Subscribe now

Letter: A real minefield

Published 28 April 2001

From Robert Sherman

Your report on landmines claims: “In 2006, the US is set to belatedly join
139 other countries in agreeing to the Ottawa Convention outlawing
anti-personnel landmines”
(7 April, p 20). This is incorrect.

The Clinton administration committed the US to joining the Ottawa Convention
only if “effective alternatives have been identified and fielded”. This is not
technically feasible and won’t happen. Possibly the Bush administration will
drop the commitment altogether, which would make good humanitarian sense.

The Ottawa Convention is off target. It bans short-duration anti-personnel
mines that are not a humanitarian problem, while permitting long-duration
anti-tank mines that are a terrible humanitarian problem.

The alternatives to anti-personnel mines proposed by the US National Academy
of Sciences would cost a lot more, carry high technical risk, be less effective
and offer no humanitarian advantages over short-duration mines. Their only
purpose is to meet the political goal of joining the Ottawa Convention.

The best humanitarian and military solution is to ban all long-duration
landmines, thus going far beyond the Ottawa Convention while still protecting
troops. The US could begin by unilaterally becoming the first nation to do this.
It could then forget about the Ottawa Convention.

Gaithersburg, Maryland

Issue no. 2288 published 28 April 2001

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

Sign up
Piano Exit Overlay Banner Mobile Piano Exit Overlay Banner Desktop