In marking International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action, advocacy groups called on the US to lend its support to the global ban on antipersonnel landmines.

Human Rights Watch called attention to the recent US condemnation of Syria’s use of landmines, arguing that this “rebuke” would have more force if the US sent a clear message that it was rejecting entirely the manufacture, use, trade and transfer of mines.

“The United States should recognize that antipersonnel landmines are no longer acceptable weapons, but relics of the past,” said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch.

The US Campaign to Ban Landmines pointed out that “every member of NATO (besides the United States), as well as every member of the European Union, and other key U.S. allies, such as Afghanistan and Iraq” has joined the treaty.

“We must remember that the job is still not done until every country has joined the Mine Ban Treaty and assured the world that there will never again be another landmine casualty,” said USCBL’s Zach Hudson. “We call on the U.S. to finally make known its intention to become a States Party to the treaty.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon added his voice and authority to the campaign, saying “On this International Day, I call for universal adherence to these important treaties and for increased support for mine awareness and mine action.  Landmines and  explosive remnants of war hamper development and endanger lives.  Let’s eliminate them together for a safe sustainable world.”

Here in New York, the charity Roots of Peace established the Roots of Peace Garden at The Isaiah Wall, Ralph Bunche Park to symbolize “restoring the land after landmines.”

To take action, sign this online petition calling on President Barack Obama to submit the Landmine Ban to the US Senate for ratification without delay. To learn more about the human impact of mines, read this interview with mine survivor and campaigner Firoz Ali Alizada. For more on US landmine policy, click here.

Here is the blurb from the back of the book:

“In the decade since the signing of the Ottawa Treaty, which banned the production and use of anti-personnel mines, governments have spent over $3 billion on clearing up and mitigating the security threat of mines, cluster munitions and other unexploded ordnance in the world’s current and former war zones. However, this flow of cash into regions dominated by violent social structures raises numerous political issues. Through detailed archival and field research, this book explores the politics behind the allocation and implementation of foreign aid by the US and Norway for demining in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan. It is an essential resource for practitioners and policymakers working in the field of landmine clearance and for students and researchers of Development Studies and post-war reconstruction.”

‘This important book shows how foreign aid can help build human security in the aftermath of war – or, unfortunately, make the situation worse. It also demonstrates how partnerships between ‘middle powers’, like Norway, and global civil society can play a key role in building collective security through developing international law. This is an ideal text for policymakers involved in post-conflict reconstruction, as well as students of international relations.’ –Mary Kaldor CBE, Professor of Global Governance, London School of Economics

‘Matthew Bolton sheds crucial light on how foreign aid in general and demining programs in particular make compromises with power structures. He shows that links between demining agencies and the defense industry or military factions can skew attention away from vulnerable civilians most affected by mines. It should be required reading for professionals in the mine action sector.’ –Kristian Berg Harpviken, Director, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO)

‘This is a high-quality piece of work, well written, with interesting analysis rooted in on-the-ground fieldwork. The reservations about the involvement of private security companies in demining are extremely important, as is the discussion of the dangers of short-term contracts and ‘cut-throat’ competition in reconstruction tendering.’ –David Keen, Professor of Complex Emergencies, London School of Economics

The book is based on research conducted at LSE Global Governance, including original fieldwork in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan, with support from the ESRC and Pro Vicitimis Foundation.

Links:
My book:

http://www.ibtauris.com/display.asp?K=9781848851603

The Economists Bookshop:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/services/waterstones/Home.aspx

I hope you can come along!

In the decade since the signing of the Ottawa Treaty, which banned the production and use of anti-personnel mines, governments have spent over $3 billion on clearing up and mitigating the security threat of mines, cluster munitions and other unexploded ordnance in the world’s current and former war zones. However, this flow of cash into regions dominated by violent social structures raises numerous political issues. Through detailed archival and field research, this book explores the politics behind the allocation and implementation of foreign aid by the US and Norway for demining in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan. It is an essential resource for practitioners and policymakers working in the field of landmine clearance and for students and researchers of development studies and post-war reconstruction.

The book has already gained critical acclaim from some high-profile academics:

‘This important book shows how foreign aid can help build human security in the aftermath of war – or, unfortunately, make the situation worse. It also demonstrates how partnerships between ‘middle powers’, like Norway, and global civil society can play a key role in building collective security through developing international law. This is an ideal text for policymakers involved in post-conflict reconstruction, as well as students of international relations.’ –Mary Kaldor CBE, Professor of Global Governance, London School of Economics

‘Matthew Bolton sheds crucial light on how foreign aid in general and demining programs in particular make compromises with power structures. He shows that links between demining agencies and the defense industry or military factions can skew attention away from vulnerable civilians most affected by mines. It should be required reading for professionals in the mine action sector.’ –Kristian Berg Harpviken, Director, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO)

‘This is a high-quality piece of work, well written, with interesting analysis rooted in on-the-ground fieldwork. The reservations about the involvement of private security companies in demining are extremely important, as is the discussion of the dangers of short-term contracts and ‘cut-throat’ competition in reconstruction tendering.’ –David Keen, Professor of Complex Emergencies, London School of Economics

If you are a mine action professional, the publisher IB Tauris has arranged a special 30% discount (not including shipping). To take advantage of this deal, fill out this form with the discount code 3LA and send it to IB Tauris.

Click here to read my editorial.

McCaskill has also led investigations into the allegations of misconduct by ArmorGroup (now part of G4S), a security and demining contractor, in Afghanistan. For more information on my research into commercial demining contracting, click here.

In the decade since the signing of the Ottawa Treaty, which banned the production and use of anti-personnel mines, governments have spent over $3 billion on clearing up and mitigating the security threat of mines, cluster munitions and other unexploded ordnance in the world’s current and former war zones. However, this flow of cash into regions dominated by violent social structures raises numerous political issues. Through detailed archival and field research, this book explores the politics behind the allocation and implementation of foreign aid by the US and Norway for demining in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan. It is an essential resource for practitioners and policymakers working in the field of landmine clearance and for students and researchers of Development Studies and post-war reconstruction.

The book is also available on Amazon USA, but at a much higher price. Click here if you want to buy it from there anyway.

Much of the debate has focussed on whether to use foreign commercial companies to conduct clearance. (See this previous Political Minefields post).  However, Maslen said the Turkish government had not adequately considered the option of using international NGOs.  Another Turkish newspaper reported that HALO Trust “were aware of the debate in Turkey and might be interested [to help] if asked.”

Research by Political Minefields in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan has suggested that using humanitarian NGOs rather than commercial companies can often be a better move for demining programs. International NGOs are often safer and better able to communicate with the local population.

Casey-Maslen also questioned plans by the government to give long-term leases on the demined land to commercial companies that cleared it.  He said the government must consider the property rights of the land’s owners.

While focussed on the broader humanitarian and development community, the authors’ conclusions mirror those of Political Minefields’ Afghanistan report, “Goldmine.” The Goldmine report argued that the merging of US aid and security policy in Afghanistan reduced neutral ‘humanitarian space’ for mine action, putting deminers at risk.  Read the Goldmine report here.

UN Mine Action Center for Afghanistan (UNMACA) chief Haider Reza told reporters that Afghan demining efforts were threatened by the economic downturn which was leading to smaller commitments of funds from donors.

“We are at a very critical point, and this country and people cannot afford to see a devastating situation where not much money will come,” Reza told UPI.

Afghanistan is one of the most heavily mine and UXO contaminated countries in the world and has the largest and oldest demining program.

Click here to read more.

To read my research report on Afghan demining, click here.

Governance & Post-Statist Security:
The Politics of US and Norwegian Foreign Aid for Demining in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan

Abstract of PhD dissertation in the Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science

(c) Matthew Bolton 2008

While governance has traditionally been the realm of states, new “Emerging Political Complexes,” as Mark Duffield calls them, incorporate networks of public and private actors. These networks of governance come in two competing ideal types:

a) strategic-commercial complexes, shaped largely by the interests of a privileged few, in which militarized and securitized public bodies contract out significant authority to commercial contractors. Security is derived from the fortification of private enclaves – a division of the world into ‘Green’ and ‘Red’ Zones, and

b) human security-civil society complexes, shaped by humanitarian norms and a more global understanding of interest, in which public and multilateral agencies form partnerships with NGOs and social movements. They aim to diffuse protection out from the secure core to the insecure periphery through aid, advocacy, persuasion and the development of legal norms.

This PhD examines the effects and impact of these two approaches in managing and neutralizing the threat of landmines and unexploded ordnance. At the donor level, it compares the US and Norway, arguing that Norway, working with NGOs, churches and other small states, has been at the forefront of efforts to ban landmines and cluster munitions, whereas the US has resisted tight regulation. Moreover, US funding of clearance and mitigation programs often was shaped by narrow strategic interests and favored a commercially-driven process. In contrast, Norway’s programs, implemented through international NGOs, were shaped more by more global conceptions of interest and normative commitments to humanitarianism, multilateralism and international law.

At the level of implementation in mine and ordnance-affected countries – Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan – the PhD argues that Norwegian long-term grants to international NGOs produced demining that, while more expensive and slower, was better targeted on humanitarian priorities, safer and of better quality. Such programs also attempted to build inclusive institutions and resist the politics of violence. In contrast, US efforts, often driven by strategic concerns and tendered out to commercial companies, were cheaper and faster but also less safe and of lower quality. These companies were also embedded in the political economy of war and may have contributed to the fragmentation of the public monopoly on force.