National positions on the Ottawa Treaty

You are here: About us > Landmines > National positions on the Ottawa Treaty

The United States
President Clinton committed the US in 1998 to cease using anti-personnel mines.According to this commitment, if alternatives were identified and fielded by 2006, the US would cease use of all anti-personnel mines and would join the Ottawa Treaty. However, in June 2001, the Bush administration announced that it would conduct a review of landmine policy and Human Rights Watch reports that in November 2001 the Department of Defense recommended that the US abandon the objective of joining the Treaty.

In February 2004, the Bush Administration released the results of its mine ban policy. Under this new policy, the use of self-destructing mines may be used until 2010 when authorised by the President. The policy also seeks a 50% increase in the US Department of State's portion of the US Humanitarian Mine Action Program over fiscal year 2003 baseline levels to $70 million a year.

Russia
Russia has not acceded to the Ottawa Treaty. In 2002, Russia stated that military requirements continue to influence Russia's attitude towards the mine ban policy. The Ministry of Defence considers anti-personnel mines as a necessary element in its defensive arsenals, therefore they are not prepared to fulfil the requirements related to the destruction and complete ban of anti-personnel mines. Russia continues to use anti-personnel mines in Chechnya.

China
China has not acceded to the Ottawa Treaty. The Chinese government continues to insist on a military requirement for anti-personnel mines, while acknowledging the importance of a total prohibition from a humanitarian point of view. China attended the Defense Forum in Tokyo in January 2003, during which high-level military personnel discussed the anti-personnel mine ban in the Asia-Pacific region.

The United Kingdom
The Government became a State Party on 1st March 1999 and has made a commitment to destroy all anti-personnel mines by 1st March 2009 in territories currently administered by the UK. The following measures have been carried out:

• a moratorium on all exports of anti-personnel landmines from the UK was introduced in April 1996.
• The Ministry of Defence reported to the UK Parliament in February 2004 saying that UK forces will not provide any assistance for the use of anti-personnel landmines by ally forces in joint operations.
• Since 2003 the UK has allocated £10 million for humanitarian mne action in its annual budget. This money is predominantly spent on mine clearance, mine risk education, research and development and victim assistance. 
• The Ministry of Defence has so far destroyed more than two million stockpiled mines classified as anti-personnel.

No territories administered by the UK are significantly contamined with mines, with the exception of the Falklands Islands.

The UK has not yet met its obligation to clear landmines present in the Falklands. In fact, clearance has not even started!

The Falklands contain thousands of mines as a result of a 1982 conflict over possession of the islands between the UK and Argentina. Immediately following this conflict, the UK Ministry of Defence stopped clearance efforts after several British deminers sustained injuries. Estimates of the number of anti-personnel mines remaining range from 14,000 to 40,000. 20 km2 of the islands have been fenced off as potentially dangerous. The 120 minefields have denied access to peat-cutting areas. Peat is used as the main fuel for cooking and heating.

In October 2001, Argentina and the UK agreed on a memorandum of understanding on the establishment of a feasibility study on mine clearance in the islands, with the costs to be shared by both parties. However, the UK-Argentine Working Group established to work on the study has not met since December 2001 and no significant steps have been taken since then to initiate the study. No progress has been made on clearance.

Whilst the humanitarian and economic impact of the mines in the Falklands on the Falkland islanders is, at this time, negligible, it remains the case that the UK Government is obliged to clear the mines. The current lack of progress on the issue raises the question: what signal is the UK sending to other governments with a more significant humanitarian problem?
The UK Government has been an enthusiastic member of the Universalisation Contact Group, with officials actively encouraging governments to accede to the Treaty. Yet it seems likely that the UK will fail to adhere to the very Treaty that is seeks to promote.

The current lack of progress raises the question: what signal is the UK sending to other governments with a more significant humanitarian problem? Yet it seems likely that the UK will fail to adhere to the Treaty that it seeks to promote.