-clearance efforts and a ban on the export and import of landmines – not on its use and production.

“If mines were banned without adequate substitution,” he said there would be a tremdendous increase in the cost of guarding national frontiers and borders, “particularly in areas regularly infiltrated by bandits.”

Berdennikov also argued that any ban on landmines would drive the business underground. “Would such a ban serve criminal purposes?,” he asked, “And how would such a ban be verified, and where and how would the line of demarcation be drawn?”

The United Nations has estimated that there are more than 110 million mines buried in the ground in more than 70 countries and there are an estimated 25,000 mine-related casualties worldwide each year. The destruction of these landmines will cost about 33 billion dollars.