International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Programs

International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs Working Collectively to Eliminate the Landmine Threat

Contributors: Donald F. “Pat” Decades of persistent conflict The Convention on Conventional high number of civilian mine Patierno around the world have left a legacy Weapons (the CCW Convention)In casualties, many of which were Donald F. “Pat” Patierno is of destruction and mayhem in nearly 1980, the adopted occurring after the cessation of a graduate of the University of Maryland and the 90 countries, a legacy sown in the the Convention on Prohibitions or hostilities. Following a formal National Defense University. He has logged more than form of landmines intended not only Restrictions on the Use of Certain request by the French government thirty-one years of service for strategic purposes but also as Conventional Weapons That May Be in 1993, a Review Conference of the with the federal government, including a instruments of intimidation and Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious CCW opened in Vienna in four-year enlistment with the U.S. Navy. Currently he terror. Although this legacy is or to Have Indiscriminate Effects September 1995. Despite the serves as the director of unknown to most Americans, it goes (hereafter referred to as the CCW successful adoption of a number of Humanitarian Programs at the U.S. to the heart of the humanitarian Convention), which the United other protocols, talks to strengthen Department of State. precepts of the U.S. national States ratified in 1995. Two of the restrictions on the production, security strategy. most important provisions stipulate transfer and use of anti-personnel Natasha The international community has that (a) Parties to a conflict must landmines (APL) became Franceschi responded to this challenge in a always distinguish between civilians deadlocked, and the conference Natasha Franceschi is a graduate of Swarthmore number of ways. In addition to and combatants, and civilians must adjourned without placing any new College and the Fletcher School of Law and making an impressive commitment not be targeted for attack; and (b) limitations on these weapons and Diplomacy. She is now at to educate and assist landmine The use of weapons that are “of a after making a decision to convene the Foreign Service Institute training to become a first victims and to remove or destroy nature to cause superfluous injury two additional sessions in January tour diplomat. landmines, two international or unnecessary suffering” is and May 1996. instruments now restrict or prohibit prohibited. In 1990, humanitarian During the May 1996 session, the use of landmines. organizations began to document a significant improvements were made in the original landmine protocol of Pat Patierno meets deminers at a U.S. State Department- the CCW. They included prohibiting sponsored workshop about Mine Action Cooperation and the use of undetectable anti- Technology in , personnel landmines, the expansion . of the protocol to include internal conflicts, the tightening of regulations related to marking and monitoring anti-personnel minefields, the determination that responsibility for the proper maintenance or clearance of landmines rests with the mine-laying party, and the prohibition of any APL transfers to countries that are not party to or fail to apply the provisions of the protocol.

44The Landmine Action Smart Book International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs

Delegates agreed that annual Despite the improvements made “ Treaty” at the meetings would be held to discuss in the AMP in 1996, the ICBL, which September 1997 Oslo the implementation of the protocol by 1996 represented more than 350 Diplomatic Conference. and that a third review conference NGOs across the globe, concluded The treaty was signed would occur no later than 2001. The that the protocol had failed. At the by 122 nations at a Amended Mines Protocol (AMP), closing session of the 1996 Review ceremony on formally entitled the Protocol on Conference, they joined with the December 3, 1997, in Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Canadian government and other Ottawa. Since then the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and parties interested in a complete ban number of signatories Other Devices, has been ratified by to propose that a conference be has risen to 139, of almost 60 countries. Most of these held later in the year to develop which 107 have ratified countires, including the United strategies aimed at imposing such a the convention. States, which ratified in 1999, are key ban on APL. This set the scene for The states not party to Ottawa. what came to be called the “Ottawa cited two reasons for Process.” not signing the Ottawa The Ottawa TreatyAt the time The Canadian conference held in Convention: 1) the that the international community October 1996 was attended by 50 need for an adequate was working to strengthen the governments, the International transition period in CCW as an international legal Committee of the Red Cross order to phase out instrument that would limit the use (ICRC), the ICBL and the United anti-personnel Working together, the of APL, another mine ban process Nations (UN). At the close of this landmines (APL) which it uses to International community had begun to emerge. In October conference, the Canadian protect American troops; and 2) The can help to eliminate scenes like this. 1992, a number of prominent government issued an invitation to need to preserve the mixed anti- nongovernmental organizations all governments to come to Ottawa tank systems the United States (NGOs) met in New York to form in December 1997 to sign a treaty relies on to slow down an enemy’s a transnational alliance specifically prohibiting the production, armor offensive in battle. dedicated to advocating the stockpiling, transfer and use of APL. elimination of APL. The meeting International support continued A Comparative AnalysisThe marked the birth of the Inter- to build. In December 1996, the UN Ottawa Treaty was designed to national Campaign to Ban Landmines General Assembly passed Resolution impose a total ban on all APL, and (ICBL), an organization dedicated to 51/45S calling on all countries to states party to the treaty agree to seeking a new international norm conclude a new international forgo the use, transfer, production prohibiting the use, production, agreement prohibiting APL as soon and stockpiling of all AP mines. transfer, and stockpiling of APL and as possible. International discussion Under the terms of Ottawa an “anti- to maintaining that the only way to on an Austrian-drafted text began in personnel mine” is defined as address the issue effectively is to Vienna in February 1997 and a “mine designed to be exploded pursue a total mine ban. concluded with the adoption of the by the presence, proximity or

The Landmine Action Smart Book 45 International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs

International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs

contact of a a person, one that will The scope of the AMP covers not to protect a mine and are part of, “capacitate, injure or kill one or only mines but also booby traps and linked to, attached to, or placed more persons.” Mines designed to other devices. The scope of mines under the mine and activated when be detonated by the presence, includes not only APL, defined as an attempt is made to tamper with proximity or contact of a vehicle as “any mine primarily designed to be or otherwise intentionally disturb opposed to a person are equipped exploded by the presence, proximity the mine.” As noted by the ICRC, with anti-handling devices and “are or contact of a person, [one] that such mechanisms are increasingly not considered anti-personnel mines will incapacitate, injure or kill one or being fitted to anti-vehicle mines to as a result of being so equipped.” As more persons;” but also anti-vehicle prevent their removal or clearance defined by the Ottawa Treaty, all mines, a category excluded by the and are a particular danger to person-activated APL are banned by Ottawa Convention. soldiers and deminers. state parties irrespective of whether Whereas APL are generally small The AMP takes a different they are placed in marked minefields devices containing explosives approach. Although prohibiting any or remotely delivered over large designed to wound, kill, or device designed to “cause super- areas. The treaty also outlaws those otherwise incapacitate personnel, fluous injury or unnecessary categories of APL that are self- anti-vehicle mines—much larger suffering,” the protocol allows self- destructing or self deactivating (that mines—contain greater amounts of destruction (SD) and self- is, programmed to explode or explosives that have been designed deactivation (SDA) APL through the A U.S. civil affairs soldier works with a Cambodian officer become inert after a set period to disable or destroy vehicles and “Specifications on Self-Destruction during an assessment visit. of time). tanks. Although anti-vehicle mines and Self-Deactivation” delineated in are generally used in small numbers Technical Annex 1. It specifies the and are easier to locate, they following: continue to pose a serious threat to All remotely-delivered anti-personnel the civilian population and to relief mines shall be designed and workers in many parts of the world. constructed so that no more than Furthermore, as a result of recent 10% of activated mines will fail to technological developments, the self-destruct within 30 days after distinction between anti-personnel emplacement, and each mine shall mines and anti-vehicle mines is have a back-up self-deactivation becoming blurred. feature designed and constructed so Although Ottawa prohibits any that in combination with the self- dual-purpose or anti-vehicle mines if destruction mechanism, no more one of their functions is to be than one in 1000 activated mines detonated by a person, it allows for will function as a mine 120 days the continued use of anti-vehicle after emplacement. mines equipped with antihandling In addition, Article 5 allows devices defined as “devices intended weapons that are not in compliance

46The Landmine Action Smart Book International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs

with the provisions of Technical Despite the difference between a the continued use of APL by at least Annex 1 but mandates that such total and a selective mine ban, both one treaty signatory and the likely weapons be placed within a marked Ottawa and the AMP seek to limit use of APL by several others. area monitored by military the transfer of APL. The Ottawa As far as the AMP is concerned, personnel and cleared before the Convention prohibits the transfer verification measures require that at area is abandoned. of APL except for the purpose of the cessation of hostilities, states Although allowing for the destruction, whereas the AMP report to the United Nations and continued use of some landmines, a prohibits the transfer of all mines other interested parties on areas number of provisions ensure that prohibited in the protocol and they have mined, including those no the SD and SDA APL will not prohibits the transfer of any mines longer under their control. Little become part of the humanitarian to nonstates as well as states not information is available regarding landmine crisis. Article 3 of the AMP bound by the convention. the success of such verification specifically prohibits the use of In addition, both address the mechanisms. Basic computer training is taught to future deminers mines, booby traps or other devices issue of transparency, although Regarding the destruction and by a U.S. soldier stationed in . that “employ a mechanism or device in a non-binding way. The Ottawa removal of mines, the Ottawa Treaty specifically designed to detonate the Convention requires states party to obliges each state party to clear all munition by the presence of the convention to transmit detailed APL in the ground within a period commonly available mine detectors information about their efforts to of 10 years following the date on as a result of their magnetic or comply with the treaty not more which the convention entered into other noncontact influence during than 180 days after it has entered force for that country. This mandate normal use in detection operation,” into force and requires that covers mines not only within a thereby protecting deminers. In information be brought up to date country’s territory but also within addition, Article 3 prohibits the use on an annual basis. Under Article 9, territory that it occupies. An area is of any mine against civilians by such states are required to provide considered to be “mined” if it is forbidding the indiscriminate information ranging from the total thought to contain either APL or placement of a weapon “which is not number and types of APL stockpiled anti-vehicle mines. The AMP also on, or directed against, a military to the national measures taken to mandates that all mines be removed objective; employs a method or prevent and suppress violations of after the cessation of active means of delivery which cannot be the treaty. Although 48 reports have hostilities and designates the high- directed at a specific military thus far been submitted by states contracting parties as those who objective; or may be expected to party to the Ottawa Convention, the bear responsibility for the clearance cause incidental loss of civilian life, reports vary widely in consistency of areas under their control. injury to civilians, damage to civilian and timeliness. Furthermore, only 20 Protocol II, however, does not objects, or a combination thereof, of the signatories have reported that require the high-contracting parties which would be excessive in relation they have enacted implementation to clear mined areas over which to the concrete and direct military legislation. The Landmine Monitor they no longer exercise control advantage anticipated.” Report 2000 also reported verifying but does mandate that such parties

The Landmine Action Smart Book47 International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs

International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs

provide technical and material the care and rehabilitation, and social threat is a requirement for an assistance to the party that is and economic reintegration, of mine investment by the international in control. victims and for mine awareness community of $1 billion per year. Finally, both the Convention on programs.”3 The sheer size of that fiscal Conventional Weapons (Article 11) Based on these provisions, the challenge has made it virtually and the Ottawa Treaty (Article 6) treaty “implies a responsibility of the impossible for the international call on States Parties “in a position international community to support community to respond at that level. to do so” to provide humanitarian survivor assistance programs in Nevertheless, the ICBL has waged mine action assistance. mine-affected countries with limited an effective campaign to keep the resources.”4 This means that States issue in the public eye and has The Ottawa Treaty’s View of Parties can ask, or be asked, for pressured both governments and Survivor AssistanceWith the entry survivor assistance. Specifically, international organizations to fund into force of the Ottawa Treaty in Article 6, Paragraph 7(e) grants initiatives such as mine awareness, March 1999, the social and economic states the right to request other mine clearance, surveys and survivor integration of landmine survivors States Parties to assist victims. assistance. Initiatives of this kind A Nicaraguan deminer practices during a training exercise. became part of international treaty Tw o arguments advanced in favor have increased since the 1968 level law. Article 6, paragraph 3 of the of the inclusion of mine survivor of $159 million, including in-kind Ottawa Treaty requires States assistance in the treaty included: 1) donations. In its most recent report Parties to provide mine survivor the inclusion of survivor assistance is (issued in September 2000), the assistance in order to reintegrate necessary if the treaty is going to Landmine Monitor reports that the landmine survivors into society. The provide a complete response by the sum of $219 million—not including Ottawa Treaty is especially notewor- international community to the in-kind contributions—was provided thy because it is the first arms dangers posed by mines, and 2) the by major donors to humanitarian control and disarmament treaty to inclusion of survivor assistance is demining. incorporate language supporting consistent with international law, Mine clearance is taking place in victims of the target weapon. In the particularly international humanitar- 65 mine-affected countries or areas. treaty’s preamble, States Parties ian law, which requires states to take In 1999, the seven largest mine- express their wish “to do their positive obligations toward the clearance programs cleared utmost in providing assistance for treatment of prisoners of war.5,A a combined total of 168.41 square the care and rehabilitation, including kilometers. The number of mine the social and economic rehabilita- Humanitarian Mine ActionThere victims in decreased from tion of mine victims.” To achieve this can be little doubt that the and average of almost 500 a month goal, Article 6, Paragraph 3 of the commitment of the states party to in 1996 to fewer than 50 a month treaty obligates signatory states to each of those treaty instruments has in 1999. Before long, Namibia is support survivor assistance, stating resulted in increased funding for expected to issue a declaration that that “[e]ach State Party in a position mine action. However, critical to the its country is mine-safe, a status that to do so shall provide assistance for goal of eliminating the landmine both and have

48The Landmine Action Smart Book International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs

certified for their land. Despite declined drastically. Parties to the ConclusionBoth the CCW and continued conflict through out Convention are relying on different the Ottawa Treaty are useful Afghanistan and , mine weapons or have developed instruments in the international clearance is being pursued in areas alternative war doctrines to achieve campaign to remove the scourge of that are free of conflict in an effort their military objectives. landmines from the Earth. They Global conferences and to reopen land for agriculture and Such strategic changes are less constitute valuable contributions to regional workshops bring together members of the mine other purposes. obvious for parties to the CCW. the body of international human- action community to reach Other than APL designated for the itarian law. These instruments are consensus and accomodation. Strategic ImpactIncreased protection of its forces in Korea, the complementary, not mutually awareness of the impact of land- United States currently has no exclusive. Both address problems mines has evoked a significant landmines deployed anywhere in the generated by anti-personnel debate on the overall value of their world. U.S. force protection strategy, landmines; they address the issue of continued use. Arguments on both however, reserves the right to use transparency; they require the sides of the issue far outweigh the short-duration landmines, the kind removal of mines after the cessation scope of this article. Critical to an permitted under the CCW, in any of hostilities; and they require the overall understanding of the two future military engagement. The provision of humanitarian mine treaty instruments, however, is a United States is the only producer action assistance. discussion of the impact of the of short-duration landmines that Although the focus of the treaties on the strategic use of have been designed to deactivate international community has largely landmines. after a specified time and pose little, been on the Ottawa Treaty, the Military forces have relied on if any, humanitarian threat to CCW’s Amended Mines Protocol is landmines to defend the perimeter non-combatants. an effective and useful alternative of operational areas, to impede the Neither treaty has had a because it has captured and can forward progress of opposing significant impact on the use of anti- continue to capture states not party military forces and to channel those personnel landmines by rebel groups to Ottawa. Although both treaties forces to areas targeted by more or nonstate actors. Reports of mine share similar objectives, only the capable weapons. Both treaties have use by such groups have been made AMP offers states an opportunity to had a significant impact in altering in almost 20 countries in recent protect their military interests while those historic strategic purposes. years: Afghanistan, Angola, Myanmar, fostering humanitarian initiatives With few exceptions, states Colombia, Democratic Republic of designed to minimize or eliminate party to and signatories of the the Congo, Georgia, India, Iraq the threat to noncombatants. When Ottawa Treaty are reported to (northern), Lebanon, , Pakistan, used in tandem, however, these have complied with provisions that Philippines, Russia (Chechnya), instruments comprise useful prohibit the use of anti-personnel Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, strategic tools in the global effort to landmines. There is no doubt that Turkey and . respond to the humanitarian since the inception of the Ottawa challenges posed by landmines Treaty, the use of landmines has around the world.

The Landmine Action Smart Book49