117. In its report on UK Policy on Weapons Proliferation and Arms Control in the Post-Cold War Era, our predecessor Committee acknowledged the attraction of an outright ban on anti-personnel mines whilst noting the Government's view "that a complete ban at this stage would neither secure broad international support nor be properly implemented."[230] Less than five years later, the Ottawa Convention came into force.[231] The Convention, which bans signatories from the use, stockpiling or production of anti-personnel landmines, has now been signed by 137 States.[232] This is a remarkable achievement. The UK was at the forefront of the anti-personnel landmine campaign and, as one of the first forty signatories, was instrumental in bringing it into force. Public opinion in the UK was strongly in favour of banning anti-personnel landmines and this was reflected in Parliament when the legislation enabling the United Kingdom to meet its commitments under the Convention completed all of its Commons stages in a single day.[233] The United Kingdom has subsequently destroyed all of its stocks of anti-personnel landmines ahead of schedule,[234] and increased its provision of funding for mine action projects from £5 million in 1997 to £10 million in 2000.[235]

118. The FCO told us that the Government continues to play an active part in pressing for a global elimination of anti-personnel mines. In 1998, the Government conducted an extensive lobbying exercise to encourage all non-signatories to sign the Convention and it has continued to raise the issue with non-signatories whenever possible.[236] However, with influential countries like Russia, China, India, Pakistan and the USA yet to sign, let alone ratify, the Convention, much work remains to be done.

119. When we visited the USA, our interlocutors said that the USA's fixed defences in Korea and its anti-tank landmines made US accession to the Convention impossible. We found this response perplexing since the UK still has anti-tank landmines with anti-handling devices but was able to sign the Convention. We asked the Ministry of Defence to clarify the difference in status of the anti-tank landmines held by the UK and those held by the USA in relation to the Convention. The Secretary of State for Defence told us:

"It is true that the UK's anti-tank mines, some of which have anti-handling devices, fall outside the definitions in the Ottawa Convention which you quote. Anti-handling devices are a necessary component of our mines, designed to ensure that mines cannot be quickly removed so that they achieve their function of delaying an enemy advance. Our understanding is that the US has adopted a different approach to protecting its anti-tank and anti-vehicle landmines, using mixed mine systems which involve mixing anti-personnel mines, as defined under the Ottawa Convention, with anti-tank mines to slow mine clearance by an enemy."[237]

120. However, the Secretary of State for Defence also told us that the US has indicated its intention of signing the Ottawa Convention by 2006 with the caveat that an effective alternative to anti-personnel mines can be found.

121. We applaud the Government on the prominent role it took in bringing the Ottawa Convention into force and we urge the Government to continue in its efforts to persuade non-signatories to sign and ratify the Convention.

231   1 March 1999. Back

232   See Annex VI for a list of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention. Back

233   HC Deb Session 1997-98, 10 July 1998. Back

234   Ev. p. 127, para. 8. Back

235   Ev. pp. 121 and 127.  Back

236   Ev. p. 127, para. 9. Back

237   Ev. p. 217. Back


Prepared 2 August 2000