It is undeniable that mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) stand out as highly effective weapons on the battlefield. Not only do they inflict devastating physical harm, but they also carry the potential to create significant psychological impact, affecting troops’ ability to operate effectively.
The issue of land mines has once again come to the forefront, prompting a thorough review of existing policies. The Pentagon has chosen to maintain a directive established during the Trump era, permitting specific antipersonnel land mines. This decision has sparked varied reactions from different perspectives.
In the face of mounting pressure, the Biden administration is urged to reconsider the Obama-era restrictions lifted in January 2020. While advocates push for a swift return to these limits, the Pentagon argues that these land mines play a crucial role in conventional warfare, particularly when confronting formidable enemy forces in the early stages of combat.
Pentagon spokesman Mike Howard emphasizes that withholding this capability could potentially endanger American lives by depriving ground forces of a tool to temporarily control terrain and influence enemy movements. However, the decision to uphold last year’s policy shift is under careful scrutiny, with officials rigorously examining the rationale behind altering the land mine policy, especially in light of changing circumstances.
Former President Trump’s rollback of land mine restrictions outside the Korean Peninsula triggered significant debate. This move reinstated the use of “persistent mines,” which remain active indefinitely, designed to safeguard South Korea against potential threats from North Korea.
Following this decision, then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper introduced a nuanced policy allowing land mines equipped with self-destruct features or self-deactivation mechanisms.
The 1997 Ottawa Convention, signed by 164 countries, categorically prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of older variants of antipersonnel land mines due to their indiscriminate harm to civilians. Although the United States has not officially endorsed this international agreement, Obama’s policy largely adhered to its principles.
Recent criticism has surfaced over President Biden’s hesitance to formally commit to the treaty, despite earlier indications of intent during his campaign. According to Adotei Akwei, advocacy director of Amnesty International USA, “This landmine policy starkly sets the U.S. apart from its allies. It is in direct opposition with President Biden’s aspirations to be a global human rights leader – for the United States to truly be a leader, it must change its land mines policy as soon as possible.”
Senator Patrick Leahy echoes these sentiments, emphasizing the need to return to the Obama-era land mine policy, affirming that these indiscriminate weapons have no place in the arsenal of civilized nations.
As this debate unfolds, the future of land mine policies remains an open question, demanding careful consideration and principled decision-making.
Let us know what you think about the ruling on land mines in the comments below