Landmines also are by nature indiscriminate; and their use therefore violates the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions. They have inflicted far more casualties on innocent civilians than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons combined; and in view of their limited military utility, they also fail the test of proportionality.

All of us, civilian and military alike share concern over the civilian victims of landmines, so graphically illustrated this morning in the presentation by the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Despite this, one should not expect military professionals who are responsible for conducting combat operations to give up voluntarily the use of any weapon if it might, even under limited situations, prove useful in protecting the lives of their soldiers. The military can be held accountable for minimizing civilian casualties during conflict, but it is uncharacteristic of them to weigh humanitarian considerations in arguing their case to retain the option of employing a weapon already in their arsenals.

It therefore is incumbent on the political, not the military, leadership of nations to balance humanitarian considerations against the purported military advantages of employing antipersonnel mines; and to do so giving appropriate attention to customary international humanitarian law, as well as to the specific provisions of the law of war. It is the obligation of the military to comply with the political direction it receives, as the military of so many nations in the case of the ban on antipersonnel landmines already have.

As a former soldier, now in a position to view the landmine issue from a less parochial standpoint, I hope that countries that have not yet adhered to the Mine Ban Treaty, including my own, will do so; and that those that are parties to the treaty will comply with it. Only then can we reduce and eventually eliminate the horrendous casualties among innocent civilians caused by this indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction in slow motion. As Dr. Esa has pointed out, removing mines already emplaced will be a futile effort if there are continuing widespread new mine emplacements. That was the motivation for the movement to ban the weapon.