MR PRICE: Thank you very much and good morning everyone and thank you for participating in this call. We are delighted to have the opportunity to speak about the changes we announced today to US landmine policy. We remind you that this call is registered, but it is embargoed until the call is terminated.
We have two speakers with us this morning. You’ll hear Bonnie Jenkins first, Dr. Bonnie Jenkins. He is our undersecretary for arms control and international security. We also have Stan Brown in line with us. He is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in our Office for Political and Military Affairs.
So, without further ado, I’ll hand it over to Undersecretary Jenkins to get us started. Please continue.
UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS: Great. Thanks, Ned.
Reducing the use of mines around the world has been a commitment that President Biden has made as a candidate and I am extremely pleased to highlight the White House announcement today regarding the new anti-personnel mine policy that does exactly what the President Biden had promised.
The new US anti-personnel mine policy focuses on people, communities and individuals around the world seeking peace and security. It is a principle of our humanitarian demining activities. Our annual report, To Walk the Earth in Safety, which I unveiled in April, is a great reminder of US global leadership and I strongly encourage you to read it if you haven’t already.
I know you have a lot of questions about today’s White House announcement, so I’m going to ask my colleague Stan Brown, Deputy Chief Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, to talk more about it.
MR BROWN: Thank you, Undersecretary Jenkins. I just want to take a moment to echo Undersecretary Jenkins’ comments and reiterate the importance of today’s announcement, which follows President Biden’s pledge to reduce mine use around the world.
After conducting a comprehensive policy review, the administration announced a new US policy to limit the use of anti-personnel mines and align US policy and practice with key provisions of the Ottawa Convention for all activities outside the United States. of the context of the Korean peninsula.
As a result of the decision, the United States will not develop, manufacture or acquire anti-personnel mines, export or transfer anti-personnel mines except when necessary for activities related to mine destruction or removal and for the purpose of destruction. They will not use anti-personnel mines outside the Korean Peninsula, will not assist, encourage or induce anyone outside the Korean Peninsula context to engage in activities that would be prohibited by the Ottawa Convention, and will undertake to destroy the anti-personnel mines and their stocks not necessary for the defense of the Korean peninsula.
We will continue to pursue materials and operational solutions that are compliant and will ultimately enable the United States to accede to the Ottawa Convention, while ensuring our ability to deliver on commitments made with the alliance.
The administration’s actions today are in stark contrast to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, where there is compelling evidence that Russian forces are using explosive ammunition, including anti-personnel mines, in an irresponsible way that is causing extensive damage to civilians and infrastructure. vital civilians there.
Finally, precisely in a – here at – the United States is proud to lead the world in the destruction of conventional weapons. Since 1993, we have invested more than 4.2 billion in more than 100 countries to promote international peace and security through our conventional weapons destruction programs. We will continue this important work and remain committed to continuing partnerships to address the humanitarian impacts of anti-personnel mines.
With this just a kind of opening statement, I would be happy to answer any questions from the group.
MR PRICE: Thank you very much. Operator, if you don’t mind repeating the instructions to ask a question.
OPERATOR: And again, for any questions or comments, you can queue by pressing 1 and then 0. This is 1 and then 0 for any questions or comments.
MR PRICE: Great. We’ll start with Shaun Tandon’s line, please.
OPERATOR: One moment. And your line is open.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thanks for doing it. Nice to hear from you, Bonnie and Stan, and of course Ned.
I can ask you about – of course, you mentioned Russia. China, as far as I know, is also not a party to the Ottawa Treaty. How much do you expect to push other countries to give up their mines too? Will this become more of a diplomatic priority? And may I also ask you something more about the Korean Peninsula and the reason for this continuing exception, as it happened under the Obama administration? Is it because of the real threat from North Korea, the threats there? Is that also why the ROK really has control over mines? Could you explain the reason behind the continuation of this exception? Thank you.
MR BROWN: Okay. So, first of all, to address the Korea exception, this is due to our specific defense responsibilities there and our defense partnership. First of all, the US does not maintain any minefields in Korea or the DMZ. They are all owned by the Republic of Korea. We are responsible for the defense of South Korea. With the requirements of the Ottawa Convention, where we cannot assist, encourage or induce anyone to use landmines, we cannot meet treaty obligations due to those defense requirements. So in this regard, we are basically resorting to the policies of the Obama administration to make sure we can meet our requirements with Korea in this regard.
In – as far as the requirements of the convention are concerned, we are basically aligning ourselves – basically it is with Article 1 of the Ottawa Convention and the principles that have been set out in the factsheets and type of discussion points that we have laid out here. We will meet these requirements as – anywhere in the world except the Korean Peninsula.
MR PRICE: We will go to Jennifer Hansler’s line.
OPERATOR: One moment. And your line is open.
QUESTION: Hello. Thanks for doing it. I just want to be clear if today’s action completely brings us back to the Obama-era mine policy and does this direct the Department of Defense to destroy the mines in its possession? And you also mentioned Russia. How impetuous was the war in Ukraine to finally bring about this change in Trump-era politics? Thank you.
MR BROWN: So part of the – so while the policy is being put in place, we’re basically not going to develop, produce or acquire anti-personnel mines; we will not export or transfer anti-personnel mines; we will not use them outside the Korean peninsula. We would like to – part of the policy is also to undertake to destroy all anti-personnel stockpiles not necessary for the defense of Korea, Republic of Korea. Furthermore, we will not help, encourage or induce anyone outside the Korean Peninsula context to engage in any activity that would be prohibited by the convention.
Speaking of which – sorry, could you repeat the second part of that question?
MR PRICE: I believe it was there – it would have required the destruction of any landmine.
MR BROWN: Right, and we said that the policy is committed to destroying all anti-personnel mines in stocks that are not needed for the defense of the Republic of Korea.
MR PRICE: We’ll go to Missy Ryan’s line, please.
OPERATOR: And your line is open.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for doing this. And I just wanted to get an idea from the officials who are doing the briefing: Can you give us an idea of how far the US is in developing alternative weapons that could be employed on the Korean Peninsula along the DMZ to allow the US to join the Ottawa Convention? I haven’t been able to figure out if those technologies are in development, if they’re close to being deployed or something. Any kind of context on this would be helpful. Thank you.
MR BROWN: I can tell you that it is working, but I would have to send you back to the Department of Defense for specific acquisition and operational capabilities of future devices.
The – returning to the last question regarding the war in Ukraine which was the momentum of the decision. The decision is under review – by the Biden administration in January 2021. We have just come to a conclusion and the president was able to make the announcement today.
MR PRICE: Chris Megerian, Associated Press.
QUESTION: Hello everyone. Then a question for clarification on the potential destruction of the anti-personnel mines that are currently in US stocks. Number one, how many anti-personnel mines does the United States have in their stock? Number two, are they all deemed necessary to defend the Korean Peninsula? Are we not going to destroy any of these?
MR BROWN: The estimate of anti-personnel mines in stock is around three million. In this regard, we – I defer to DOD for what their operational requirements would be for what would be needed for the defense of Korea. And again, the policy states that it basically seeks to commit to destroying all anti-personnel mines that are not necessary for the defense of the Republic of Korea.
QUESTION: Hello. Even just a clarification. Could you tell when the US last used landmines?
MR BROWN: The United States last used landmines in 1991 during the Gulf War. There was only one incident in which an ammunition was used in the 2002 timeline in Afghanistan. But otherwise, the United States hasn’t used landmines in any meaningful way since 1991.
MR PRICE: We have time for a couple of final questions. Anton La Guardia.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Can you hear me?
MR PRICE: Yes, please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can you clarify whether Ukraine uses anti-personnel mines and how the policy of not assisting, inducing other countries to use anti-personnel mines can be aligned with the policy of helping Ukraine win the war?
MR BROWN: Ukraine is – actually a party to the Ottawa Convention and cannot use anti-personnel mines that are not – it does not respect the convention itself. So, per se, Ukraine does not use anti-personnel mines and we have not supplied anti-personnel mines to Ukraine that do not comply with the Ottawa Convention.
MR PRICE: We will go to the Hye Jun Seo line of Radio Free Asia.
QUESTION: Hi, can you hear me?
PRICE: Yes. Please go on.
QUESTION: Hi, thank you for answering my question. Just – follow up on the Korean Peninsula. Has there been any update on the numbers of mines within the country? And how worried is DOS about possible accidents and casualties on the Korean peninsula due to the extensive minefield? Thank you.
MR BROWN: The United States does not control  any of the minefields in the Republic of Korea, so I should refer you to the government of the Republic of Korea to get any number on the number of mines and the incidents in the minefields there.
MR PRICE: And we will take one last question from Oskar Gorzynski, the Polish news agency.
QUESTION: Hello. I was – I wanted to clarify something because the United States has – sorry, as I can remember – moved some anti-personnel mines to Ukraine, the Claymore mines. How am I – how is it compliant with the Ottawa Convention? Can you explain it?
MR BROWN: Yes. The – basically, anti-personnel mines in the Ottawa Convention policies are related to mines that have exploded upon contact or the presence of an individual. Claymore mines that have been transferred by the US government to Ukraine are detonated on command with a person in the circuit who can actually detonate them, which reduces the impact of landmines – that kind of landline, Ottawa compliant, has on civilian populations.
MR PRICE: Fantastic. Well, that ends this call. Just a reminder that this call was logged. He heard from Dr. Bonnie Jenkins, our Under-Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, as well as Stan Brown, our Chief Deputy Secretary in the Bureau of Political and Military Affairs. With that, the call ends and the embargo is lifted. Thank you all for coming in and thank you very much to Dr. Jenkins and PDAS Brown.
Can you pick up a land mine?
Once activated and / or disarmed, the mine can be picked up by another player, the player must remain there until another player gets to pick up the mine. The mine goes out only after the player / entity leaves it. It does not turn off instantly when stepped on.
How many pounds of C4 is in a Claymore?
A Claymore mine is a military weapon containing approximately 1.5 pounds of C4 plastic explosive and incorporated approximately 700 steel ball bearings. See the article : Briefing on Updated United States Anti-Landmine Policy – United States Department of State. It is designed as a directional anti-personnel weapon to inflict death or serious personal injury over a large area.
How strong is a Claymore? Tests concluded that the mine was effective up to approximately 110 yards (100 m), being able to hit 10% of the attack force. At 55 yards (50m), this has increased to 30%.
How many balls are in a Claymore?
The M18 Claymore, a directional fragmentation mine, is 8-1 / 2 inches long, 1-3 / 8 inches wide, 3-1 / 4 inches high and weighs 3-1 / 2 pounds. The mine contains 700 steel balls (10. See the article : The argument that video games fuel mass shootings?.5 grains) and a 1-1 / 2 pound layer of explosive composition C-4 and is started by a No. 2.
How many pounds is a Claymore?
The average claymore ran about 140cm (55in) in overall length, with a 33cm (13in) grip, 107cm (42in) blade, and a weight of about 5. This may interest you : Celebrate the arts in Georgetown this Summer.5lbs (2.5kg ).
How heavy is a claymore mine?
|Mass||3.5 lbs (1.6 kg)|
|Length||216 mm (8.5 inches)|
|Length||38 mm (1.5 inches)|
Are there landmines in the US?
There was only one incident in which an ammunition was used in the 2002 timeline in Afghanistan. But otherwise, the United States hasn’t used landmines in any meaningful way since 1991.
Are there mines active in the United States? A: There are no persistent land mines in the US operational inventory; the new policy does not change that.
Where are there still active landmines?
The largest stocks of anti-personnel mines are held by: Russia, Pakistan, India, China and the United States.
Does America produce landmines?
The United States, which has not produced new landmines since 1997, is the world’s largest donor to efforts to reduce the threat of landmines and explosive remnants of war, with $ 2.3 billion spent on mine action over the past two decades.
Are there still bullets on Omaha Beach?
It is obviously not surprising that the splinters were added to the sand of Omaha Beach at the time of the battle, but it is surprising that it has survived for over 40 years and is no doubt still there today. It is unclear how long the glass and iron splinters and beads will remain mixed in the sand at Omaha Beach.
What were the chances of surviving Omaha Beach? With 2,000 paratroopers facing 345,000 bullets, in an area of sky covering 9 square miles, the chances of survival were 1 in 4. But 50% of the men survive.
Are there still guns on Omaha Beach?
The guns are still in the bunkers, left as they were in 1944 after the fighting ended. All the guns and their bunkers still show the scars of the 1944 battle except one which is in near perfect condition.
Are there still bunkers on Normandy beach?
According to the Fox News article, the newly discovered bunkers were part of a recent documentary episode of Discovery Channel’s Expedition Unknown. Host and executive producer Josh Gates had the opportunity to film cameras inside the bunkers, which have remained intact for the past 75 years.