ARTICLE

January 2004

Uncertainty Remains About U.S. Landmine Policy

Alternative technologies not yet ready to replace landmines, U.S. claims

by John Stanton

The Bush administration is expected not to meet a 2006 deadline to commit the United States to the terms of the 1997 Ottawa landmine ban treaty. Meanwhile, there is mounting criticism from arms-control advocates about the U.S. failure to ratify the treaty, which already has been signed by 150 nations.

The impetus behind the Mine Ban Treaty is the danger posed by persistent landmines—those that remain a hazard long after their intended use during hostilities. There has been a significant reduction worldwide in the numbers of these persistent landmines since the treaty was signed.

Despite not having signed the treaty, the United States remains a world leader in humanitarian efforts to reduce the risks to civilians posed by the indiscriminate use of landmines.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton issued a directive whereby the United States would sign the agreement by 2006 if suitable alternatives to antipersonnel landmine (APL) technology could be developed and fielded.

But according to a 2001 National Academy of Sciences study, “only well after 2006 will accelerated advancements in technology lead to truly innovative alternatives to antipersonnel landmines. As sensor technologies mature into reliable systems of systems, multidimensional sensor networks will become available, which will dramatically improve situational awareness on the battlefield.”

Shortly thereafter, in early 2002, the Pentagon declared it could not meet the deadline due in part to the findings of the National Academy’s report and the stringent 1997 treaty requirements.

The Defense Department awarded a $53.8 million development contract to a joint venture between ATK Integrated Defense and Textron Systems to complete development of a hand-emplaced munitions system to serve as an alternative to or replacement for current non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines. But experts claim that this man-in-the-loop system does not meet the requirements of the treaty.

A so-called self-healing minefield system is still under development by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Non-lethal APLs, such as those proposed by the makers of the Taser Gun, were highly recommended by a National Academy of Sciences report. Taser and General Dynamics in late 2003 were set to kick off a teaming arrangement to develop and field the Taser Anti-Personnel Munition.

Pending a review of landmine policies by the Bush administration, the Defense Department is continuing to develop alternative technologies, in the expectation that if suitable alternatives are developed, the United States could be in a position to ratify the treaty.

The Defense Department views antipersonnel landmines as an “essential capability” that must be maintained and be readily available for use in military operations, said the Pentagon spokesman. “Should an operational commander determine that the use of APLs are required to support operations or to protect U.S. men and women in uniform, he can request authority to use them in accordance with pre-established rules.”

The Pentagon maintains that the majority of its stockpile of APLs and anti-tank mines have self-destructing and self-deactivating capabilities that prevent them from killing or maiming civilians after a conflict ends. The spokesman cited the report by the National Academy of Sciences that concluded, in part, that these landmines were “militarily advantageous and safe” and “achieve desired military objectives without endangering U.S. war fighters or noncombatants more than any other weapons of war.”

The Pentagon endorsed the Amended Mines Protocol II—enacted in May 1996—which it believes will establish reasonable standards on the use of landmines in order to minimize risks to noncombatants. The AMP is part of the larger United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons, to which the United States has been a state party since 1980.

“Unlike the Mine Ban Treaty, the protocol includes restrictions on anti-tank mines as well as anti-personnel landmines,” said the Defense Department spokesman, who asked for anonymity. “It also restricts the use of booby-traps and other devices that the Ottawa Convention does not address. In addition to many states that are parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, state parties to the protocol include key landmine producers and users, such as China, South Korea, India and Pakistan that are not parties to the Mine Ban Treaty.”

The Pentagon, however, would support tighter restrictions on the use of anti-tank landmines. The Ottawa Convention does not address anti-tank mines.

Stephen Goose, of Human Rights Watch, contends that the value of the AMP is limited almost exclusively to curbing the use of anti-tank mines and is “full of loopholes.” In some ways, he said, the AMP contains justifications for producing more antipersonnel mines. India, Pakistan and Russia increased production in 2001 and 2002.

The United States, meanwhile, remains the largest contributor to demining and mine awareness programs, allocating close to $80 million in 2002. However, that is $24 million less than two years ago. With an estimated 40-50 million APLs buried around the globe, APL detection technologies are being developed by private industry with U.S. government support, as well as in joint ventures between nations. It will take hundreds of years to clear landmines already in place, not counting roughly 1.9 million new landmines planted every year.

The United States retains a stockpile of 10.4 million APLs. U.S. military forces in Afghanistan are making use of minefields sown by the former Soviet military for perimeter defense. The U.S. military also pre-positioned, but apparently did not use, 90,000 APLs in and around the Iraq theater of operations, in early 2003. At last count, at least 32 U.S. military personnel were killed or injured by APLs in Iraq and Afghanistan that year.

The 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams, of the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL), and the driving force behind the treaty, said she believes that the Pentagon has recommended that the United States not ratify the treaty by 2006.

According to Williams, the Pentagon contends that after landmines, “other weapons may be the subject of further campaigns.”

“The United States has not renounced production, and they are keeping their options open,” said Goose, of Human Rights Watch.

At a press conference publicizing the 2003 edition of the “Landmine Monitor Report: Toward a Mine Free World,” he said that China, Russia, the United States, Ukraine, India and Pakistan collectively are estimated to hold more than 185 million stockpiled antipersonnel landmines, roughly 90 percent of the world’s total.

On March 19, 2001, retired Army Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and seven other senior officers sent a letter to the president, urging him to sign on to the Mine Ban Treaty.

“We feel strongly that it is in the best interests of the American soldier and our country that you fast-track U.S. accession to the Mine Ban Treaty. APL are outmoded weapons that have, time and again, proved to be a liability to our own troops. We believe that the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian advantages of speedy U.S. accession far outweigh the minimal military utility of these weapons.”

These officers dismissed the oft-cited argument that APLs are needed to defend South Korea from a potential invasion from the north. “Several of us are former commanders of elements of I-Corps (USA/ROK group), and believe that APLs are not in any way critical or decisive in maintaining the peninsula’s security. In fact, freshly scattered mixed systems would slow a U.S. and ROK counter-invasion by inhibiting the operational tempo of friendly armor and dismounted infantry units.”

According to Goose, “the United States has been in compliance with some provisions of the Mine Ban Treaty for years. They are doing the right thing, but can’t seem to make the leap to sign the treaty.”

Meanwhile, he said, “I’ve heard some discouraging things from the Pentagon, and it may be that the U.S. will roll back its current policies.”

Under the current policy, issued by the Clinton administration, the United States committed to signing the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006 if suitable alternatives could be found. The United States, nonetheless, extended a legislative moratorium on the export of landmines until October 2008.

According to Human Rights Watch, treaty participants rejected U.S. demands that “smart” APLs like the CBU-89 Gator Mine System—a 1,000-pound cluster munition containing 22 antipersonnel mines and 72 antitank mines—be exempted from the treaty. The HRW report said that self-destruct mechanisms are not 100 percent reliable. The mines are scattered (or remotely-delivered) from the air with little precision, and there is no way to accurately mark, map or fence the mined areas to keep civilians out.

Civilians in the mined areas face the danger not only of accidentally detonating mines that have failed to self-destruct, but of coming upon hundreds of those mines, randomly self-destructing at unknown times, the report asserts.

Mines that have failed to self-destruct—but have self-deactivated—will have to be treated by deminers as live mines that may potentially explode. Thus, an area that has unexploded mines will have to be cleared with the same care as any other minefield.

The clearance job may be made more difficult by the large numbers of mines present (given the propensity to use thousands at a time in remote-delivery systems), said Human Rights Watch. U.S. Gator mines were still being cleared from Kuwait several years after Operation Desert Storm.

Alternative Technologies
DARPA—along with the Sandia National Laboratory and companies, such as SAIC and ATK—continue to push forward with the Self Healing Minefield System. It consists of surface scattered and networked antitank mines that can detect an enemy attack of the minefield and respond autonomously, by having a fraction of the mines airlift themselves—through the use of microrockets—into the breach.

SHMS uses a man-in-the-loop concept allowing remote control detonation. DARPA claims that after 30 days, the SHMS will self-destruct and not pose any danger to U.S. troops or civilians. Such a system may meet the provisions of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.

The TAPM being developed by General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems and Taser International is a hand-emplaced remote control activated device that fires two tethered darts up to 21 feet. Military personnel place the devices in an array and remotely activate them. When infrared sensors located within the devices are self-activated, they release darts with up to 50,000 volts of electricity.

“It’s like shooting a pair of jumper cables at a person,” said Rick Smith, CEO of Taser. He noted that U.S. Marines returning from the war in Iraq indicated that they lost a lot of sleep patrolling perimeters. “While TAPM would not obviate the need for personnel to do that, it may let them make better use of their time. Further, TAPM meets the political requirements of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty [and] will [be] providing area of denial capabilities that the U.S. military needs.”

The National Academy of Sciences also recommended exploring the use of calmative agents. “They do not require man-in-the-loop, and they could improve the timeliness of a response and lessen the burden on the soldier/operator.”

The eradication of APLs is a costly and time-consuming process. A United Nations report indicated that it costs as little as $3 each to manufacture an APL but can cost up to $1,000 to remove it. APLs can be spread at rates of over 1,000 per minute, but it may take a skilled expert an entire day just to clear by hand 20-50 square meters of mine-contaminated land. A Rand study indicated there are approximately 40-50 million APLs still lying around. A mere 100,000 per year are removed. “At that rate, clearing 45-50 million APLs will require 450-500 years assuming no new APLs are laid.”

In July 2000, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the International Test and Evaluation Program for Humanitarian Demining (ITEP). The goal is to develop standards and develop practical technologies. With so many small and large businesses seeking to get into the lucrative demining business, deminers in the field, who risk life and limb, find themselves with a dizzying array of equipment that follows no uniform international standards. Groups like the ITEP aim to fix that problem.

U.S. companies like HiEnergy Technologies, are promoting the use of neutron beams to detect APLs. The company claims its SuperSenzor Directed Fast Neutron System for landmine confirmation can remotely scan the chemical formula of concealed substances through steel and retrieve images in a short period of time. HiEnergy has a contract with the Pentagon to refine the product, but it is still in development. Experts lament that there is still no reliable or suitable replacement for bomb-sniffing canines and brave humans on bended knees probing underground.

John Stanton is a member of the professional staff of the National Defense Industrial Association.

Back To Top