Landmines,
explosive weapons that are placed under the ground, take two forms based on
their intended targets: anti-personnel landmines and anti-vehicle landmines. Civil War in
South Sudan has been occurring since 2013, and the predominant use of anti-personnel
landmines by South Sudan’s army against rebels has escalated. According to the
UN Mine Action Gateway (UNMAS), the employment of landmines as a form of
weaponry has been an ongoing trend throughout Sudan and its history of war.
Because
the locations of landmines are oftentimes unknown and no hint of present
explosives exists, the active mines produce hazards to the safety of local populations.
Forced migrations influence ethnic and religious conflict as language barriers
escalate and disputes over land rights and ownership persist. In addition,
access to education for youth is hindered. UNMAS noted how although “less than
half of South Sudan’s children attend school” (par 2), the existing school
sites have been targeted by armed conflict. One example is of how in the
Pochalla, Jonglei region in South Sudan, a woman discovered that an undetonated
landmine contaminated the area near a school. Lack of safety
and fear of pre-existing landmines act as driving factors that hinder progressive
growth in South Sudan’s education. UNMAS recognizes the interconnectedness
between war, politics, social factors, and the environment. With the help of
funding from the UN Peacekeeping budget and Japan, the organization strives to
provide humanitarian assistance while protecting civilians.
However, in
addition to threatening the safety and livelihoods of the South Sudanese
people, landmines also present hazards to the land. According to A. A. Berhe’s
study of landmines and their effects on land degradation, South Sudan has some
of the most severe landmines in the world.
The fact that
the exact number of active landmines does not exist hinders strategies of creating
safer environments. But, which is safer: a land where landmines remain active
and untouched, or a land where landmines are removed and possibly detonated?
Removing
landmines can be hazardous, as the process closes off local access to the
affected land. In turn, access to resources are prohibited or limited. The lack
of resources has the potential to harm the socioeconomic livelihoods of those
who are affected, because of forced migrations and loss of income. When working
to remove landmines, vegetation and plants are also removed.
On
the other hand, leaving landmines undetonated contributes to the loss of
biodiversity. Berhe
explains how vegetation and plants begin to deteriorate. Animals are at risk of
dying because of their limited access to food sources as well as their ability
to set off the mines. The long time that landmines remain in the ground also
allow for chemical contamination of soil. Additionally,
access to the limited supplies of water in South Sudan is hindered. UNMAS noted
how “just 41% of South Sudan has access to safe water”. Out
of these sources, water wells have been constant targets of landmines.
Overall, the
environmental and humanitarian risks that landmines pose to civilians increase
hazards that negatively influence socioeconomic hazard and quality of life.
When sources of income are harmed, a lack of self-sufficiency persists, and an
increase in dependency on aid continues.
Where do we go
from here? It seems that there are losses with both possible options: leaving
landmines undetonated or attempting to deactivate them. Where do we start and
who’s responsibility is it to get involved and provide aid?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI remembered reading about this recently! This link is to an international treaty that has to ban landmines: http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/the-treaty/treaty-status.aspx . I agree with you - Landmines are inhumane - the havoc they wreak doesn't discriminate between military personal and civilian - or even between humans and animals! Plus, once a war has ended, unless you took painstaking precautions, it's very unlikely that the people that placed the mines in the first place would be able to recall where these precise locations were - even if they wanted to. I believe that every effort should be made to dismantle the mines. We can donate to this group who is already putting in the work (training people, educating at-risk populations etc.): http://www.maginternational.org/usa/ !
ReplyDeleteHi Faith! Thanks for sharing those links and your thoughts! I explored the first link about The Mine Ban Treaty and I think that the intentions behind it are really wonderful. However, I question to what extent the legally binding treaty has on creating large changes in how we perceive and use/destroy landmines. Maybe some of the goals seem too hard to achieve and a binding treaty isn't the best way to approach them. Would a non-binding treaty be a better approach to this issue (such as with the non-binding Paris agreement)? Does the fact that this treaty against landmines is binding fully support the idea that landmines shouldn't exist, or does its binding nature encourage participants to join just to protect their relations with other allies and nations?
ReplyDeleteI also love the message behind Mag International's risk education! The one thing I am concerned about with this organization is the environmental impact of their clearing unexploded landmines. This makes me further question what is better for the environment- keeping landmines in the ground or risk ruining vegetation and soil by taking them out. By clearing the undetonated mines, we prioritize human life and safety over the environment. What defines our priorities and do our priorities differ across borders?
My girlfriend found this!!!!!!!!!! This is the future!!!!! https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000003635415/the-mine-sniffing-rats-of-africa.html
Delete