Interview with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Walter Givhan

Posted: November 19, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve had the privilege to engage in an extended email question and answer session with the US State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Plans, Programs and Operations, Maj. General Walter D. Givhan (Biography from State Department).  General Givhan oversees the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement (PM / WRA), among other assignments, within the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM).   As such, General Givhan is responsible for the US Humanitarian Mine Action Program and the Conventional Weapons Destruction Program and implements the current US Landmine Policy (State Department).

General Givhan took the opportunity to bring up the work done by PM / WRA on protecting civilians from the dangers of aging ammunition depots and combatting the proliferation of man-portable air-defense systems.  He also offered some insight into the State Department’s perspectives on the Mine Ban Treaty (referred to below as “the Ottawa Treaty”) and negotiations surrounding anti-vehicle mines and cluster munitions within the context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).

I was interested to hear how political events in Guinea-Bissau (a coup in April of this year) and Sudan (expulsion of humanitarian deminers) had affected the State Department’s priorities and on the demining work being done in those countries.  I was also pleased to hear that General Givhan and PM are active to protect the funding made available for humanitarian demining from the budget fights on Capitol Hill.

I do worry that the consolidation of humanitarian mine action into the broader Conventional Weapons Destruction program could lead to reduced support for mine action in the future.  I absolutely support the elimination of ammunition depots from populated areas because of the tremendous risk they pose, risks made evident from recent explosions in Brazzaville (BBC News), Lagos (Guardian) and Maputo  (Metro).  However, in Libya, the US government prioritized securing MANPADS over landmines and while some of the funds made available for MANPADS destruction also covered landmine destruction and removal, the intent was to eliminate the MANPADS.  This is understandable from a national security and national interests perspective: the United States is not going to be threatened by landmines in the ground in Libya, but US airplanes flying in Libyan airspace could be targeted by MANPADS in Libya.  However, the humanitarian impact of MANPADS is dwarfed by that of landmines and this blog is based on the idea that the humanitarian impact should trump the national security argument.  Compare if you will the following: since 1975, MANPADS have been responsible for more than 800 civilian deaths (State Department); in 2012 alone landmines were responsible for more.

My thanks go to David I. McKeeby in PM’s Office of Congressional & Public Affairs for his help facilitating these exchanges.

Landmines in Africa: In 2011, the US funded mine clearance programs in Angola, Burundi, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Mozambique, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan; how does the State Department choose which countries to support humanitarian mine action programs?

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Walter Givhan: The purpose of humanitarian mine action is to protect victims of conflict and to restore access to land and infrastructure for internally displaced persons and for returning refugees in post-conflict situations.  Humanitarian Mine Action is a necessary precursor for economic development activities and for humanitarian relief.  With this purpose, the Department of State chooses to support requests for Conventional Weapons Destruction assistance, including humanitarian mine action, in countries where these efforts will have the greatest humanitarian impact.

For example in FY 12, the Department of State began providing assistance for clearance activities in Zimbabwe.  There is heavy mine contamination in Zimbabwe and there have been over 1,500 human casualties and over 120,000 accidents with livestock.  Humanitarian demining activities will reduce the likelihood of such accidents.

Specific factors used to determine whether to provide assistance to a country include:  the amount and location of the landmines/unexploded ordnance (UXO); the capacity of the host nation; and whether the security and political situation is favorable to carrying out demining and UXO removal.

LIA: As a follow-up, what criteria does the Department use to determine whether or not to continue funding programs in countries where support has been given?

DAS Givhan: The Department of State uses the same criteria to determine whether or not to continue funding a program as it does on whether or not to establish a program.

LIA. Are there any countries the Department wanted to support humanitarian mine action programs in, but did not and why?

DAS Givhan: Yes, in FY 2012 there were two:

  • The Department had planned to provide Humanitarian Mine Action assistance to Guinea-Bissau.  However, given the April 12, 2012 coup, the United States was obliged to terminate foreign assistance to the Government of Guinea-Bissau consistent with the requirements of section 7008 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act for 2012.
  • The Department also suspended its support for programs in Sudan when the government of Sudan asked all of the humanitarian demining NGOs to leave the country and seized their equipment.  In addition, political unrest has led to significant personnel reductions at U.S. Embassy Khartoum, which compromises our ability to monitor demining programs in country.

LIA: The Bureau of Political-Military [PM] Affairs primarily funds mine clearance and mine risk education programs and victim assistance programming and funding is mostly left to USAID’s Leahy War Victims’ Fund; do you believe there is a role for PM to support victim assistance and how would PM fulfill that role?

DAS Givhan: The State Department does fund survivor assistance programs when they are complementary to our mine action programs and are not duplicative of work being undertaken by USAID.  In these cases, we coordinate with our colleagues at USAID to ensure the best use of funding.   Any assistance programs managed by USAID and the Department of State do not differentiate victims by the munition that caused their injury.

Although we did not provide survivor assistance in Africa in FY 2011, we did provide funding for survivor assistance in Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, Colombia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Peru, Vietnam, and Yemen.  PM/WRA funding for survivor assistance generally includes rehabilitation and vocational services.

LIA: With the budget fights on Capitol Hill, how will PM preserve the funding for humanitarian mine action?

DAS Givhan: The Department of State’s Conventional Weapons Destruction programs receive widespread bipartisan support from Congress.  We appreciate this support and will continue to make the case to Congress that these programs are effective and in the nation’s interest.

LIA: The Convention on Conventional Weapons framework has recently considered Mines other than Anti-Personnel Mines (meaning anti-vehicle mines) and cluster munitions; where do you think these negotiations will go?

DAS Givhan: The United States has been a leader in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) efforts on Mines other than Anti-Personnel Mines (MOTAPM).  The United States was among the original co-sponsors of a proposed additional protocol to address the indiscriminate use of MOTAPM in the years leading up to the Third Review Conference of the CCW in 2006.  We were frustrated that the CCW was forced to suspend this work because of the inability of states to reach consensus at that Conference.

We have been supportive of the decision to resume work with an expert-level meeting and actively participated in the discussion at this meeting in April.  We fully recognize the humanitarian threat associated with the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of MOTAPM and believe that there is room for specific restrictions on the use of MOTAPM in addition to the relevant provisions of CCW Amended Protocol II (Mines, Booby Traps, and other Explosive Devices).  We look forward to further discussing this issue at the CCW Meeting of High Contracting Parties in November.

The United States was deeply disappointed by the failure of the Fourth Review Conference of the CCW to conclude a protocol on cluster munitions.  The protocol would have prohibited a greater number of cluster munitions for the United States alone than the Oslo Convention has prohibited for all of its member states combined. There are no further negotiations scheduled at this time.  The CCW States Parties could decide to restart negotiations in the future, but that seems unlikely anytime soon.  

LIA: The Administration initiated a review of the 2004 US Landmine Policy; what is the status of that review and do you foresee any significant changes on the horizon?

DAS Givhan: We have not made a decision on U.S. accession to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Production, Stockpiling and Transfer of Anti-Personnel landmines (Ottawa Convention).

The operational issues raised by accession require careful consideration, and this work is ongoing.

The United States shares the humanitarian concern of parties to the Ottawa Convention and sent an observer delegation to the 11th Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, November 28-December 2, 2011, in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

We continue to demonstrate our commitment to addressing the potential humanitarian consequences caused by landmines:

  • The United States is the world’s single largest financial supporter of humanitarian mine action, and since 1993 (through October 2012) has provided over $2 billion in aid in over 90 countries for conventional weapons destruction programs, including clearance of landmines and unexploded munitions.
  • The United States has ended use of all non-detectable mines, both anti-personnel, as well as anti-vehicle mines, which are not covered by the Ottawa Convention.
  • The United States ended all use of persistent mines, both anti-personnel and anti-vehicle, at the end of 2010.  These are the mines that can remain active years or even decades after a conflict ends.

In addition, the United States has ratified the Amended Mines Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), a separate international treaty that establishes transparent and verifiable standards for the use of landmines to minimize risks to civilians.

LIA: Mine clearance activities funded by the State Department rely on tried and true techniques such as manual clearance, mechanical clearance and mine detection dogs; are there any new or emerging techniques, e.g., rats, acoustics, chemical films, that you find intriguing and why?

DAS Givhan: The State Department is generally not involved in Research and Development for humanitarian mine clearance techniques.  We refer you to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Humanitarian Demining Research and Development (HD R&D) Program which focuses on developing technologies to improve the efficiency and safety of removing post-conflict landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO).  HD R&D designs, builds, demonstrates, and evaluates prototype mine-and UXO-clearing technologies for indigenous, host-nation-conducted demining operations supported by the U.S. Department of Defense.

LIA: Will the US be represented at December’s Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty and if so, what will your goals for attendance be; if not, will the US participate in the next Review Conference?

DAS Givhan: The United States has attended the Ottawa Convention annual meetings since the 2009 Cartagena Review Conference.  This has been a useful opportunity to meet with representatives from other states and non-governmental organizations to discuss and coordinate our common humanitarian mine action efforts.

No formal decision has been made regarding attendance this year.  (As of 11/15/12, no decision had been made).

LIA: [Regarding] question 5, I did not specifically ask about the Ottawa Treaty.  I am glad to hear that the US Government is reviewing what the consequences of accession to the Ottawa Treaty would be and is committed to addressing the potential humanitarian consequences of anti-personnel landmines, but I would also like to know more about the review of the US Government’s 2004 Landmine Policy.  Does your response mean that the central question of the review was whether or not the US Government should accede to the Ottawa Treaty?  Or did the review have another central question at its core?  Also, do you know when a decision on accession to the Ottawa Treaty might be made, since consideration on that question is ongoing?

[Question truncated by the State Department to: “Regarding the 2004 Landmine Policy Review, was the central question of the review whether or not the United States should accede to the Ottawa Treaty, or did the review have another central question at its core?  What is the timeline for the current Landmine Policy Review?”]

DAS Givhan: While I’m obviously not in a position to speak to the internal deliberations of previous administrations, this statement from Lincoln Bloomfield, the Assistant Secretary of Political-Military Affairs at the time of the 2004 Landmine Policy announcement summarizes their vision.

We are mindful of the humanitarian consequences of indiscriminate landmine use.  Indeed, the United States remains the world’s largest donor to humanitarian mine action.

The operational issues raised by the review require careful consideration, and this work is ongoing.

LIA: What will success look like for the US’s Convention Weapons Destruction Program?

DAS Givhan: Substantial assistance from the United States and other donors over the last 20 years has significantly reduced casualties from landmine and unexploded munitions.  While our vision of success is to continue this trend, explosions from munitions depots are of growing concern.  Our experience has shown us that overlap often exists between explosive remnants of war (ERW), at-risk small arms and light weapons, including man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), and excess, unsecured or unstable conventional munitions.

To more effectively confront these overlapping threats to human and national security, our programs and funding have merged under an umbrella known as Conventional Weapons Destruction.  Our consolidated CWD budget increases flexibility by allowing program implementers the ability to address multiple threats simultaneously for greater efficiency and impact.

Increasingly, our efforts have focused on destroying unstable munitions before they explode and helping states to improve management of their stockpiles to prevent such tragic humanitarian disasters, as well as cleaning up depot explosions when they do occur.  Unfortunately, due to the enormous challenge before us, efforts to mitigate ERW and munitions depot explosions will continue to be a long-term effort.

Michael P. Moore, November 19, 2012

How the Sausage Gets Made, States and their landmine policies

Posted: November 10, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Every year, the First Committee of the United Nations meets to discuss disarmament issues.  Among the topics covered this year were nuclear disarmament, the Conference on Disarmament and universalization of existing disarmament treaties including the Mine Ban Treaty.  As part of the proceedings, the First Committee approved a draft resolution (document A/C. 1/67/L/8) entitled “Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction” by a vote of 152 states in favor, none against and 19 abstaining.  The draft resolution supports the universalization of the Mine Ban and “call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed or stockpiled throughout the world.”

To date, three African countries, Egypt, Libya and Morocco have refused to sign the Mine Ban Treaty and all three made statements during the discussions of the draft resolution that provides insight into their positions and why they have remained outside the treaty regime.

From a press release issued by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs on November 5, 2012 (UNODA).

Morocco

Morocco voted in favor of the draft resolution to support the humanitarian goals of the Treaty.  Morocco supports the concepts of the Treaty and provides funds for victim assistance domestically and funds to neighboring states to support mine action.  Morocco also participates in meetings of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty.

Sounds nice, right? But no mention of the extensive minefields maintained by Morocco in Western Sahara which would need to be dismantled if Morocco acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty.  In this way, Morocco is like Iran which argued that “landmines remained an effective means for certain countries to ensure their security and to protect civilians.”  Only a political solution to the Western Sahara question would eliminate Morocco’s perception that it needs to use landmines for national protection.

Egypt

Egypt was one of the 19 countries that abstained from the vote on the draft resolution.  Egypt said that the Mine Ban Treaty does not enjoy international consensus and was negotiated outside of the United Nations framework; only the latter of which is true as demonstrated by the fact that no country voted against the draft resolution.  Egypt also argued that “countries with long borders” have a legitimate military use for landmines to protect national security and those national security interests outweigh the humanitarian concerns, which Egypt feels are over-emphasized in the Treaty.  Egypt also argued that the Treaty does not require states which lay landmines to clear those landmines, instead the state in possession of the territory on which the mines are found is responsible for mine clearance.  Egypt argues that Germany and the United Kingdom which laid millions of mines on Egyptian soil during World War II should be responsible for clearing those mines and as long as the Treaty does not force them to do so, Egypt will not accede.

Libya

Libya also abstained from the vote on the draft resolution, reiterating Egypt’s position that the Treaty does not force states that lay landmines to clear them and noting that German and British forces also used landmines in Libya in World War II.  Libyan representatives did say that they were “keen” to participate as an observer in meetings of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty and recognized the “human suffering” caused by landmines.  Interestingly, no mention was made of the recent use of landmines by Gaddhafi’s forces during the 2011 rebellion in Libya, but Libya did report it had co-hosted a workshop on landmines with the Canadian government.

Lastly, and almost completely unrelated to the draft resolution, Tanzania mentioned its partnership with APOPO which uses Giant Pouched Rats to find landmines.  The representative “expressed hope that all people of good will would take a look at that method, which was worthy of consideration.”

Michael P. Moore, November 10, 2012

The Month in Mines, October 2012, by Landmines in Africa

Posted: November 7, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Month in Mines | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If I were to tell you that the two African countries with the most landmine-related stories in October were Somalia and Angola, would you be surprised?  October was the 20th anniversary of the founding of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).  As a sign of how much progress has been made, Somalia become 160th country for whom the Mine Ban Treaty has entered into force; as a sign of how much still needs to be done, at least five landmine blasts occurred in Somalia.

Somalia

The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force for the 160th State Party on October 1, 2012.  With Somalia’s accession, all of Sub-Saharan Africa is now under the Treaty’s regime.  Somalia faces significant logistical hurdles to become compliant with the Treaty, from stockpile destruction (the current, recognized government of Somalia does not control all of its territory, let alone the arms and weapons in the state) to landmine clearance to victim assistance.  However, by acceding to the Treaty, Somalia can access significant resources to assist in this process while also making a statement about the kind of nation it wants to be: one that is at peace with itself and looks after its own people (All Africa).

The last Al Shabaab stronghold, Kismayo, was re-captured by AMISOM and allied forces in September, but Al Shabaab’s insurgency campaign continues throughout Somalia.  Landmine attacks were reported in Kismayo (All Africa), Wanlaweyn (RBC Radio), Baidaba (RBC Radio), Beledweyne (All Africa), and Sool (BBC News) killing at least six civilians and injuring 13 more; military casualties were not reported even though four of the blasts targeted military and government officials.  Additionally, AMISOM troops discovered a cache of landmines and other explosive materials during a sweep of Kismayo (All Africa).

As a side note, the reporting from within Somalia continues to be excellent despite the fact that 16 Somali journalists have been killed this, with Al Shabaab claiming credit for at least ten of those assassinations.  Other journalists have been attacked or threatened with attack.  One journalist, Ahmed Farah Ilyas, was killed by gunmen outside his home while investigating a landmine blast (BBC News).  I applaud these brave men and women without whom we would know so much less about that is happening in this critical corner of the world.

Angola

Angola continues to clear landmines as it develops its internal capacity.  Demining authorities announced the destruction of hundreds of explosive remnants of war, including landmines in Kwanza Norte Province (All Africa) and Huila Province (All Africa).  Cleared land will be returned to productive use such as agriculture and other development initiatives.  Capacity building activities include training on demining and information management led by the national mine action authority, CNIDAH, for staff from several ministries, such as Social Welfare, Education and Agriculture (All Africa).

A much larger project, a national database of all Angolan landmine victims was also launched in October.  This database will give the service providers and relevant government ministries and agencies a complete census of landmine victims and other persons with disabilities in the country to, hopefully, better serve their needs as they recover and reintegrate into society.  In 2005 the number of landmine victims in Angola was estimated at almost 130,000 (All Africa) while other published estimates range from 23,000 to 80,000 (The Monitor).  A crucial step in the development of this database will be to ensure that the necessary services are provided to landmine victims.  The majority of Angolans live on less than US $2 per day and knowing who and where the landmine victims are is useless information if the services are not available for socio-economic reintegration.

Egypt

This month saw the 70th anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein between the tank divisions of Britain’s Bernard Montgomery and Germany’s Erwin Rommel.  The battlefield itself was known at the time and continues to be referred to as the “Devil’s Garden” in reference to the 16 million shells and landmines in Egypt’s deserts.  In 2012, 17 people have been injured by unexploded ordnance and a conservative estimate places the total number of casualties at 8,000 civilians, with 725 known survivors since the battle itself.  The Bedouin community is particularly hit hard as they migrate through the deserts.

In recent years, the United Nations Development Programme with funding from Britain and Germany has supported victim assistance and demining programs, but the scale of the problem has dwarfed the funds made available.  A new demining initiative was launched this past April, but funding from the European Union has been withheld due to fears of corruption.  Funding could be made available through sales of leases for the oil and natural gas reserves that lie under the Devil’s Garden and could be exploited if the region were demined.

Despite the battles over money, landmine accidents continue to occur and new victims will need assistance.  Abdullah Salah, a Bedouin survivor himself, has set up an NGO to support other landmine victims but the services that Salah’s NGO is able to provide were not specified and the transitory nature of the Bedouin population would suggest that a comprehensive recovery and re-integration program is not currently available (The Independent).

Greek President Papoulias visited Egypt in October to renew and strengthen economic ties.  Despite the continuing financial crisis in Greece, Greek investments in Egypt are worth 1.5 billion euros with plans to increase to more than 5 billion euros.  In addition to these economic ties, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s spokesman announced that “Greece will help Egypt in removing landmines implanted during World War II” (All Africa).

 

China

The Greeks are not the only Western nation bearing demining gifts to Africa.  A South Sudanese army captain who had completed a one-month training course in China on humanitarian demining declared, “China’s demining teachers are great, China’s demining technologies are great, China’s demining devices are great, and the Chinese people’s friendship with the South Sudanese people is great” (People’s Daily Online).

The United States

The XM7 Spider Munitions system, one of the US Army’s alternatives to anti-personnel landmines, seems to be a little closer to full utilization.  The initial evaluation of the system took place in 2010 and this month saw the “Network Integration Evaluation” during field maneuvers at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.  The Spider has tripwires to alert the operator who must deliberately activate the associated explosives (DVIDS Hub).  Earlier this year, a $58 million award was issued to Alliant Techsystems Operations and Textron Defense Systems to upgrade the Spider’s operating system and purchase spare parts to ensure that the Spider would be ready for field use this year (Solicitation # W15QKN-12-T-B003).

Michael P. Moore, November 7, 2012

Beating the Better Mousetrap, Part 2

Posted: November 2, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 6 Comments

In 1997, a scientific meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology agreed that “the most reliable demining method” was the use of a metal detector by a human operator.  However, the meeting also noted that metal detectors were subject to very high rates of false positives, with as many as one thousand false positives for every real landmine discovered.  The meeting also raised the fear of all-plastic mines which would be undetectable by even the most sophisticated metal detector (MIT Technology Review).

There have been two lines of response to these concerns: legal and technical.  The legal response is housed in the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  The Protocol states, in its technical annex, that all anti-personnel landmines produced after January 1, 1997 must be detectable by “commonly-available technical mine detection equipment,” such as a metal detector through the use of materials that would produce the same or stronger response as 8 grams of iron.  Any anti-personnel mines produced before January 1, 1997 must be retrofitted with materials or a device that would produce the same or stronger response as 8 grams of iron.  Unfortunately, states could defer compliance with the directive to retrofit pre-1997 mines for 9 years after entry into force of the Protocol, which meant that states had until December 3, 2007 to retrofit their plastic mines and states were only required “to the extent feasible, minimize the use” of plastic mines until that date (United Nations, pdf).  Therefore plastic anti-personnel mines could easily have been used for many years despite the legal response (and plastic anti-tank mines have never been regulated).

The technical response has been varied.  In our last post we covered some of the proposed solutions (bees, mice, nanofilms, oh my!), but other developments have also emerged.  The United States Navy has issued a call for prototypes of handheld landmine detectors capable of locating mines with little or no metallic content, basically plastic landmines.  The Navy feels that currently available landmine detectors “could be redesigned with lower size and weight with no loss in capability.”  The Navy wants these prototypes for use by Special Forces and not for the general public (Military & Aerospace Electronics), but if the technology is effective, I would hope it becomes available to humanitarian demining.  This call also made me curious about the current state of the art in metal detectors, so I did what anyone would do: I went to the local arms show.

Last year, I went to the Association of the United States Army’s (AUSA) exposition which is one of the largest arms shows in the world.  There I checked up on the new spider mine system designed as an alternative to persistent, victim-activated landmines. This year, I wanted to see the mine detection tools on offer and visited two vendors, CEIA-USA and Foerster. Both make similar devices that are widely used within the humanitarian demining community.

The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining profiles the Foerster MINEX 2FD 4.530 metal detector (pictured below) (GICHD) and notes that it (or its variants) have been used in 30 countries, including Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and Tunisia in Africa.  According to GICHD, “No significant limitations [have been] reported to date.”

 

Photo courtesy of the Author

The GICHD also profiles CEIA’s MIL-D1 which has 16,000 units in the field in many countries including Burundi, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Morocco, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa and Sudan.  Giovanni Giustino, the Sales Manager at the AUSA exposition, told me that CEIA’s products are used by Mechem, the South African demining organization and Mines Advisory Group has co-sponsored a Death Valley Challenge, a 200 mile cycling trip, with CEIA to raise funds (Mines Advisory Group).  Giustino was also kind enough to invite me to CEIA’s Italian headquarters for training in the use of their detectors, an offer I would love to be able to accept one day.

In addition to the MIL-D1, CEIA also showed me their MIL-D1/DS (pictured below) which is specially designed to locate unexploded ordnance like cluster munitions and is being used by Mines Advisory Group in Laos (Mines Advisory Group).

Both CEIA’s and Foerster’s metal detectors are “smart” machines with built-in electronics to adapt to, or “learn” the local soil conditions.  If the local soil is high in iron ore, the detectors will adjust and compensate to the background level rather than give off a continuous indication of the presence of metal.  Both manufacturers’ detectors can locate the minimum metal mines required under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and their widespread usage and lack of known faults suggest that these and similar products will continue to be the basis of humanitarian demining.

One final note, barely 100 feet away from Foerster’s booth at the AUSA expo one could find Textron Systems booth; Textron being the manufacturer of the new alternative anti-personnel landmine system.  So within a few steps you could see the latest landmines and their detection systems.

 

Michael P. Moore, November 2, 2012