The Land Mine Crisis: A Humanitarian Disaster
Land mines, the deadly remnants of so many civil wars, kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians throughout the world each year. Only a concerted international effort will end this purposeless bloodshed.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali is Secretary General of the United Nations.
Like a deadly disease long absent and assumed conquered, the land mine, that scourge of the battlefield of World War I, has reemerged on a scale unimagined and with hideous, unanticipated effects. There is today a global land mine crisis. And while it began as a military problem, it is now an ongoing humanitarian disaster.
The United Nations estimates that, in the course of recent civil and international strife, more than 100 million mines have been laid in 62 countries. These mines have been placed not only in combat zones, but also in areas of purely civilian and commercial activity, thus bringing terror to large populations. In the hinterlands and countrysides of the world, the legless, blinded, ravaged bodies of the living are an increasingly common sight. They are condemned to a future of marginal social and economic existence and place an impossible burden on nations striving for development. Mines have been planted around key economic installations, including electric plants and power lines, water treatment plants, road networks, market centers, and port facilities. By neutralizing essential infrastructure, mines present a virtually insuperable obstacle to post-conflict peace-building.
People continue to use land that they may or may not know is mined because they must cultivate their fields, fetch water, collect firewood, or need a place for their children to play. Elsewhere, vast tracts of potentially productive land have been turned into no-man’s-lands by extensive mining. Most of the nearly 20 million refugees in the world today want to return home, but U.N. assistance for repatriation and the repopulation of former war zones is impeded by the problem of uncleared mines. When farmers cannot survive by working the land, they gather in cities and large towns where work is scarce and housing is poor.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
For the Reagan Administration, 1983 was to be "the year of the missile." It was to be the moment of truth in the American effort to introduce new intermediate-range weapons into Western Europe and to "modernize" the U.S. strategic arsenal, primarily with the development of the MX intercontinental missile. Until this buildup in defenses was well under way, nuclear arms control would be a matter of keeping up appearances, of limiting damage, of buying time, and of laying the ground for possible agreement later.
The search for national security is a dialectic of hope and fear. Fear of war spawns demand for weapons; hope for peace feeds demand to control those weapons. Judging by the rampant growth of weaponry in modern times, fear is more fruitful than hope. If foreign policy is the management of contradictions, national security policy requires a synthesis of hope and fear, a prudent blend of arms and arms control.
Why did most of the world abandon Washington when it went after Saddam Hussein? The war in Iraq could never have been an easy sell, but nor should it have been such a difficult one. The Bush administration badly botched the prewar maneuvering, presenting a textbook study in how not to wage a diplomatic campaign.
