Cluster munitions differ from antipersonnel mines in a variety of ways, but their effects on civilian populations are often similar. A cluster munition consists of a canister designed to open in mid-air and disperse smaller submunitions, often referred to as bomblets or grenades. The impact area of a cluster munition, known as the “footprint,” includes the area covered by submunitions when they hit the ground. Depending on the type of munition and the delivery system, the footprint of one cluster munition can be as large as one square kilometer (250 acres). Cluster munitions can be delivered from aircraft, via rockets, missiles, or bombs, or they can be launched from ground-based systems such as artillery, from rockets, artillery shells, or missiles.
In the last 15 years, the U.S. has used cluster bombs in civilian populated areas of the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. The cluster bombs the U.S. dropped 40 years ago in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam are still killing people today. Since the last cluster bomb was dropped on Laos in 1973, the International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that 11,000 Laotian civilians, many of whom were not born when the bombs were dropped, have been killed or injured by an unexploded cluster dud.
The wide dispersal pattern of submunitions makes it very difficult to avoid civilian casualties if civilians are in the strike area. Moreover, while they are designed to explode on impact, many of the submunitions initially fail to detonate, leaving behind large numbers of hazardous explosive “duds” that are akin to landmines, injuring and killing civilians and contaminating the land long after conflicts. The percentage of unexploded submunitions from each canister is known as the failure rate or “dud rate.” Despite testing data indicating that some new cluster munitions have failure rates as low as 1 percent, when used in combat zones, actual dud rates typically range from approximately 5 percent to 30 percent.
Some new cluster munitions are equipped with self-destruct or self-deactivation mechanisms intended to ensure that unexploded bomblets do not pose a lasting danger to civilians. However, these mechanisms can malfunction, leaving behind unexploded remnants that will endanger civilians for years to come. In addition to the civilian toll, unexploded cluster bomblets also remain a threat to “friendly” military forces operating in the vicinity.
The Landmines Problem: A Man-Made Epidemic
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates that 15,000-20,000 people are maimed or killed by landmines each year and that millions more suffer from the agricultural, economic, and psychological impact of the weapon.The International Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates that there are tens of millions of landmines in the ground in 78 countries.UNICEF estimates that 30-40 percent of mine victims are children under 15 years old.The United States has 11 million APLs stockpiled, the third largest mine arsenal in the world.The United States is one of onl The Landmines Problem: A Man-Made Epidemic
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates that 15,000-20,000 people are maimed or killed by landmines each year and that millions more suffer from the agricultural, economic, and psychological impact of the weapon.The International Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates that there are tens of millions of landmines in the ground in 78 countries.UNICEF estimates that 30-40 percent of mine victims are children under 15 years old.The United States has 11 million APLs stockpiled, the third largest mine arsenal in the world.The United States is one of only 13 countries that refuses to halt production of APLs.Landmines cost as little as $3 to produce and as much as $1,000 per mine to clear.Landmines have injured and killed thousands of US and allied troops in every US-fought conflict since World War II, including recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.The U.S. State Department estimates that fewer than one in four landmine amputees is fitted with a proper prosthesis.From 1969 to 1992, the United States exported 4.4 million antipersonnel mines, mostly to Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Somalia, and Vietnam.U.S.-made or supplied APLs have been found in 32 countries, including Afghanistan.Check out the list of corporations that reserve the right to produce landmines. Are any of these corporations headquartered near your community? Landmine Monitor Landmine Monitor is a unique and unprecedented civil society based reporting network to systematically monitor and document nations' compliance with the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty and the humanitarian response to the global landmine crisis. This initiative was established in June 1998 by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and is coordinated by a Core Group of five non-governmental organizations. By collecting and analyzing data relating to antipersonnel mines, Landmine Monitor aims to evaluate the overall progress of the international community in eradicating this insidious weapon and by doing so improve the lives of those living at risk in mine affected communities.
y 13 countries that refuses to halt production of APLs.Landmines cost as little as $3 to produce and as much as $1,000 per mine to clear.Landmines have injured and killed thousands of US and allied troops in every US-fought conflict since World War II, including recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.The U.S. State Department estimates that fewer than one in four landmine amputees is fitted with a proper prosthesis.From 1969 to 1992, the United States exported 4.4 million antipersonnel mines, mostly to Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Somalia, and Vietnam.U.S.-made or supplied APLs have been found in 32 countries, including Afghanistan.Check out the list of corporations that reserve the right to produce landmines. Are any of these corporations headquartered near your community? Landmine Monitor Landmine Monitor is a unique and unprecedented civil society based reporting network to systematically monitor and document nations' compliance with the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty and the humanitarian response to the global landmine crisis. This initiative was established in June 1998 by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and is coordinated by a Core Group of five non-governmental organizations. By collecting and analyzing data relating to antipersonnel mines, Landmine Monitor aims to evaluate the overall progress of the international community in eradicating this insidious weapon and by doing so improve the lives of those living at risk in mine affected communities.
To date, the United States has not joined the Mine Ban Treaty despite being a leader in demining and victim assistance efforts. Former President Bill Clinton indicated that the United States will join the Mine Ban Treaty in 2006 as long as U.S. efforts to find “alternatives” to antipersonnel landmines are successful.
The Bush Administration conducted a formal review of US landmine policy starting in the summer of 2001. The new policy, which was announced at the State Department in late February of 2004, represents a major rollback of US progess on the issue.
In summary:
The US has now abandoned its plans to join the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, by 2006 (as was the Clinton plan), or ever.The use of US self-destructing mines is now permitted indefinitely anywhere in the world.The use of long-lived (or “dumb” or “persistent”) antipersonnel mines is now permissible until 2010. There are a few positive and important aspects to the new policy:
US mine action funding will increase.All non-self-deactivating (“dumb”) mines, both antipersonnel and anti-vehicle, will be phased out, but not until 2010. However, these positive elements of the policy are far overshadowed by the negative elements. This new policy is completely out-of-step with the global movement that has been working for over a decade to eradicate the weapon. The unprecedented alliance of governments, international organizations such as the United Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross and civil society groups that make up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) made history in 1997, when they secured the 1997 treaty prohibiting antipersonnel mines (and won the Nobel Peace Prize). The new policy undermines the movement's efforts to universalize the life-saving 1997 Mine Ban Treaty by providing justification for other holdout states - such as Russia, India, and Pakistan - to use, produce, or export these indiscriminate weapons.
Mines and the Military: Myths & Facts Updated by the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines April, 2004Related Articles1. Doesn't the United States need antipersonnel mines in Korea? If we don't have the weapon in Korea, couldn't our servicemen be at risk in the event of an attack? Don't antipersonnel landmines channel oncoming troops and tanks so that they can be slowed, gaining important time for other military responses? Wouldn't signing the treaty require the US to give up that military option? Response: In a letter to President Bush in 2001, eight retired military leaders, including several former commanders of US forces in Korea, dismissed the utility of antipersonnel mines in the DMZ and military control zone. Click here to read the letter. They cited existing tactics and technology that are already being used in lieu of APL, which are "task complicators" to the US response plan to a North Korean invasion. Lt. General James Hollingsworth, former commander of U.S. forces in Korea, said: “There is a military motility to APL's, but in the case of US forces in Korea, it is minimal, and in some ways even offset by the difficulty our own APL's pose to our brand of mobile warfare. The loss of this utility is a small and acceptable price to pay for moving the world toward a complete ban on APL's. Not only civilians, but also US armed forces, will benefit from a ban on landmines. US forces in Korea are no exception.” The one million landmines already laid in the DMZ are the property of the Republic of South Korea, and could stay, even if the U.S. joined the treaty. If South Korea joined the treaty, which we strongly support, it would have ten years under the terms of the treaty to remove those mines. Moreover, it has come to light that nearly half of the U.S. mines designated to protect South Korea are actually stockpiled in the United States, calling into question whether these weapons are even thought to be critical by military leaders themselves. Click here to read Human Rights Watch news release about this issue. The U.S. must ask itself, as its military leaders did after the high toll American mines took on American troops in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, whether it is willing to accept high casualty rates among U.S. personnel from our own weapons. Smart and dumb mines, which, under current policy, are available for use, have shown that, whether long standing or self-deactivating, both types of weapons impact dismounted infantry similarly. Click here for U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality, Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation 2. What is so important about the U.S. signing now, before it has found suitable replacements for the weapon?Response: Over the past several years, Russian, Indian, and Pakistani forces have laid hundreds of thousands of landmines, with devastating consequences for innocent civilians. The U.S. has been in a poor position to criticize, being a treaty holdout itself. By boycotting the treaty, the U.S. gives political cover to others outside the treaty, including China, Cuba, Syria, and Iran. Moreover, when the greatest military power in the world insists that it must retain the option to use the weapon, it is hard to persuade much weaker militaries that they can do without the weapon. Continued development of antipersonnel mine technologies by the U.S. encourages other nations, especially Russia and China, to develop competing technologies and counter mine weapons. The Defense Intelligence Agency has reported that at some point, the level of mine to counter mine technology will result in a zero sum benefit to U.S. forces. The United States and its allies waged a major war against Yugoslavia in Kosovo in the late years of the Clinton presidency, and, of course, have been conducting major military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As far as we understand, US forces have not planted any new antipersonnel landmines of any type and haven't done so since the 1991 Gulf War. Clearly, there are tactical and material alternatives already in operation. 3. We need to use self-destructing antipersonnel mines to protect our anti-tank mines, but the treaty bans our “mixed mines” systems. The Europeans made sure that their own anti-tank mines, which have dangerous anti-handling devices on them, were permitted under the treaty. Why should the US sign a treaty that was rigged against us?Response: This characterization of the Mine Ban Treaty is inaccurate. The Mine Ban Treaty permits anti-tank mines with anti-handling devices, but only if they explode from an intentional act (such as an enemy soldier's attempt to tamper or remove them). If they explode from an unintentional act (such as a child stepping on them), they are considered antipersonnel mines and therefore banned. During the negotiations leading up to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, the United States government tried to exempt its own mixed mine systems, which are protected with self-destructing antipersonnel landmines, from the treaty. But if this exemption were permitted, there would be no rationale for banning any kind of self-destructing antipersonnel mine. This would punch a giant hole into the legal norm that seeks to ban the use of the weapon by rich countries and poor countries alike. Third world countries that do not use self-destructing “smart mines” would be discouraged from abiding by the treaty's ban on mines if they felt that first world nations could keep and use their own high-tech systems. The Mine Ban Treaty bans all antipersonnel mines - including those in American mixed mine systems. This comprehensive approach is absolutely essential to stigmatizing the weapon and its users everywhere. 4. What good is a treaty if the U.S., Russia, China, India, and Pakistan aren't on it? Doesn't it make more sense for the U.S. to try to negotiate with the hard-liners on the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), as President Bush appears to support, and bring them along?Response: Approximately three quarters of the world's nations have already joined the Mine Ban Treaty, including most of Europe and Africa, all of the Western Hemisphere, except the U.S. and Cuba, and all of NATO, except for the U.S. and two new member states. Since the treaty came into force as international law in 1999, mine use, production, trade, and stockpiling have dramatically decreased. Even casualty rates have decreased. Countries interested in banning antipersonnel mines tried to limit them at the CCW conference in 1996. But hard-line countries like Russia and China, using the treaty's consensus rules, frustrated any effective limits, and drove the consensus to the lowest common denominator. It is very important to bring China, India, Russia and others onto the treaty that is already having such a positive impact. The best way to do so quickly would be for the U.S. to join, and to use its extensive diplomatic influence to push the others to join as well. 5. The U.S. has announced its plans to retain “smart” self-destructing or self-deactivating mines, which are not a humanitarian problem, are they? But the Mine Ban Treaty bans them anyway. I don't have a problem banning “dumb” mines that lay on the ground forever, but what's the problem with “smart” mines? Response: No antipersonnel mine is “smart” enough to differentiate between the boot of a soldier and the footfall of a child. They tend to be scattered by air and are thus difficult to mark and map, pose tremendous challenges and costs for demining teams, will sometimes fail to self-destruct, and threaten the lives and limbs of innocent civilians and US troops who step on the weapons soon after they've been planted. Perhaps most importantly of all, the treaty must ban antipersonnel mines that rich nations favor - smart mines - if a global norm against all antipersonnel mines is to take hold. Third world nations will be reluctant to stop using the weapon if a rich man's club keeps their own. Click here for more information on the dangers of “smart mines.” 6. The U.S. does more than any government in the world in terms of global demining. That's worth a lot more than a piece of paper, isn’t it?Response: The U.S. is indeed a world leader in global demining, and we appreciate it. Moreover, there is extensive demining going on in a country like Cambodia, where demining efforts account for a significant reduction in civilian casualties. But even while mines are coming out of the ground in Cambodia and elsewhere, thousands of mines have been deployed in other countries. No amount of demining in one country will help the victims in another if the weapon is still in use. Furthermore, there are more than 200 million antipersonnel landmines in stockpiles around the world. Without a legal ban on their use, they could be deployed quickly and civilian casualties would skyrocket. No amount of demining will keep pace with the problem if landmines continue to be produced, exported, and used. The treaty's ban on use, production, export, and stockpiling and international stigmatization of those who violate it, is essential. And the treaty provides a framework and a timetable for demining and victim assistance, as well. The treaty has saved countless lives in years since entering force. Stockpiles are being destroyed, exports have gone from a flood to a trickle, and most of all, casualties are steadily declining. Demining alone did not achieve these successes; the treaty did, and without U.S. support, its effectiveness is less powerful than it could be. Related Articles
The Mine Ban Treaty obligates its participants to completely and permanently discontinue the use, production, stockpile, and transfer of antipersonnel landmines; to destroy stockpiles within four years; to clear mines within their own territories within ten years, and to provide continuing assistance to mine survivors. The Mine Ban Treaty, which went into effect on March 1, 1999, has been signed by approximately three quarters of the world's nations; it came into force faster than any other multi-lateral global agreement. Participants include all of the western hemisphere except the United States and Cuba, and all NATO countries except the United States and two new member states. Most African nations and many Asian nations have joined the Mine Ban Treaty as well. For the full text of the Mine Ban Treaty, a list of countries that have signed, ratified, acceded to or not signed the treaty, click here.
As far as we know, the US military and US companies have not produced new antipersonnel mines in many years and do not have plans to do so anytime soon. However, this could change, and there are thirty companies that rejected Human Rights Watch's humanitarian appeal to forego any future production of antipersonnel mine components—seventeen companies directly, in writing, and thirteen through silence.
Thirty companies rejected Human Rights Watch's humanitarian appeal to forego any future production of antipersonnel mine components—seventeen companies directly, in writing, and thirteen through silence. These companies will now be the focus of a USCBL stigmatization campaign.
49. In addition to producing antipersonnel mine components, Day and Zimmerman operates the government-owned Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, where antipersonnel mines are assembled.
50. Mason & Hangar operates the government-owned Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, where antipersonnel mines are assembled.
The thirteen companies that did not respond in writing to Human Rights Watch are: Action Manufacturing Co. (Pennsylvania), Aerospace Design, Inc. (California), Amron Corp. (Wisconsin), BI Technologies (California), Consolidated Industries, Inc. (Alabama), Day & Zimmerman, Inc. (Pennsylvania),49 EMCO, Inc. (Alabama), Formworks Plastics, Inc. (California), Fort Belknap Industries (Montana), Intellitec (Florida), Mason & Hangar/Silas Mason Co., Inc. (Kentucky),50 Primetec, Inc. (Florida), and Unitrode Corp. (New Hampshire).
51. Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996. Alliant was the only company to lobby vigorously against the Leahy-Evans mine export moratorium, claiming that it could cost U.S. producers $500-650 million in overseas business. Alliant Techsystems, "Current Potential FASCAM Overseas Markets," 1993. In a June 11, 1993 letter from former Alliant Techsystems President and CEO Toby G. Watson to Senator Leahy, Mr. Watson argued against a mine export moratorium that included smart mines: "Export of convention-compliant mines will actually help to achieve the goal of avoiding harm to non-combatants, while preserving American jobs and critical elements of our nation's defense industrial base at the same time." Appendix A contains details on the types of antipersonnel mines each of the recalcitrant producers has been involved with, as well as their address, telephone, and fax number.
When contacted by Human Rights Watch, a number of companies objected to their inclusion in this report on a variety of grounds. Most commonly heard were the following:
Some companies denied being "mine producers." When presented with our evidence, however, they would have to acknowledge that they had supplied components for use in antipersonnel mines. In the U.S., no company produces mines from beginning to end. The U.S. mine industry consists of component suppliers, with final assembly often done in government-owned, contractor-operated Army Ammunition plants.
Some companies insisted that because they are not currently involved in mine production, it is unfair for Human Rights Watch to name them in our report. We explained that, after several major contracts had been completed in 1996, it does not appear any antipersonnel mines are being produced in the U.S. today. The purpose of our report is to identify those companies that have been involved in antipersonnel mine production in the past, and to call on them to make a statement renouncing any future involvement.
Some companies acknowledged, after seeing our evidence, that their products had been used in antipersonnel mines, but claimed that they had no prior knowledge of involvement in mine production. Some also stated that because their components could be used for many purposes—military and non-military—they had no control over or knowledge of the end use. Human Rights Watch views the "no knowledge, no control" claims with skepticism. Several companies that initially told us they were unaware of involvement reversed course after a thorough review of company documents. Moreover, other companies that expressed such concerns later joined the ranks of those renouncing future involvement by pledging to make their best effort to not knowingly provide components intended for use in antipersonnel mines.
Alliant Techsystems is the company that appears to have profited the most from landmine production contracts. Alliant was awarded DoD antipersonnel and antitank landmine production contracts worth $336 million in 1985-95; its Wisconsin subsidiary Accudyne Corp. was awarded similar contracts worth $150 million in 1985-95; and its New Jersey subsidiary Ferrulmatic was awarded a $72,000 contract in 1985 for the M128 Volcano landmine dispenser.51
52. Letter from Alliant Techsystems, Inc. President and CEO Richard Schwartz to Human Rights Watch, August 22, 1996.
53. CAPCO's statement repeated word for word Alliant's four arguments in favor of smart antipersonnel mines. For example, both declared: "The U.S. has used self-destruct, self-deactivating antipersonnel mines in a disciplined manner only in combat situations."
54. Statement from CAPCO, Inc. Vice-President John Younger to Human Rights Watch, September 3, 1996.
In response to Human Rights Watch's appeal, CEO Richard Schwartz wrote: "The International Campaign to Ban Landmines has served an invaluable role in shedding light on a terrible problem that must be addressed," but insisted that his company's landmines were not to blame. "It is irresponsible to imply in any way that companies such as Alliant Techsystems have contributed to the world's landmine problems. To do so wrongly maligns responsible U.S. citizens, and diverts resources that could be applied toward stigmatizing the governments that violate international law."52
Virtually identical wording came from Colorado's CAPCO, which repeated Alliant's argument that antipersonnel mine production was in the national interest.53 CAPCO insisted: "Our company will continue to support the U.S. need for mines of these types (i.e. self-destruct mines) as deemed necessary by our Government."54
55. Statement from Raytheon Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Robert S. McWade to Human Rights Watch, September 19, 1996. Raytheon is best known for its air traffic control, fire control, communications, space and navigation systems. Raytheon told Human Rights Watch: "We understand well the importance of the cause you are forwarding.... Furthermore, we understand the basis of the Motorola statement and its flexibility. However...it is generally our practice not to broadly and formally renounce participation in businesses, despite the fact that this is not a business in which we participate and, when we did, it was as a minor supplier of transistors - a business we have since sold."55 Thus, Raytheon acknowledged past involvement and declined when offered the opportunity to renounce future involvement.
56. Letter from Quantic Industries, Inc. President Robert M. Valenti to Human Rights Watch, August 6, 1996. Quantic, despite its stated moral opposition to "landmine warfare," won DoD landmine production contracts worth $1,261,000 in 1987. Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996.
57. Letter from Nomura Enterprise President Leland Nomura to Human Rights Watch, September 13, 1996. DoD awarded Nomura Enterprise landmine production contracts worth $21,453,000 in 1986-95. Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996.
58. Letter from Ensign-Bickford Industries, Inc. President Herman J. Fonteyne to Human Rights Watch, August 7, 1996. DoD awarded Ensign-Bickford landmine production contracts worth $15,085,000 in 1989-92. Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996. Contract No. DAAA21-C92-C-0039 (May 13, 1992), obtained by Human Rights Watch under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that Ensign-Bickford was awarded $6.8 million to supply components for Volcano landmines. The components were shipped to army ammunition plants in Iowa and Texas.
Quantic Industries, Inc., a defense contractor involved in producing the GEMSS landmine system, suggested that if government policy changed, so would Quantic: "Quantic does not make mines. Some of our components have been used in mines. All of them were used to ensure the safety of the product by U.S. personnel. I do not endorse warfare period, let alone mine warfare. I look forward to the time when this and other countries do not make such weapons. Clearly these are political decisions. I wish you success in dealing with this problem through our public officials."56
From Nomura Enterprise came a stern warning that banning antipersonnel mines would somehow destabilize U.S. strategic interests: "Although Nomura Enterprise, Inc. (NEI), and the undersigned personally, can join with you in deploring war and the personal tragedies that result, we also consider it necessary for the United States to be able to defend itself and its citizens with military force. We truly wish that that were not the case but at this point in world history it is a hard, cold fact."57
Ensign-Bickford's letter was remarkable for both confirming and denying past involvement in mine production: "Please be advised that while [Ensign-Bickford] has never been a manufacturer or supplier of antipersonnel landmines, mine components or delivery systems, a former subsidiary, Ensign-Bickford Aerospace Company did, at one time, supply products that allowed for the safe separation of such devices from their delivery vehicles."58
59. Letter from Lockheed Martin Vice-President, Corporate Communications, Susan M. Pearce to Human Rights Watch, September 4, 1996.
60. Letter from George R. Schneiter, Director, Strategic and Tactical Systems, Acquisition and Technology, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, to Rep. Lane Evans, November 21, 1994.
Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest U.S. defense contractors, initially sent an indignant letter protesting the company's inclusion on the Human Rights Watch list: "The basis for this listing is completely erroneous - in fact the opposite is true - and Lockheed Martin should be removed from the list. Please confirm that our name has been removed from the USCBL list."59 Human Rights Watch informed Lockheed that the basis for its listing came from DoD, which credits Lockheed with involvement in four antipersonnel landmine systems. According to the DoD, Lockheed supplied components for the Army's ADAM and GEMSS antipersonnel mines, the Air Force's Gator (CBU-89) antipersonnel mines, and the Navy's Gator (CBU-78) mines.60
61. U.S. DoD landmine production contracts for 1985-94, Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996. In its letter Lockheed also said: "A review of our records indictates that we do not produce landmines and have not since the Vietnam era." But Lockheed Martin New Jersey was awarded DoD landmine production contracts worth $52,444,000 from 1985 to 1990. Lockheed Martin California was awarded landmine production defense contracts worth an estimated $850,000 in 1990.61 It is unclear whether the contracts were for antitank or antipersonnel mine production, or for both.
62. Letter from Lockheed Martin Vice President, Corporate Communications, Susan M. Pearce to Human Rights Watch, September 25, 1996.
63. Telephone interview with Charles Manor, Lockheed Martin, Vice President, News and Information, Corporate Communication, September 27, 1996.
In a subsequent letter, Lockheed told Human Rights Watch, "The agency [DoD] confirms that Lockheed Martin is not now and has never been a producer of landmines."62 However, Lockheed has failed to respond to repeated requests by Human Rights Watch to provide us with any details of such a confirmation. In a telephone interview, a Lockheed spokesperson agreed that DoD's response to Lockheed was contradictory to the official information in Human Rights Watch's possession, and when told that we would keep Lockheed on our list replied, "I understand."63
64. Letter from Human Rights Watch to Susan Pearce, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Lockheed Martin, January 27, 1997.
65. Letter from Susan Pearce, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Lockheed Martin, to Human Rights Watch, March 4, 1997.
In another letter, dated January 27, 1997, Human Rights Watch reminded the company: "Lockheed's failure to provide evidence to the contrary means that the company will be listed by Human Rights Watch as a producer of antipersonnel landmines, components or the systems that deploy them."64 Lockheed Martin responded: "As previous correspondence between our offices points out, Lockheed Martin's records indicate our Corporation is not now and never has been a producer of landmines. Further, our records indicate we have not produced any components for landmines since the 1980s.... Finally, we would repeat our request that your report distinguish between those companies currently manufacturing landmines or components and those firms no longer involved in such activities, as well as identify those companies using technology to detect and remove landmines."65 Thus, Lockheed has acknowledged past involvement in mine production, but has refused to commit to no future antipersonnel mine production activities.
66. Letter from AAI Corp. President G.J. Kersels to Human Rights Watch, August 22, 1996. DoD awarded AAI a $750,000 contract to manufacture the M128 landmine dispenser in 1985. Eagle Eye Publishing , 1996.
67. Fax from AAI Corp. Communication staff person Susan Flowers to Human Rights Watch, September 17, 1996.
AAI, curiously, initially told Human Rights Watch that it would not produce or supply antipersonnel mine components in the future, but subsequently asked not to be put on a list of renouncing companies. On August 22, 1996 AAI said: "...AAI Corporation does not manufacture landmine systems or components nor does the company intend to pursue that line of business in the future. I am hopeful that any listing you generate or publish will accurately reflect AAI Corporation's status in the (sic) regard."66 Yet, in response to our congratulatory letter informing them our intention to name them as a renouncing company came a fax on September 17 insisting that Human Rights Watch "not list AAI Corporation on your growing list of companies which have agreed to renounce all participation in future antipersonnel mine production. We do not wish to be so named."67
68. Fax from Vishay Intertechnology Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, Avi D. Eden, to Human Rights Watch, September 19, 1996. Vishay Intertechnology—identified on Accudyne invoices as a supplier of components for Volcano and Gator antipersonnel mines—intimated possible legal action if Human Rights Watch listed it and its subsidiary Dale Electronics as component suppliers: "....the products in question, passive electronic components, are basically standard products sold either directly to major electronic manufacturers or to independent distributors of passive electronic components. In many cases we do not know either the application for which the product will be used or the end customer. Therefore it would be pointless for us to make any statement regarding our intention not to sell components to any particular customer for a specific application.... We are a public company traded on the New York Stock Exchange and any false statement or misleading innuendo about our customers or us can result in substantial monetary damages to our shareholders or to the Company."68
69. Letter from Mr. Avi Eden, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, Vishay Intertechnology, to Human Rights Watch, February 25, 1997. When Human Rights Watch reminded Vishay in January 1997 of the company's impending listing, and faxed the relevant Accudyne invoices, Mr. Avi Eden wrote: "In response to your letter dated January 27, 1997, Vishay Intertechnology has the following comments: We do not manufacture landmines. We do not manufacture components specifically for landmines. We do sell to the Government and Government Contractors but cannot control the end use of our components."69
70. Letter from Bruce Womer, Vice President, Electronic Components Business, Allen-Bradley, to Human Rights Watch, September 5, 1996. At one point, Allen-Bradley had informally communicated a strong interest in issuing a statement of renunciation. Allen-Bradley, owned by Rockwell, would only acknowledge that "the document referencing Allen-Bradley resistors in a shipment to Accudyne Corporation was not traceable to a distributor or other immediate source. Further review indicates a 'resistor network' was provided. Allen-Bradley ceased manufacturing resistor networks in 1991."70
71. Letter from Peter J. Murphy, President, Parlex Corp., to Human Rights Watch, September 5, 1996. The response from the Parlex Corp. was somewhat encouraging: "Parlex does not currently, nor do we have any plans to produce components for landmines." However, Parlex would not rule out future mine component supply: "Company policy is to refrain from any blanket statement concerning our future process."71
72. Letter from Edwin M. North, Corporate Secretary, Thiokol Corp., to Human Rights Watch, August 9, 1996. Thiokol Corp. would not renounce future antipersonnel mine activities, but said it "does not manufacture landmines. Production operations at Army-owned munition facilities have been discontinued and production contracts ended."72
73. Letter from C.M.Welch, Chairman, Executive Committee, Mohawk Electrical Systems, Inc., to Human Rights Watch, August 15, 1996. Mohawk Electrical Systems makes the Claymore M18A1. Although the Claymore has been classified as an antipersonnel landmine in government and private reference works in the past, the growing success of the mine ban movement has led the DoD more recently to begin referring to the Claymore as a command detonated munition and not a landmine. Likewise, Mohawk does not consider the Claymore an antipersonnel mine and told Human Rights Watch that it will confine its production solely to Claymores. Mohawk noted that "as a part of the 1996 Defense Authorization Act, Claymores were removed from the export moratorium. Suffice to say that our company over a period of about 35 years has consistently refused to even quote on any of the APERS MINES that were targeted by Senator Leahy's crusade."73
Human Rights Watch does not believe that Claymores should suddenly be classified as something other than a landmine. While Claymores operated in a command detonated mode (where a soldier identifies the enemy and explodes the mine remotely) do not pose the dangers to civilians that other mines do, Human Rights Watch remains concerned about the indiscriminate nature of Claymores used with tripwires. Any mine designed to be used with a tripwire should be banned.