landmines

Why Land Mines Should Be Banned -- NOW An Op-Ed by Robert MacPherson

(This article, written by Robert MacPherson, appeared in the The Washington Times' op-ed section on July 28, 1997. MacPherson has worked for CARE in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and most recently, the Zaire refugee crisis. He is also President of ENABLE, a non-profit organization dedicated to assisting the survivors of land mines and war.)

I survived an anti-personnel mine explosion. I am lucky. My physical injuries, with few exceptions, are superficial. I am also a former Marine. As a survivor and a Marine there is no doubt in my mind that the US government should sign a treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines by the year 2000.

My experience with land mines began years ago-- on Good Friday, April 4, 1969, in the Republic of Vietnam.

Vietnam -- How can a single word encompass so much? If you were there, it evokes a pain you're never quite able to dull. If you're fortunate, you learn that no amount of alcohol or drugs will ever diminish the experience. It is a matter of taking one day at a time. You don't speak of it. You don't go to movies about it. You don't read about it. It was in Vietnam that I experienced the trauma of having my body torn by a land mine.

Since then, I have done several assignments with CARE, the international relief and development organization, and I have seen the impact of land mines in such countries as Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda.

I support the ban because I am tired of seeing people who have been blinded and dismembered by exploding mines. I can no longer tolerate the haunting look in a survivor's eyes that says, "Why me...what in God's name did I ever do to deserve this?" I also live with the memory of my brothers from the Vietnam War who chose to put a bullet in their brain instead of living with the pain and degradation of their injuries. In 1965, 55 percent of U.S. Marine casualties were the result of anti-personnel land mines and it is estimated that 90 percent of these mines contained U.S. components. I have chosen to speak out because I am tired of being embarrassed and ashamed about doing nothing.

An anti-personnel mine is a legitimate weapon of war. So why the fuss? Because -- when the wars are finished, this inhumane weapon remains. It is not designed merely to kill. It is intended to maim and inflict terror. It is meant to tear a soldier's legs off, emasculate him, and leave him screaming in panic and pain. The military rationale is that if a soldier is still alive but suffering traumatic injuries, his unit will have to slow down to care for him. The morale of his companions sinks, seeing one of their friends who moments earlier was mobile and intact, lying before them dismembered. This is the war-time scenario for which these weapons were designed. But when the war is over, they inflict this same horror on innocents for years thereafter.

The United Nations estimates there are more than 110 million land mines buried in 64 nations on five continents. There are another 100 million stockpiled. While 100,000 are removed each year, an additional 2 to 5 million are deployed. An anti-personnel mine costs from $3 to $30. It will cost a hundred times that for organizations like CARE to find and destroy it. The costs are further exacerbated by the millions of acres of arable land and pastures that are designated as "No Go" areas due to mine infestation.

The dollars in lost enterprise and development are considerable, but they cannot compare with the human toll. Each year, an estimated 26,000 innocent souls are killed or maimed. That is one person every 17 minutes.

In the time it takes to read this article, a person has died or been horribly dismembered by a land mine.

Most are in Africa and Asia -- poor countries like Mozambique, struggling to build their economies and infrastructures. In Angola there are mines enough to kill everyone twice. In Cambodia, one in every 236 people has lost one or more limbs.

Next December, more than 75 nations will join in Ottawa to sign a treaty to ban land mines within three years. Tragically, the United States has missed an historic opportunity to lead this effort, by opting out of the Ottawa process and choosing instead to support a ban via the United Nations Conference on Disarmament (CD). But this is the same UN conference that took nearly 25 years to support a ban on chemical weapons. With 26,000 people maimed or injured each of those years, that route is unacceptable.

The US reluctance to ban land mines is based in part on their perceived value as a defensive weapon. Yet, in the first hour of Operation Desert Storm, the US Marines breached two Iraqi mine fields between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. They sent thousands of personnel through these avenues in less than 24 hours. The Gulf War proved that an anti-personnel minefield is an anachronism on the modern battlefield.

There is still hope. The administration declared in February that it would assess the progress of the CD negotiations at the end of the second session. That session just ended on June 27th, and the only decision made on land mines was to appoint a special coordinator who will try to launch negotiations on a global land mines ban. Meanwhile Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) has introduced legislation that may put Congress ahead of the administration. The administration should re-examine its choice of vehicles and throw its weight behind Ottawa. The benefits to our international credibility and the moral correctness of such a course change are indisputable.

For a landmine survivor or a witness to the carnage, it is not only the image of the dismembered body that haunts their dreams. It is the sound of a human being -- adult or child -- screaming for mother. It echoes forever.

It must be stopped.