We don’t know if the U.S. military used any landmines in the war against Iraq, though we do know that the United States has deployed at least 90,000 antipersonnel mines in the Persian Gulf region. Early in March the Pentagon acknowledged that U.S. forces “might deny access to [a chemical weapons site] by using self-destructing small mines.” (Pentagon briefing, March 5). The last time the U.S. used antipersonnel mines was in the first Gulf War in 1991.

We do know that Iraq has had no compunction against using landmines. Neither Iraq nor the U.S. are party to the Mine Ban Treaty.

The Iraq war is a reminder that landmines continue to be an issue globally. It certainly remains critical for Africa. Innocent civilians around the continent have been especially hard hit, with Angola (finally emerging from decades of war), the most devastated by landmines. Millions of landmines are estimated to be under Angola’s soil, and more than 86,000 Angolans have been maimed or killed by landmines. Cultivating land, getting water, grazing animals, or trying to build a home are still life-threatening activities.

The good news in terms of U.S. policy is that we lead the world in financial support for mine clearance. The figure for 2001 was $69.2 million. Also, we have not produced them since 1977, nor exported them since 1992.

The bad news is that we still have not signed the Mine Ban Treaty. We reserve the right to produce antipersonnel mines, and we have the third largest stockpile in the world – 11.2 million. The U.S. did not send a representative to attend Mine Ban Treaty-related meetings in 2001 or 2002, and it decreased its funding of mine action programs by 20 percent.

We still await the Bush Administration’s review of U.S. landmine policy, but indications are that the President is poised to abandon President Clinton’s commitment that the U.S. cease to use antipersonnel mines by 2003 (excepting those contained in “mixed” systems and in Korea).

President Clinton had committed the U.S. to join the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006, if alternatives to the weapon had been developed. But indications here are that President Bush may decide to remain outside the treaty and indefinitely retain this weapon in the U.S. arsenal.

As part of the review, last year the Defense Department recommended that the U.S. abandon efforts to ban the weapon. The State Department and National Security Council are now reviewing the issue.

One critical element in making the landmine treaty acceptable to the U.S. military was to identify alternatives to the weapon. In November 2001, however, Inside the Army reported that the Army would be eliminating all funds for alterna- tive landmine technology between 2003 and 2007. The Office of the Secretary of Defense ordered the Army to reverse itself, but the larger issue remains – will the U.S. join the community of nations in a ban of antipersonnel landmines?

Even if the review leads to a Bush acceptance of the Clinton policy, the U.S. will still be 10 years behind its allies and most of the world in banning landmines. If, however, Mr. Bush follows the Defense Department’s recommendations, the United States will move even further away from NATO allies—and virtually the whole world—on this issue.

Internationally, the 1997 treaty (officially known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stock-piling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction) is widely accepted as the only viable and comprehensive framework for achieving a mine-free world.
Despite the absence of the U.S., the treaty has already achieved a significant decrease in landmine injuries and deaths, from 26,000 lives lost per year in the early ’90s to 15,000-20,000 per year now. The treaty has caused the destruction of more than 34 million stockpiled weapons; and the number of countries producing landmines has dropped, from 54 to 14.

The Mine Ban Treaty opened for signature in December 1997. It requires that all of its signatories cease use of anti-personnel mines, or develop, produce, stockpile, retain or transfer antipersonnel mines. Reaching the required ratification of 40 states in 1998, it entered into force on March 1, 1999. By July 31, 2002, 144 countries had legally committed to the Convention’s expressed goals and regulations.

Meanwhile, in Congress, the International Disability and Victims of Warfare Civil Strife Assistance Act (HR 1462 and S 742) has been reintroduced, and helps to raise up the ongoing need to assist victims of warfare and civil strife.
The U.S. should give testimony to its compassion for the thousands of innocent civilians who continue to be maimed and killed by landmines every year. We should call upon President Bush to ban this indiscriminate weapon, one that threatens far beyond the end of a conflict, one that renders land useless for cultivation, one that puts our own troops and peacekeepers at risk. Our nation should join the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It is time, past time.

Conflict Diamonds
The U.S. has now joined the Kimberley Process in preventing the trade of conflict diamonds. Congress passed the Clean Diamond Trade Act in April. The Act commits the United States to mandatory implementation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, the international diamond certification system to which more than 50 countries have subscribed. These include all of the major diamond producing and trading countries.

Since the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is politically binding instead of legally binding, it rests on individual governments to pass national laws to implement the scheme. Human rights and humanitarian advocates, as well as the diamond industry, have played a significant role in the creation of the Kimberley Process, which aims to prevent the global trade in conflict diamonds. We are pleased that the U.S. has now passed legislation to implement this process.

There are several concerns that remain, including questions over U.S. internal coordination and who will be in charge of regulating Kimberley Process diamonds coming into the United States. There are also problems with the Kimberley Process itself. The Process still has no official secretariat, nor is there a uniform system of gathering statistics on the movement of rough diamonds, which is a significant problem. Being able to contrast statistics on diamonds exported from a producing country and diamonds entering a processing country is key to identifying conflict diamonds. Without a uniform system loopholes will remain that will allow conflict diamonds to enter the legitimate market.

In addition, the details of voluntary monitoring have not been established. Many in the NGO community are asking for independent monitors. This has been adamantly opposed by some in the diamond industry and some governments. Unfortunately, the legislation does not include polished diamonds and jewelry, as we had sought.

Nevertheless, the Act is a significant step in preventing conflict diamonds from being sold in the United States, and protects American consumers from underwriting the costs of warfare and human rights abuses in Africa and elsewhere. But it is an ongoing effort that may need to be improved. The next step is to ensure that it is effectively implemented.

Funding for HIV/AIDS
There is one more “war”-related issue; the war against AIDS. President Bush issued a dramatic call for emergency action to combat the pandemic in Africa during his State of the Union address, but that idea has changed to phase-in funding, rather than providing massive funding now.

The advocacy community has urged that $3.5 billion be provided by the U.S. for fiscal year 2004 to confront the global AIDS pandemic. Of this, $1.8 billion should go to new and existing bilateral AIDS programs, including at least $300 million for orphans and vulnerable children. The balance of $1.7 billion should go to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. We have also urged that at least $500 million of the above $3.5 billion be provided as fiscal year 2003 emergency supplemental funding, so that the Global Fund can support its third round of grants in October 2003.

Meanwhile, in Congress, key leaders in the House of Representatives have reached a remarkable agreement on bipartisan legislation to confront the global AIDS pandemic.

The bill before the House is HR 1298, the U.S. Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act. It authorizes $3 billion for global AIDS programs in fiscal year 2004, with $1 billion going to the major multilateral effort, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

These figures happily far exceed the “phased-in” figures for 2004 that the administration says it prefers. It also provides an invaluable contribution to the Global Fund, rather than the $200 million that the President wants. Prospects in the Senate remain unclear.

Without bold investment now, projections are that up to 100 million people will become infected by 2007. The AIDS pandemic and its related causes in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and elsewhere threaten to destabilize nations and undermine global security. We believe that taking immediate action to ensure adequate resources to combat AIDS, TB, and malaria is one of the best ways the U.S. can exert leadership in a troubled world.

General Assembly

The 212th General Assembly (2000) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) stated:

“ . . . Landmines continue to take their toll long after the conflicts in which they were introduced are over. The devastation, therefore, on innocent victims, and the economic losses that occur, for instance when land cannot be used for farming, continues. A citizens’ movement in 1997 lead to the adoption of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. The United States, once seeking to lead the world in the elimination of this curse, has refused to support this treaty, putting its effectiveness in danger, once again putting its own agenda above the global imperative. Yet at the same time, the U.S. has invested millions of dollars in demining, as well as providing education and training for demining efforts.

The 212th Assembly reaffirmed its longstanding call to end the arms race and urged, among other things, “ the ratification of and adherence by the United States to those existing international treaties that it has not yet accepted, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Treaty on Land Mines [Mine Ban Treaty].”

Conflict Diamond Policy – In an interdependent world, no nation can be fully independent of other nations, and no nation should be overly dependent on other nations. This means that the international trading system must incorporate the basic norms of social justice and environmental sustainability rather than depend solely on the norms and outcomes of free trade. (p. 131)

The General Assembly “calls upon the U.S. government to develop sustainability criteria to appraise the likeliest impact on developing countries of existing and proposed United States trade policies. These criteria should reflect the principle that trade, to be supported, must genuinely promote poverty reduction, democracy, and ecological sustainability. (p. 136) (Excerpts from “Hope for a Global Future: Toward Just and Sustainable Human Development,” Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (1996)

HIV/AIDS Policy – The 213th General Assembly (2001) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), out of profound concern for families, communities, and nations ravaged by the HIV/AIDS epidemic [among other things]:

• Directs the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly to write a letter to the President of the United States, calling upon the United States government to allocate greater resources toward addressing the epidemic and poverty that fans it, as well as prevention and affordable treatment initiatives recommended according to the WHO Massive Effort, and to show flexibility regarding trade agreements and intellectual property rights so that life-saving drugs can be available to all affected populations.
• Requests the Presbyterian Washington Office and the Presbyterian UN Office to support advocacy efforts to address the Massive Effort Against the Diseases of Poverty, and the need to make affordable medication available to countries in the developing world. (Minutes, 2001, Part I, p. 336)

By Leon Spencer, Washington Office on Africa