Landmines and Armed non-State Actors

Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 16 November 2007, available at www.jid.janes.com (subscription only).

Reproduced with the courtesy of Jane’s Intelligence Digest.

The use of anti-personnel landmines and similar victim-activated explosive devices is increasingly considered to be contrary to universally accepted principles of international humanitarian law, since they do not distinguish between civilians and soldiers and remain active long after the end of hostilities. Due to the humanitarian and socio-economic consequences of their use, 155 of the world’s countries have become parties to the 1997 Convention on the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines, known as the Ottawa Convention. Sixteen additional countries have accepted restrictions on landmine use by signing Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Despite significant steps forward through mine action initiatives (mine clearance, mine risk education, stockpile destruction and victim assistance), landmines and unexploded ordnance continue to threaten human security in almost 60 countries and territories. The 2006 Landmine Monitor Report, published by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, estimates that these devices affect between 15,000 and 20,000 people every year. Millions of communities and families are also affected through the denial of access to fertile land and impeded in their right to free movement and development. Colombia, Cambodia and Afghanistan are among the worst affected. In many of these countries, the problem has been caused by an internal conflict and, therefore, includes the negative contribution of non-state armed groups or armed non-state actors.

One of the remaining challenges to banning mines is the inclusion of these groups in a broader agreement. Because of their low cost and easy availability and production, landmines have become the weapon of choice for many non-state actors. Therefore, the number of non-state groups using landmines exceeds the number of countries. Global occurrences of such mine use have been recorded, notably in Myanmar and Colombia. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia: FARC), the Nation Liberation Army (Ejercito de Liberación Nacional: ELN) in Colombia and the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), the Karenni National Progressive Party and the Shan State Army (SSA) in Myanmar all use mines and improvised mines.

In 2005, around 60 non-state actors were reported to have emplaced different types of landmines in 24 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East/North Africa. Forty deployed some type of victim-activated device. These were both factory-made and improvised, indicating non-state armed groups are involved in mine transfer and production. Such actors also influence state policies. A country may claim that it cannot accede to the Ottawa Convention due to such groups being present on its territory, because it does not want to renounce the possibility of mine use, cannot guarantee no new mine use or make sure that mine action is implemented. Compared to countries, these actors often have less capacity to lay large quantities of mines. They tend to use fewer mines placed in strategic places instead of creating larger, coherent minefields. This is probably a consequence of patterns in guerrilla warfare and the tendency of not controlling territory. However, NSAs less frequently map and mark their mines, so these may have a bigger humanitarian impact than mines placed on a country’s borders.

Many armed groups either lack or dismiss the long-term consequences of mine use and are reluctant to admit that their use of such weapons is causing considerable suffering among civilian populations. For non-governmental organisations that are actively seeking to curtail the use of such weapons, there is a need to reassure the non-state armed groups that their military capabilities are not subject to scrutiny as such, and that the anti-mine drive is not about disarmament. In terms of protection, it is crucial that the communities affected by landmines get access to mine-clearing provisions, as granted by the Ottawa Convention, whether they are in a territory controlled by a country or a non-state armed group.

Consequently, humanitarian and human rights groups have found it increasingly important to complement national legislation on the dangers of landmine use to civilians, with international negotiations with non-state armed groups on issues such as humanitarian access to affected communities and the release of child soldiers. International lawyers increasingly argue that non-state groups have both international humanitarian law and human rights obligations. The responses and successes of engagement have been mixed. Nevertheless, the landmine issue is often seen as a positive example of engagement with these groups.

In total, at least 50 armed groups have been reportedly involved in some form of anti-mine action. While various challenges are involved in working with these groups, they can be overcome. For example, in former conflict situations, such groups contributed to anti-mine action in Angola (the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, UNITA), Guatemala, (Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity) and Kosovo (the Kosovo Protection Corps was allegedly aided by the Kosovo Liberation Army). Notable NSAs involved in antimine action and that have renounced any current or future use of landmines are the Polisario Front in the Western Sahara and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). Others that have been active in anti-mine action but that still have not renounced the use of landmines, such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and Hizbullah.

Geneva Call, an international non-governmental organisation that forms part of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, was launched in 2000 to encourage non-state actors in the solution of the landmine problem. To date, 34 groups have signed the Deed of Commitment, a mechanism through which Geneva Call proposes that the armed groups renounce the use of antipersonnel mines and to collaborate in anti-mine action. The value of the Deed of Commitment is that it creates ownership among the signatory groups and provides for monitoring and implementation of anti-mine pledges.