VIGÉSIMA SÉPTIMA. - LEGISLACIÓN APLICABLE

The 1997 Ottawa Convention, signed by 135 nations, banned the use and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines. The United States is not a signatory. The Ottawa Convention requires signatories to abandon the use of landmines within 10 years and also requires the destruction of the signatory’s stockpile of landmines. The convention’s aims became official UN policy in 1998 with the adoption of General Assem- bly Resolution 53/77.

PROS

Landmines do great harm to people, but so do all weap- ons of war. Landmines are not uniquely unpleasant, and the debate about them has distorted public perception. In truth, they are little different from a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban.

Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money and with very few military person- nel. This is a legitimate aim in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians, and in peacetime, when poor countries want to invest in infrastructure rather than in defense. In the future, nations may not need landmines, but while armies still depend on conventional weapons, using landmines to defend borders is highly appropriate. Landmines can slow or stop an advance, delaying or even halting con- flict; they can deter invasion in the first place. By pro- tecting wide areas from a swift military advance on civil- ians, they can prevent genocide.

CONS

Landmines are a terrible, immoral tool of war. America should neither practice nor condone this kind of warfare. Unlike other weaponry, landmines remain hidden long after conflicts have ended, killing and maiming civil- ians in some of the world’s poorest countries years, even decades later. Just because other weaponry has similar effects, doesn’t mean that landmines are acceptable—it means that other weapons are unconscionable , too. But we must start somewhere. We can make a difference by capitalizing on the global movement against landmines and we should.

The usefulness of landmines is significantly overstated. They are easily removed by quite low-technology mili- tary equipment, which means that they are not very dangerous to armed forces, but are incredibly harmful to civilians.

The use of landmines is a totally separate issue from removing them. We can do the latter without banning the former. The proposition accepts that those who use landmines must fund clean-up efforts, and the United States is doing this. The attention of the very humanitar- ian organizations calling for a ban will ensure that this obligation is met.

Banning landmines disproportionately punishes under- developed countries unable to acquire the higher-tech- nology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Banning landmines harms precisely the nations most likely to need them for defensive pur- poses.

The ban on landmines has an asymmetric effect: it only stops nations that honor the ban. Nations that want to use landmines will do so regardless of the US position (or that of any other nation)—as demonstrated by the current prolific use of mines despite the large number of signatories to the Ottawa Convention. In addition, if we might one day face an enemy deploying landmines, we must expose our soldiers to their use in training so that they learn how to deal with them.

The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufac- tures smart mines; since 1976, the US has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996%. The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly.

Used in peacekeeping initiatives, these mines protect US troops and present little danger to civilians. Stop- ping their use would endanger the lives of peacekeep- ers and make the United States less likely to enter into such operations. This is one reason why the United States refused to sign the Ottawa treaty in 1997 and has declined to do so since.

Suggesting that the use and removal of landmines are two separate issues is absurd—the two are inextricably inter- linked. Most nations that deploy landmines, including those manufactured in the United States, never remove them. As history has shown, relying on goodwill or trust to remove landmines is folly. Simply put, if land- mines are deployed, innocent people inevitably die. The United States should not dirty its hands by trading in these wicked weapons.

Landmines provide a false sense of security. Nations often use them in lieu of negotiating with their neighbors. Landmines are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies. The United States should not encourage them or frighten them into to buying US military equipment.

Obviously only those nations that stand behind their commitments will honor their commitments. That is a rationale for never entering into international treaties. Certainly some nations will ignore the ban—but as a ban gains acceptance, such nations will eventually succumb to pressure, especially if US diplomatic and moral might is behind it. Even if other nations ignore such ban, doing the right thing in and of itself is very important. Ulti- mately, this debate is about what kind of global society you want to live in. Do you want to live in a society that tries hard to stop the use of such horrible weapons and occasionally fails, or one that never even bothers to try? Faith in these so-called smart mines is hugely misplaced. Testing cannot duplicate battlefield conditions, in which areas of deployment are often not properly recorded or marked. Even if smart mines work as claimed, regimes that use them may not want to deactivate them upon a cease-fire, particularly if their dispute still smolders. The equipment required for deactivation may be lost or destroyed. The best way to ensure that these weapons are not left in the soil is never to put them there in the first place. That some users might be responsible is not good enough, since if anyone uses landmines everyone will. Suggesting that landmines are the prime protector of US forces, or even an important one, is absurd. The princi- pal protection US troops (as opposed to those of other nations) have in peacekeeping is the threat of using over- whelming force if defied. The damage done to relations with the civilian community from using landmines far outweighs any narrow military benefit garnered from landmine deployment.

10|The Debatabase Book