Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams won the prize for her work to eradicate landmines in 1997. She is pictured here speaking at a youth protest at the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates held in Merida, Mexico. Courtesy: Albany J Alvarez/ Nobel Women’s Initiative

By Sven Lilienström
STOCKHOLM, Apr 16 2021 (IPS)

Landmines are among the most insidious and cruel weapons of all, because they do not distinguish between armed soldiers, civilians or even children.

According to the Landmine Monitor 2020, explosive devices hidden in the ground killed or injured at least 5,554 people worldwide last year alone — that’s an average of 15 deaths and serious injuries per day.

With her International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), Professor Jody Williams (70) has been advocating a ban on landmines for almost 30 years, and she received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her commitment.

Excerpts from the interview:

Professor Williams, thank you for taking the time for this interview with the Faces of Peace initiative. To begin, we would first of all like to ask you: What does “peace” mean for you personally?

WILLIAMS: Peace is not simply the absence of armed conflict. That is the baseline on which sustainable peace can be built. For me, sustainable peace is peace built on human security, not national security. We do not need more, “modernized” nuclear weapons.

We do not need fully autonomous weapons that on their own can target and kill human beings. We need to use our resources so that the needs of people are met, not the needs of arms producers.

People should be able to live dignified lives, with equal access to education, health care, housing, etc. We need to focus on human security for sustainable peace, not national security to protect the infrastructure of the state. Peace and security should be people centered!

On 3 December 1997, 122 states signed the treaty for the banning of landmines. You and your campaign received the Nobel Peace Prize for this. How did you, as an American, come on the topic of landmines?

WILLIAMS: Actually, I was asked by two organizations – the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and a German humanitarian relief organization, “Medico International” – if I thought I could create an international coalition of nongovernmental organizations to pressure governments to ban antipersonnel landmines.

It was an amazing challenge that totally sparked my interest so I accepted that challenge and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines was born. Today, some 164 nations are part of the Mine Ban Treaty.

Speaking of the Landmine Monitor 2020: With 5,554 dead, the global death toll remains high 23 years after the ban on landmines. Is this a sobering figure? What else can the international community do?

WILLIAMS: It is a very sobering question and demonstrates how long it takes to clean up the mess as chaos caused by war and violence. The international community must maintain its focus on supporting countries still plagued with landmines and that are working on mine-clearance.

The danger of landmines – especially improvised explosive devices – still exists. And the world has not become more peaceful anyway. What are the biggest threats to peace in 2021?

WILLIAMS: To my mind, the global obsession with weapons and violence while at the same time painting people who believe that peace is possible as intellectual “light weights” who don’t understand the harsh reality of the world are the two sides of the double-edged sword that keeps the world believing that only more weapons will keep us safe.

The biggest threats are the “modernization” of nuclear weapons and the new “revolution” of weapons – killer robots. The weapons are fully autonomous and can target and kill human beings on their own. A devastating “marriage” of artificial intelligence and weapons of war!

Bombs do not kill ideology: Just in office, U.S. President Joe Biden ordered an airstrike in Syria – and another was called off at the last minute. What are your thoughts about that?

WILLIAMS: As you point out, bombs cannot kill ideology. In fact, bombing and other acts of violence can strengthen ideological conviction and make recruiting new people easier. I did not support Obama’s extensive use of drone warfare either.

And speaking of Joe Biden: The US has so far not signed the Ottawa Convention. What do you think the chances are of this happening during Joe Biden’s presidency? Does the world need US leadership?

WILLIAMS: I cannot predict what Biden will do regarding the Mine Ban Treaty. But it is very likely he will roll back Trump’s policy and align his administration’s policy with that of the Obama administration, which brought the US very close to compliance with the treaty even if it was not signed.

Professor Williams, you are also chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative. What exactly does this initiative do and how can one support your important work?

WILLIAMS: The Nobel Women’s Initiative was launched in 2006. It brings together five women recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, who use our influence and access to shine a spotlight on grassroots women’s organizations in conflict areas around the world working for sustainable peace with justice and equality.

*About the Faces of Democracy and Faces of Peace initiatives:

With almost 100 prominent figures from politics, business, the media and society – including the former President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Norway Erna Solberg, the President of the Republic of Estonia Kersti Kaljulaid, the German Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas and OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger – the Faces of Democracy initiative is now in its fifth year of existence.

The first “faces” of the 2019 founded Faces of Peace initiative are SIPRI Director Dan Smith, the Chairman of the Atlantic Brücke e.V. Sigmar Gabriel, the OSCE CiO 2019 and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic Miroslav Lajčák and the Chief of Staff of the 69th Submarine Brigade of the Northern Fleet Vasili A. Arkhipov.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

By Sven Lilienström
STOCKHOLM, Sep 19 2019 (IPS)

In an interview with Dan Smith, Director of the renowned Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Professor of Peace and Conflict at the University of Manchester. The native Londoner, he has been researching conflicts and peace for decades and served in the UN Peacebuilding Fund Advisory Group, which he chaired for two years.

SIPRI Director Dan Smith. Credit: SIPRI

Smith: Peace is the situation in which it is possible to pursue conflicts and disagreements – between states, between individuals and at every level in between – without damage to those involved in the conflict, to others, or to others’ ability to live in peace with each other.

Lilienström: After the demise of the INF Treaty, the USA has announced that it intends to deploy intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific region. The Chinese government is responding with threats of its own. How dangerous are the power games with China?

Smith: The difficult US-China relationship holds many risks including the trade war and confrontations at sea as well as a potential arms rivalry.

Lilienström: China was never part of the INF Treaty. As a result, the People’s Republic is now believed to have 2,000 ballistic missiles. Do we need a new treaty that includes the Chinese?

Smith: There are various estimates of how many missiles China has of the ranges covered by the INF Treaty (500-5500 km); the highest estimate is about 1,700, plus a maximum estimate of some 300 cruise missiles. The total includes both nuclear and conventional warheads. In total, China is widely estimate to have about 300 nuclear warheads. The US and Russia have over 6,000 nuclear warheads each.

A new treaty that includes China would be a positive development!

Accordingly, including China in a future arms control treaty would probably exert a downward pressure on US and Russian warhead numbers, as it is hard to see why China would otherwise agree to sign up. A new treaty that includes China would therefore be a positive development. It is, however, unclear whether China will find the proposal of joining a new treaty credible when the old has just been abandoned.

Lilienström: The Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for international trade, has become the stage for an international conflict. What do you think of a US-led mission to protect oil tankers in the Persian Gulf?

Smith: Safe passage by sea should be secured by agreement, subject to international law; neither a US-led military mission nor any other military deployment will contribute this aim.

Lilienström: Cyber-attacks, propaganda, and disinformation are means of conducting a hybrid conflict. How vulnerable are Germany, the EU and the NATO countries to becoming targets of hybrid threats and campaigns?

Smith: All European countries are already subject to cyber incidents of various scales from a wide variety of sources. What is called “hybrid warfare” normally also involves the use of armed force; currently, NATO and EU countries face a relatively low risk of experiencing that kind of conflict.

Lilienström: Regarding climate conflicts: The drought in the region around the drying Lake Chad demonstrates the effects of global warming. Is climate change a global security risk?

Smith: Climate change leads to violent conflict in a context of poor governance. Unfortunately, many areas that will face the strongest direct impact of global warming lack the structures and capacities in government needed to adapt to it. In these locations there are and will be severe climate-related security risks.

Lilienström: Mr. Smith, our seventh question is always the same: What three trouble spots are in your opinion currently the most dangerous and what measures do you suggest to de-escalate conflict and stabilize peace?

Dan Smith: Northeast Asia, the Gulf, the wider Sahel. The great need is for dialogue, respect for the rule of international law and a clear recognition that international cooperation is required to solve any and all of the world’s severest problems.

Excerpt: