LAND MINES: CHEAP, DEADLY AND CRUEL

By Kevin Fedarko

In January, senator Charles Robb, the Virginia Democrat, was sitting on Air Force One sipping soda with several congressional colleagues. They were flying to Bosnia with President Clinton, and the conversation turned to land mines. Robb related an experience he had as a Marine in Vietnam. His unit was escorting supply convoys passing through Viet Cong-held territory, and the mission included searching for mines by poking bayonets into any disturbed soil. One afternoon, an engineer several yards in front of Robb struck a detonator with his bayonet. "He was literally vaporized right in front of my eyes," Robb remembered. "We searched for 30 minutes. But the only thing we could come up with was one boot with a foot in it."

General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, listened closely. "He was extremely attentive," recalled one lawmaker. Shalikashvili was aware that banning antipersonnel mines had become an important political issue, both in Congress and internationally. A former frontline soldier, he understood the value of mines, but his experience helping the Kurds in Iraq after the Gulf War had shown him how devastating they can be to civilians. As the presidential plane drew nearer to Bosnia, the general well knew that he might soon have to rethink America's land-mine policy.

The subject appears to have been rethought. White House and Pentagon sources say the Clinton Administration is expected to announce soon--perhaps this week--that no later than the year 2001, the U.S. military will unilaterally abandon the use of mines, except to protect South Korea and the Persian Gulf. White House officials even suggest that the ban could begin as early as 1999. "We've all agreed we're going to have to get rid of land mines," says a senior Pentagon policymaker. "We have to lump them together with chemical and biological weapons. Even though we used them more carefully than other nations, we still agreed to scrap them too."

The decision marks the resolution of an important debate within the Pentagon over whether the U.S. can afford to sacrifice its mines. Both the risks and the significance of that outcome were underscored last week when a major U.N. conference on mines ended with minimal achievements. The conference made it clear that the world will be awash in mines for a long time to come, leaving the U.S. at a potential disadvantage; but it was also evident that to push a prohibition forward, a moral gesture by the U.S. may be necessary.

The campaign to bar American use of land mines had its first significant victory in 1992, when George Bush signed a bill sponsored by Vermont's Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy. The legislation outlawed the export of U.S.-made antipersonnel mines for one year. Later, Leahy succeeded in extending the law through 1997. Then in 1995 he won the votes for a one-year ban on the use of all mines, except along international borders and in demilitarized zones, to take effect in 1999. "Mines are the worst of human depravity," Leahy argued.

Some powerful facts support that assertion. Perhaps 110 million mines lurk in 64 nations around the world, and each year they kill or maim about 30,000 people, usually civilians. The heaviest concentrations of mines are in poor countries like Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia, Mozambique, Afghanistan and Angola that have survived years or even decades of civil war. Five million new mines are laid each year, and only 100,000 are cleared. A new mine costs $3; uprooting one costs between $200 and $1,000.

That vicious, exponential math exacts a human toll long after conflict ends. Still, the notion that the U.S. should forswear the use of mines is unpopular among many at the Pentagon. "There's no easy way to defend a perimeter without land mines," an Army officer says. "But it's just politically incorrect to support the use of land mines right now." The ability to block an enemy's retreat by quickly dropping mines from the air is another advantage that some officials are loath to relinquish. "Mine opponents say it's a matter of morality and not military utility," says the officer. "But is it moral to put your own guys at risk--knowing your adversary isn't going to do that--in order for you to feel good about yourself? That's a very narrow definition of morality."

Top Pentagon officials who support a ban say it is a matter of "military utility." They explain that strategic doctrine has changed in the past generation, and current plans rely far less on mines than did those appropriate for wars of attrition. The capabilities the U.S. now emphasizes are speed, stealth and surprise. Even the Army's current manual on mines questions their usefulness, given the unpredictability of friendly troop movements. The military's most dramatic show of support for a ban came in April, when several prominent retired officers, including Norman Schwarzkopf, signed a full-page ad that ran in the New York Times. The ad called the prohibition "not only humane, but also militarily responsible."

Shortly after the ad ran, Shalikashvili began assembling a panel to investigate the value of mines to the U.S. But a new policy began to jell even before committee members could be chosen. With the White House concerned over the humanitarian issue and the brewing controversy, and many in the Pentagon already convinced by the antimine argument, Shalikashvili and the Joint Chiefs concluded that the U.S. should give up on mines (always excepting protection of South Korea and the Persian Gulf). Only the timing remains an issue. Since the military has accepted Leahy's moratorium for 1999, the White House is pressing that year as the start of a permanent ban.

For Clinton, the decision carries some risk, since he is always in danger of looking weak on military matters. But with people like Schwarzkopf on the side of a ban, Clinton has some cover. Politically, the issue is safe since Bob Dole backs Leahy's measures. Moreover, the International Committee of the Red Cross is an outspoken opponent of mines, and Dole's wife Elizabeth is on leave as president of the American Red Cross. "A lot of the Republicans think this 'Let's ban mines' stuff is stupid, but because of Elizabeth Dole, nobody's willing to take the thing on," says a Republican aide in the House.

Unfortunately, except as an example to the world, a U.S. ban will have scant practical effect. The Geneva conference offered little hope. Because of opposition by countries like Russia and China, which have stockpiled tens of millions of mines, the conference stopped well short of calling for an outright prohibition. "The Chinese have told us flat out that they'll give up nukes before they give up antipersonnel mines," says a senior State Department negotiator. But the conference did establish new guidelines, under which freshly laid mines must contain enough metal to be detected and would eventually self-destruct. There is a nine-year grace period--if grace is the word--before the new restrictions become mandatory.

That won't help the millions of people living in countries polluted by mines. Angola is one such nation, and Jo Fox, a Red Cross official based in South Africa, recently returned from Angola with graphic memories of the damage mines can do. "You see a woman working in the fields," she says, "trying to hoe her crops, and she has no legs. She is up to her waist in mud."

--Reported by Robert Kroon/Geneva, Andrew Purvis/Nairobi and Mark Thompson/Washington, with other bureaus

With reporting by ROBERT KROON/GENEVA, ANDREW PURVIS/NAIROBI AND MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON, WITH OTHER BUREAUS