HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Editorials Calling for the Clinton Administration to Support an International Ban on Landmines by Holly J. Burkhalter and Stephen D. Goose When William S. Cohen appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearings next week, Senators should ask him what he intends to do about eradicating one of the world’s most persistent and widespread atrocities: antipersonnel landmines. If the Defense Department signals its support for a Canadian diplomatic initiative, set for December 1997, an international agreement completely banning the use, manufacture, stockpiling, and export of these indiscriminate weapons could be signed by the U.S. this year. But shamefully, Washington is poised to play the role of spoiler. Unwilling to abandon its own use of landmines, the Clinton Administration is expected within a week or two to offer an alternative aimed at slowing momentum toward a total ban. That alternative could condemn the world to living—and dying—with mines for decades to come. How did the Clinton Administration come by a policy that is so sharply at odds with that of such U.S. friends as Germany, Belgium, Austria, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland—all of whom have already unilaterally banned antipersonnel mines? The answer lies at the Pentagon, which insisted last May that the President’s new landmines policy, rhetorically aimed at a ban, still permits the continued use of so-called dumb landmines in Korea, and the use of “smart” mines (those equipped with self-destruct devices) anywhere, indefinitely. This fealty to landmines is perplexing. Though the Pentagon clings to the mantra that mines are necessary to safeguard the lives of U.S. soldiers, the military utility of antipersonnel mines is increasingly under attack. Fourteen of our most respected retired generals, including General Norman Schwarzkopf (commander of Operation Desert Storm), a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the former commanders of U.S. forces in Europe and Korea, have written to President Clinton stating that “antipersonnel landmines are not essential” and that “banning them would not undermine the military effectiveness or safety of our forces, nor those of other nations.” These military men oppose the weapon not only for its unerring capacity to blow off the limbs of any woman or child who chances to step on it, but also for the dangers that they pose to U.S. soldiers. The Joint Chiefs’ insistence on using landmines indefinitely may be more a reflection of the Pentagon’s anxiety about removing a weapon from its arsenal for humanitarian reasons than an appreciation for landmines per se. If landmines are banned today, their thinking goes, what will be next? Other nations oppose the ban because they are actively manufacturing and using antipersonnel landmines. At last year’s Review Conference of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva, such offenders as Russia and China managed to drive the protocol on landmines to the lowest common denominator, adopting a position that did almost nothing to stigmatize landmines or slow their production and use. Disgusted by the slow pace and the veto role played by the world’s champions of landmines, the Canadian government announced last October that it was calling for a special conference to enact an absolute ban, sidestepping the usual lengthy and labyrinthine arms control agreements. Abolitionist countries will attend; those refusing will be stigmatized as the landmines offenders they are. The move is drawing support from many nations around the world, including some of those most scarred by landmines (such as Mozambique and Cambodia), but it threw Washington into a diplomatic tizzy. Stung by Canada’s “put up or shut up” challenge, the Clinton Administration responded with a curt demarche, and began planning an alternative to the December meeting. Washington’s counter-move apparently will involve a limited ban initiative at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament (CD), scheduled to begin January 20 in Geneva. The forum, notorious for its slow pace, will include the same major landmines advocates who scuttled progress at last year’s CCW meeting, and it will operate by consensus, producing a dreary repetition of those negotiations, with landmines producers and users blocking real progress. The U.S. is sure to emerge from the exercise with its own policy of using its high technology mines whenever and wherever it pleases. Washington’s alternative could be a serious blow for the treaty signing in Ottawa, which represents the most important opportunity to limit the use of landmines in our lifetime. A number of “fence-sitting” nations like France, Italy and the United Kingdom, which have paid lip service to a ban but whose military establishments are still skittish, will likely embrace the comfortable U.S. alternative. The incoming Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are thought to be more favorable to a ban than their predecessors. But until such time as President Clinton is willing to part company with the Joint Chiefs, landmines policy is unlikely to change. He could assure himself a legacy as a great humanitarian if he enthusiastically joins the Canadian initiative. But at the very least, his administration should not throw diplomatic monkey wrenches into the good works of other governments as they prepare to convene an international convention to ban landmines. Holly J. Burkhalter is the Human Rights Watch Advocacy Director and Steve D. Goose is the Human Rights Watch Arms Project Program Director.