Misconception 1: The APMBC weakens national security and military effectiveness.
Reality: The Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention (AMPBC) does not prevent countries from using other defensive measures, including modern alternatives such as surveillance technologies combined with precision weapons – like First Person View drones – which can better target military personnel and systems and have a lower residual risk. Many military forces worldwide have successfully adapted their strategies without relying on anti-personnel mines.
Misconception 2: Anti-personnel mines are necessary for border defense.
Reality: Border defense can be effectively maintained using a combination of surveillance systems, patrols, and other military defenses that do not indiscriminately harm civilians. Landmines often end up harming local populations rather than deterring aggression.
Misconception 3: The treaty fails because some major powers have not signed it.
Reality: The treaty has built a strong international stigma against anti-personnel mines, significantly reducing their global production, trade, and use. Even some non-signatories have adopted policies restricting the use. It has also driven widespread mine clearance efforts, saving countless lives.
Misconception 4: Non-state armed groups do not respect the treaty, making it ineffective.
Reality: While some non-state armed groups (NSAGs) still use anti-personnel mines (APM), the stigma against them has grown significantly. The prohibitions of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC) indirectly apply to NSAGs and individuals under the jurisdiction of a State Party (e.g., those on its territory or its citizens). Additionally, through Geneva Call’s Deed of Commitment, over 50 non-state armed groups have formally committed to a total ban on APM and to cooperation in mine action efforts.
Misconception 5: Anti-personnel mines are a low-cost weapon.
Reality: While this may have been true in the past, when states and other actors had access to Cold War-era military stores, today’s military procurement and ammunition storage regulations impose higher requirements for transport, storage safety, and delayed arming procedures. Additionally, deploying anti-personnel mines is costly and requires protective measures and maintenance.
Misconception 6: Anti-personnel mines are effective in blocking access.
Reality: Little, if any, development of anti-personnel mines (APM) has occurred since the APMBC came into force in the 1990s. In contrast, military countermeasures, such as mechanical and remote explosive mine breaching systems, have seen significant improvements in their deployability and speed, rendering APM obsolete as military means of blocking access.
We acknowledge Source link for the information.
