You Are In: USINFO > Products > Webchats > kidd_04_apr_2007

State Official Discusses U.S. Policy on Land Mines

USINFO Webchat transcript, April 4

Richard Kidd, director of the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs, answered questions in a USINFO Webchat April 4 on U.S. efforts to reduce the impact of land mines and unexploded ordnances left over from past conflicts.

Following is the transcript:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Programs
USINFO Webchat Transcript

U.S. Assistance in Landmine Awareness and Mine Action

Guest:     Richard Kidd
Date:      April 4, 2007
Time:      9:00 a.m. EDT (1300 GMT)

IIP Moderator:  Welcome to our webchat. You are invited to begin sending in your questions now.

Please note!  This webchat will take place one hour earlier than originally scheduled.  The webchat will now take place on April 4 at 13:00 GMT.

Richard Kidd: Having served as a relief worker and part of the UN’s leadership team in the world’s largest humanitarian demining program in Afghanistan, I consider it a great privilege to now be responsible for the State Department’s efforts to address the humanitarian effects of landmines.

As many know the U.S. is the world’s largest financial supporter of mine action, providing roughly ¼ to 1/3 of the world’s total assistance.  All involved in mine action should be proud of the accomplishments to date, with casualties down to well under 10,000 per year and processes in place to focus resources where they will have the greatest impact – much as been achieved!  Looking towards the future, it will not be too long before major programs start to scale down and response mechanisms are put in place to meet small-scale threats as they emerge.  The role for private citizens and organizations will increase as will the role for programs that integrate mine action with follow-on development work.

It is a pleasure to be here with everyone today and I look forward to doing my best to answer your questions.

Question [American Corner Bitola]:  Hello Mr. Kidd, I am Kostandin Popovski from Bitola, Macedonia and am a professional landmine remover and also project manager for NGO Stop-NUS whose goal is to dispose of mines left behind from past wars. The area of Bitola has a high volume of unexposed mines and we with our organization are trying our hardest to complete education of the citizens, especially the young, about the risk that can come from this unexposed war material.  I am hoping that this contact with you today will provide me with information on organizations through out the world that are as us committed to this problem and can help us.

Answer [Richard Kidd]: Dear Kostandin Popovski: There are a range of options to secure funding for organizations active in humanitarian demining. In South East Europe the best option is to submit a request through the International Trust Fund for Humanitarian Demining, located in Slovenia. It is through the ITF that the U.S. contributes just under $10m per year to work in South East Europe.  Other options include approaching private foundations or groups associated with mine action.  In this regard you can begin with the 50 partners listed on our website. Thanks.

Q [Chat Participant]: Even if I agree with "U.S. is leader is landmine abatement" isn’t the U.S. also a leader in landmine distribution? How do you respond?

A [Richard Kidd]: No, this is a common misperception not reflective of the reality found on the ground.  The U.S. was the first country in the world to prohibit the export of anti-personnel landmines in 1993. In terms of mines found in countries around the world, U.S. manufactured landmines emplaced by U.S. troops are only found today in South East Asia (Vietnam).  In Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Angola, Cambodia and elsewhere the vast majority of mines removed by deminers were manufactured in either the Former Soviet Union or in China. Please check with any major clearance NGO for their statistics on mine origin to confirm my statement. Thanks.

Q [Chat Participant]: Does the U.S. ban manufacture of landmines by U.S. firms?

A [Richard Kidd]:  No. The U.S. landmine policy is to leave no mine behind of any type on any battlefield anywhere in the world. To achieve this policy goal, the U.S. is committed to using only mines that are command controlled or that have multiple self-destruct fuses.  The U.S. has no need or requirement for the persistent mines that cause the most pronounced humanitarian arm and is removing them from inventory.

Q [American Corner Bitola]: Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. This is a world problem that need more attention in my region, can you give us advice on how to handle this.

A [Richard Kidd]:  Every country in South East Europe as a national mine action center to coordinate demining and mine action efforts.  These mine action center are responsible for developing national plans, requesting assistance and coordinating.  Large scale demining in Macedonia ended in 2003, although minefields do continue to exist along the border region with Albania.  Other issues include unexploded ordnance (UXO) and treatment of previous landmine accident survivors. The best place to start is with your national authorities and then the ITF.

Q [American Corner Bitola]:  Thank you for this information. Can you provide me with this website you mentioned?

A [Richard Kidd]: www.state.gov/t/pm/wra

Q [Abraham_Lincoln]:  I understand that, in democracies, the military is under the control and authority of people’s representatives.  Do you think that democratic civil-military relations are more effective than dictatorship with regard to the reduction or prohibition of inhuman weapons such as landmines? If the answer is yes, in what ways?

A [Richard Kidd]:  Dear Abe: This is a good hard question on political philosophy a bit beyond my program remit of managing $100m in assistance money. But as someone who has been a student of war, first in the Army and then as a relief worker in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Rwanda during the 1990's we should not be afraid of tackling such hard question.  Civilian control of the military is one of the key features of democracies.  Looking at the effects of landmines around the world, there are very few examples where significant civilian harm has come from landmines used by democratic armies.

Traditionally democratic armies, indeed professional armies even from non-democratic states, have used landmines in a highly proscribed manner relying on marking, mapping and fencing to warn and safeguard civilians, using mines on militarily significant terrain against opposing armies.  It has been uncontrolled and unaccountable militias and armies from non-democratic states that have specifically used mines against civilian populations.  If you look at the world's most mine affected states; Angola, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Bosnia - there were no democratic armies in the fight.  In the end I think it is more the features of the state, rather than the features of the weapon that determine whether or not it is used in a humane vs. inhumane manner. Thanks for a good hard question!

Q [mattbolton]:  It appears to me that WRA is beginning to emphasize small arms destruction in addition to mine action. a) Am I correct in assuming this is a new strategic priority for WRA? and b) what are the political implications of demining agencies getting involved in disarmament processes?

A [Richard Kidd]: Matt: The emphasis is changing.  Mine action is not the problem it once was and we should all be pleased with this, it is a success that should be celebrated.

Today, more people come to harm through tampering with unexploded ordnance than by landmines.  Just last week more people were killed in a munitions incident in Mozambique than by landmines in the past 3 years.  It is right and appropriate to shift focus to where the problem is. The U.S. is not going to pay to clear the last "million dollar" landmine that has no effect on anyone.

Q [mattbolton]: In Bosnia WRA has tended to fund demining through a contract/tender system, whereas in the Sudan WRA has mainly given grants to NGOs.  Could you explain why these different approaches were appropriate to the two different contexts?

A [Richard Kidd]: Matt: As previously discussed, this office provides roughly half of its funds to NGOs and half through international contractors. South East Europe is in fact the exception to the rule, in that local tendering is done through the ITF. This model is not followed elsewhere. Globally the decision to use NGOs versus contractors is principally a business decision - which can do the job best. In many countries we divide up the work to support the comparative advantages of both the private sector and not-for-profit sector.

Richard Kidd:  In closing, I would like to thank the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs for making this chat possible.  But mostly I would like to thank all of our dedicated partners around the world; NGO's, Contractors, civic organizations and private citizens who do the hard work of addressing the humanitarian impacts of landmines and other ordnance.

I would encourage all interested parties to visit our website for more information. Please feel free to contact us if you have more specific questions. Thanks again! Richard Kidd

IIP Moderator: We wish to thank Richard Kidd for joining us today. The webchat is now closed. Please visit our USINFO Webchat Station homepage for more information on upcoming events.