Landmines left by warfare pose a daily, deadly threat for millions of people across Asia and Africa. Once any peace accord is signed, the removal of mines and other explosives is a critical first step to building safety and stability in a former conflict zone. How that work is organized—and how communities are involved— can help shape the peace that follows. On April 25, USIP and HALO Trust, one of the world’s largest demining organizations, gathered experts for a discussion on the implications and results of demining.

Over the past 20 years, casualties worldwide from land mines have steadily declined, largely because of the global treaty banning them. But that progress is not secure. The most recent years’ surge in warfare has led to a spike in those killed or injured by mines and other explosive remnants of war. In 2015, more than 6,000 people were casualties, a 75 percent increase from the previous year and the highest toll since 2006.

The imperative to remove mines is simple, but the work and its implications are not. The recent years’ shift from mass-produced mines to “improvised explosive devices” now complicates demining campaigns from Iraq to Afghanistan to Colombia. And the demining of Colombia reflects a new opportunity for well-planned peace processes that emphasize the inclusion of all groups. Can Colombia’s demining effort strengthen stability and peace by involving communities, minorities, women, war victims—or even demobilized fighters?

USIP and HALO Trust held this discussion—and a Defense Department exhibition of demining technology. The department’s Humanitarian Demining Research and Development Program featured an array of unique lifesaving tools from the high-tech push-cart known as EMPACT to the “Minehound”—a handheld device that uses ground-penetrating radar—to a few of the department’s own mine-sniffing dogs. 

In addition to the Department of Defense and Halo Trust, the exhibition included the following guests: MAG International, Legacies of War, Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement (WRA), James Madison University Center for International Stabilization and Recovery and the Marshall Legacy Institute.

A recording of the event can be found on this event page.

Agenda

1:00 - 1:15 Opening Remarks: Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace

1:15pm - 2:30pm - Panel 1: Demining & Fragile States

  • Joseph Pennington, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq, U.S. Department of State   
  • Daniel Avila, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Colombia (former Director of the Colombian demining authority)
  • Ambassador Sorin Ducaru, Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, NATO
  • Dr. Ken Rutherford, Director, Center for International Stabilization and Recovery, James Madison University
  • Moderator: Paul Hughes, Special Advisor and Director, Overseas Safety and Security, U.S. Institute of Peace

3:00pm - 4:15pm - Panel 2: Demining and Security

  • Jerry Guilbert, Deputy Director for Programs, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, U.S. Department of State 
  • Agnès Marcaillou, Director, U.N. Mine Action Service
  • Dr. Virginia Bouvier, Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace (Demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants – Colombia)
  • Moderator: Dr. Ken Rutherford, Director, Center for International Stabilization and Recovery, James Madison University

4:15pm - 5:30pm - Panel 3: The Future Challenges of Unconventional Conflicts

  • Maj-Gen James Cowan, CEO, The HALO Trust
  • Mark Swayne, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability & Humanitarian Affairs, U. S. Department of Defense
  • Maj-Gen Michael Rothstein, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State,  U. S. Department of State
  • Carla Koppell, Vice President, Applied Conflict Transformation, U. S. Institute of Peace
  • Moderator: Steven Costner, Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, U.S. Department of State

Related Publications

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: Alex Thier

While the negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban were recently thrown-off course, a peace agreement among Afghans remains an urgent priority. The U.S.-led negotiations over a phased drawdown of U.S. troops in exchange for a Taliban commitment to eschew terrorism and engage in intra-Afghan negotiations took nearly a year. Yet these talks excluded the Afghan government and other political elites and didn’t address the fundamental question of what it will take for Afghans to put a sustainable end to four decades of war: how will power be shared?

Peace Processes

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: William Byrd

As the United States has pursued peace talks with the Taliban, international discussions continue on the economic aid that will be vital to stabilizing Afghanistan under any peace deal. Yet the Afghan government has been mostly absent from this dialogue, an exclusion exemplified this week by a meeting of the country’s main donors to strategize on aid—with Afghan officials left out. The government’s marginalization, in large part self-inflicted, is a danger to the stabilization and development of Afghanistan. In the interests of Afghans, stability in the region and U.S. hopes for a sustainable peace, this rift in the dialogue on aid needs to be repaired.

Economics & Environment

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

By: USIP Staff; Andrew Wilder

President Trump’s weekend announcement of a halt to U.S. peace talks with Afghanistan’s Taliban—including a previously unannounced U.S. plan for a Camp David meeting to conclude that process—leaves the future of the Afghanistan peace process unclear. USIP’s Andrew Wilder, a longtime Afghanistan analyst, argues that, rather than declaring an end to the peace process, U.S. negotiators could use the setback as a moment to clarify the strategy, and then urgently get the peace process back on track before too much momentum is lost.

Peace Processes

Breaking, Not Bending: Afghan Elections Require Institutional Reform

Breaking, Not Bending: Afghan Elections Require Institutional Reform

Friday, August 30, 2019

By: Scott Smith; Staffan Darnolf

Afghanistan’s presidential election is scheduled to take place on September 28. In planning the election, the Independent Election Commission (IEC) must overcome a number of practical challenges to avoid repeating the mistakes of the 2018 parliamentary elections—elections that undermined the legitimacy of the state and reduced Afghans’ confidence in democracy as a means for selecting their leaders. Based on a careful analysis of the IEC’s performance during the 2018 elections, this report offers recommendations for creating more resilient electoral institutions in Afghanistan and other postconflict countries.

Democracy & Governance

View All Publications