"Each state . . . undertakes never, under any circumstances, to use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines". This trenchant commitment never to use landmines again is contained in the first article of the treaty signed yesterday in Oslo. It is a welcome endorsement of a principle that has received overwhelming support from public opinion throughout the world, but not, unfortunately, from some of its most influential governments. The treaty lacks the customary caution and fudge that often characterise such documents, largely because the states involved with it refused to entertain last minute compromises sought by the United States. The treaty is much stronger as a result. But it will not be as effective without the participation of the most powerful military state in the world, which may in turn affect the readiness of Russia, China, Iraq and India - major producers and users of these lethal weapons where two-thirds of the world's population lives - to adhere to it. Japan and Australia have also expressed reservations about the treaty. Such are the dilemmas of diplomacy in the sphere of disarmament.
The destructive facts of the matter are clear and unambiguous. Some 25,000 people are killed and maimed each year by the 110 million landmines deployed in 70 countries. Among the worst affected states are Angola, Eritrea, Mozambique, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Cambodia, South Korea, Iraq and Bosnia. The mines are cheap to lay down, much more difficult and costly to remove, and many more are laid each year than discarded. At the present rate of removal it would take 1,100 years to clear them from the face of the earth, according to the UN. They are manufactured in 45 countries. Militarily they appeal to poorer states with endemic territorial disputes, to weaker parties in conflicts faced with siege conditions, as well as to the major states with large deployments of troops in arenas where they are vulnerable to massive assault by superior numbers.
There are sharp disagreements over these military doctrines. Their defensive effectiveness in the face of modern landmine-clearing technology is disputed by many experts and pales in the face of the destruction they cause to civilians. Up to 100 states are set to sign this treaty, which categorically rejects the case for landmines and is committed to their elimination. Although leading states in the negotiations were reportedly prepared to accommodate US objections, the majority decisively rejected such last minute pressure. The US sought a nine-year moratorium for minefields in Korea. This would have come on top of a ten-year commitment to remove all landmines and a four-year one to destroy stockpiles. It remains to be seen how US abstention affects the treaty. Undoubtedly its strength reflects international public opinion which has brought this issue to the centre of world affairs. Ireland was among the states most committed to the campaign. Personalities such as Diana, Princess of Wales, reflected and expressed rather than created such concern. This treaty can help to develop a momentum built up in years of work by hundreds of non-governmental organisations, victims and campaigners throughout the world. It completes a process of public diplomacy that has developed in parallel with their efforts. It is indeed a welcome example of what can be done to translate public concern into real politics.