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.

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.

The UK and Venezuala were criticized for failing to meet their mine clearance obligations. Specifically, the UK has not yet developed a plan to clear the minefields in the Falklands/Malvinas Islands and so is requesting an extension on its mine clearance deadline.

“It is not acceptable that countries such as the United Kingdom and Venezuela, both with relatively little mine contamination, have failed to clear a single mined area in the last nine years and expect to be granted extensions to their mine clearance deadlines,” said Stuart Casey-Maslen of Landmine Monitor.

The UK Foreign Office argues difficult terrain and the remoteness of the islands would make demining complex and costly.  Meanwhile many islanders themselves feel clearance is unnecessary, given the low human impact of the mines.  Instead, UK-based charity Landmine Action has suggested the UK government clear an area equivalent to the mined area in the Falklands/Malvinas in a more severely mine-impacted country, as a “humanitarian fine.”

The Campaign also decried Greece, Turkey and Belarus’ failures to meet deadlines to destroy the landmines in their stockpiles.

See the Campaign’s statement here.

For more information on landmine issues in Colombia, see the Landmine Monitor report.

Last week, African leaders and UN disarmament experts met in Nairobi to discuss the proposed treaty, which would prevent the sale of conventional arms to countries that might use them to abuse human rights, exacerbate conflict or stunt development.

“We need a global, effective, Arms Trade Treaty,” said British Foreign Minister David Miliband yesterday, urging support of the proposed convention.  ”It is bizarre that while treaties and conventions have existed for several decades to control the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, there is no equivalent global arrangement to stop weapons flooding into conflict zones.”

The UK, along with Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya, introduced a UN General Assembly resolution two years ago that called for the negotiation of the treaty.  It was supported by 153 countries.  Russia and China abstained and the US voted against the resolution.  For resources on persuading the US to support the process, see the FCNL page.

The treaty also has the support of over 800 civil society organizations that are seeking to replicate and build on the success of the Mine Ban Treaty and Cluster Munition Convention, where humanitarian groups were able to push states to adopt more progressive positions on conventional disarmament.  They are joined by 20 Nobel Peace Laureates (including landmine ban campaigner Jody Williams) who also support the treaty.

Many of these organizations work in conflict zones, where they observe the impact of small arms proliferation on civilians and poor communities.  While many of these arms are initially produced or traded ‘legitimately’, siginificant numbers leak out into the illicit and informal markets or fall into the hands of militia and organized crime groups after the conflict has ended.  See this report from WorldWatch Institute and this one from the Humanitarian Practice Network for more details.  For more in-depth information, look at SIPRI’s site.

Several demining NGOs are responding to the threat of conventional arms proliferation with ‘humanitarian disarmament’ programs.  See, for instance, the programs run by MAG and the HALO Trust.

These fresh allegations follow condemnation from Human Rights Watch and the Cluster Munition Coalition, in response to claims that Russia had used cluster bombs in populated areas in the recent fighting.  Cluster munitions can become de facto landmines if they fail to detonate properly.  See the earlier Political Minefields posting for further information. Russia has denied using cluster munitions.

Georgia will be requesting support from NATO to assist in demining, the Guardian reported today. The HALO Trust has already conducted demining in Georgia since 1998, largely in the separatist region of Abkhazia. For historical background on the landmine situation in Georgia see the Landmine Monitor. Neither Russia nor Georgia are parties to the Mine Ban Convention or the Cluster Munition Convention.

Political Minefields has no independent verification of the claims and counterclaims of Russia and Georgia.  However, landmines and cluster munitions are both indiscriminate weapons that time and again have imposed disproportionate costs upon civilian populations.  If these reports are true, it is a sad day for the developing humanitarian norm against mines and cluster bombs.

The paper argued that a shift in power 1989 allowed ‘norm entrepreneurs’ such as NGOs, religious institutions, and the Scandinavian states, previously at the peripheries of the global system, a newfound voice and authority. During the Cold War, the US and USSR had jealously guarded all military and security issues as matters of the state.  By contrast the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Cluster Munition Coalition  managed to shift the framing of the issue from being a security threat to the state, to a threat to the human person.

I’d be interested in hearing from people who were involved in the early attempts to control, clear and mitigate mines and UXO in the 1960s and 1970s (or even before) — please leave a comment.

The whole paper is available here. A short summary of the paper, with a bit of editorializing, was published in Landmine Action Campaign.