Page 115

Appendix F

Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (known as the Ottawa Convention) was open for signature from December 3, 1997, until its entry into force on March 1, 1999, six months after it had been ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to by 40 countries. After that date, no country was allowed to sign it and ratify it later. Countries could join (become a party to) the treaty, however, through a one-step procedure known as accession.

As of September 2000, 107 countries had ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the convention. Although few of these countries are actively searching for or developing alternatives to landmines, many are monitoring international developments in this area; several countries are participating in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) study on the consequences of the APL ban and possible technological alternatives that do not have the negative effects of APL. The Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines found a few instances of countries other than the United States identifying or working to identify alternatives to APL.

AUSTRALIA

An Australian company, Metal Storm, has developed an all-electronic firing system that represents a breakthrough in gun technology, which the company believes could lead to “the development of an area denial weapons system to replace antipersonnel landmines” (Metal Storm, 2000a). The Australian Army has approved a three-year program for the development of a prototype minefield-replacement mortarbox system, utilizing Metal Storm technology (Metal Storm, 2000b). Conceptually, this application would be similar in operation to the U.S. Claymore and the French Sphinx-Moder. According to the company's description, a man-inthe-loop, after observing and identifying a target, would fire a launcher sending a variety of projectiles into the protected area.

CANADA

The Canadian Centre for Mine-Action Technologies (CCMAT), a joint initiative of the Department of National Defence and Industry Canada, is mandated to “conduct research and gather information to show that viable and more humane alternatives [to APL], which do not target civilians, can be developed.” CCMAT also conducts research on demining technologies, medical treatment, and the rehabilitation of mine victims (CDND, 1998). CCMAT is exploring nonlethal alternatives only (ICBL, 2000). It is also conducting a series of studies “to determine the impact of removing antipersonnel landmines on land force operations and to determine if replacement technologies are necessary” (Roy and Friesen, 1999). The first volume in this series, a study on the historical uses of APL, was made available to the Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines.

According to the Antipersonnel Mine Operational Planning and Policy Guidelines for the Canadian Forces, Canada would replace its APL with “a mix of sensors, commanddetonated weapons [such as the M-18 Claymore reclassified as C19s], additional infantry, artillery, armour and air-delivered weapons” (Fredenburg, 1997).

FRANCE

The Sphinx-Moder (described in Chapter 6) is designed to fire wounding, warning, or practice munitions. It is being produced in series and has been adopted by the French Army to take the place of antipersonnel mines.

JAPAN

The Japanese Defense Agency is developing an alternative weapon system to APL called the “antipersonnel obstacle system,” which combines sensors and remote control.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 115
Page 115 Appendix F Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (known as the Ottawa Convention) was open for signature from December 3, 1997, until its entry into force on March 1, 1999, six months after it had been ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to by 40 countries. After that date, no country was allowed to sign it and ratify it later. Countries could join (become a party to) the treaty, however, through a one-step procedure known as accession. As of September 2000, 107 countries had ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the convention. Although few of these countries are actively searching for or developing alternatives to landmines, many are monitoring international developments in this area; several countries are participating in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) study on the consequences of the APL ban and possible technological alternatives that do not have the negative effects of APL. The Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines found a few instances of countries other than the United States identifying or working to identify alternatives to APL. AUSTRALIA An Australian company, Metal Storm, has developed an all-electronic firing system that represents a breakthrough in gun technology, which the company believes could lead to “the development of an area denial weapons system to replace antipersonnel landmines” (Metal Storm, 2000a). The Australian Army has approved a three-year program for the development of a prototype minefield-replacement mortarbox system, utilizing Metal Storm technology (Metal Storm, 2000b). Conceptually, this application would be similar in operation to the U.S. Claymore and the French Sphinx-Moder. According to the company's description, a man-inthe-loop, after observing and identifying a target, would fire a launcher sending a variety of projectiles into the protected area. CANADA The Canadian Centre for Mine-Action Technologies (CCMAT), a joint initiative of the Department of National Defence and Industry Canada, is mandated to “conduct research and gather information to show that viable and more humane alternatives [to APL], which do not target civilians, can be developed.” CCMAT also conducts research on demining technologies, medical treatment, and the rehabilitation of mine victims (CDND, 1998). CCMAT is exploring nonlethal alternatives only (ICBL, 2000). It is also conducting a series of studies “to determine the impact of removing antipersonnel landmines on land force operations and to determine if replacement technologies are necessary” (Roy and Friesen, 1999). The first volume in this series, a study on the historical uses of APL, was made available to the Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines. According to the Antipersonnel Mine Operational Planning and Policy Guidelines for the Canadian Forces, Canada would replace its APL with “a mix of sensors, commanddetonated weapons [such as the M-18 Claymore reclassified as C19s], additional infantry, artillery, armour and air-delivered weapons” (Fredenburg, 1997). FRANCE The Sphinx-Moder (described in Chapter 6) is designed to fire wounding, warning, or practice munitions. It is being produced in series and has been adopted by the French Army to take the place of antipersonnel mines. JAPAN The Japanese Defense Agency is developing an alternative weapon system to APL called the “antipersonnel obstacle system,” which combines sensors and remote control.

OCR for page 115
Page 116 The system is detonated manually. Until a new system is developed, the Defense Agency will use “directional-multiple-shots” as an alternative weapon (ICBL, 1999). RUSSIA Although Russia is not a party to the Ottawa Convention, it has been focusing its efforts on the research and development of landmine alternatives (ICBL, 2000). Few details are available, but researchers appear to be improving antipersonnel munitions that would not be considered APL under the convention, including munitions actuated by an operator by radio, wire, or automatically after a definite period of time. Research on alternatives is being conducted by the State Research and Development Engineer Institute and the Science-Research Machinery Building Institute (ICBL, 1999). The following 107 countries had ratified or acceded to the Ottawa Convention as of September 2000: SWITZERLAND Switzerland conducted an investigation of nonlethal APL alternatives, video monitors, and various technical sensors. However, the program did not lead to feasible results and has been terminated (ICBL, 2000). UNITED KINGDOM The U.K. Ministry of Defence is investigating possible nonlethal alternatives, but it is not yet known whether these will be produced (ICBL, 2000). Albania Djibouti Luxembourg Rwanda Andorra Dominica Macedonia, FYR Saint Kitts and Nevis Antigua and Barbuda Dominican Republic Madagascar Saint Lucia Argentina Ecuador Maldives Samoa Australia El Salvador Malaysia San Marino Austria Equatorial Guinea Malawi Senegal Bahamas Fiji Mali Seychelles Bangladesh France Mauritania Slovakia Barbados Gabon Mauritius Slovenia Belgium Germany Mexico Solomon Islands Belize Ghana Moldova South Africa Benin Grenada Monaco Spain Bolivia Guatemala Mozambique Swaziland Bosnia and Herzegovina Guinea Nauru Sweden Botswana Holy See Namibia Switzerland Brazil Honduras Netherland Tajikistan Bulgaria Hungary New Zealand Thailand Burkina Faso Iceland Nicaragua Togo Cambodia Ireland Niger Trinidad and Tobago Canada Italy Niue Tunisia Chad Jamaica Norway Turkmenistan Colombia Japan Panama Uganda Costa Rica Jordan Paraguay United Kingdom Côte d'Ivoire Kiribati Peru Venezuela Croatia Lesotho Philippines Yemen Czech Republic Liberia Portugal Zimbabwe Denmark Liechtenstein Qatar   Between September 2000 and the publication of this report, two countries ratified the convention: Romania United Republic of Tanzania

OCR for page 115
Page 117 The following 30 countries have signed the convention but have not ratified it and, therefore, are not yet parties to the convention: Algeria Chile Guinea-Bissau Malta Sudan Angola Cook Islands Guyana Marshall Islands Suriname Brunei Darussalam Cyprus Haiti Poland Ukraine Burundi Ethiopia Indonesia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Uruguay Cameroon Gambia Kenya São Tomé e Principe Vanuatu Cape Verde Greece Lithuania Sierra Leone Zambia The following countries had not signed the convention as of December 2000: Afghanistan D.R. Congo Korea, North Myanmar (Burma) Sri Lanka Armenia Egypt Korea, South Nepal Syria Azerbaijan Eritrea Kuwait Nigeria Tonga Bahrain Estonia Kyrgyzstan Oman Turkey Belarus Finland Laos Pakistan Tuvalu Bhutan Georgia Latvia Palau United Arab Emirates Central African Republic India Lebanon Papua New Guinea United States of America China Iran Libya Russia Uzbekistan Comoros Iraq Micronesia Saudi Arabia Vietnam Congo (Brazzaville) Israel Mongolia Singapore Yugoslavia Cuba Kazakhstan Morocco Somalia   REFERENCES CDND (Canadian Department of National Defence). 1998. Ministers Announce Creation of Centre for Mine-Action Technologies, News Release, August 25, 1998. Available on line: http://www.dnd.ca/eng/archive/1998/aug98/centremat_n_e.htm. Fredenburg, P.W. 1997. The banning of the antipersonnel landmine. Canadian Defence Quarterly 27(2): 5–9. ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines). 1999. Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Watch. ICBL. 2000. Landmine Monitor Report 2000: Toward a Mine-Free World. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Watch. Metal Storm. 2000a. Landmine replacement a step closer to reality. Available on line: http://www.metalstorm-ltd.com/press_releases/july03-00.html. Metal Storm. 2000b. Metal Storm secures Australian Army support for minefield replacement development programme. Available on line: http://www.metalstorm-ltd.com/press_releases/july07-00.html. Roy, R.L., and S. Friesen. 1999. Historical Uses of Antipersonnel Landmines: Impact on Land Force Operations. Operational Research Division, Research Note 9906. Kingston, Ontario: Canadian Department of National Defence.