Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Robert Beecroft says the United States has been working with governments and non-governmental organizations on humanitarian demining efforts since 1993 "to eliminate the scourge of land mines wherever possible."

During a March 3 broadcast of a U.S. Information Agency WorldNet program to Lima, Quito and Ottawa, Beecroft noted that the U.S. contribution of more than $270 million toward demining programs over the past five years "is by far the largest contribution of any country in the world." The United States is committing another $100 million to assist some 25 nations this year.

U.S. Special Representative to the President and Secretary of State for Global Humanitarian Demining Donald Steinberg, who appeared on the program with Beecroft, says that part of the solution to the problem of eliminating the mine threat to civilians within the next decade lies in mine education programs, support for Mine Action Centers, and assistance to the 300,000 existing victims. The complete solution, however, he said, "lies in a global coalition united to fight these weapons."

Following is the unofficial transcript of the WorldNet program:

(begin transcript)

WORLDNET "DIALOGUE" UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY Television and Film Service of Washington, D.C.

GUESTS: Ambassador Donald Steinberg, Special Representative to the President and the Secretary of State for Global Humanitarian De-mining Robert Beecroft (sp), Deputy Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs, U.S. State Department

TOPIC: Global Humanitarian De-mining

POSTS: Lima, Quito, Ottawa

HOST: Ivan Silva Acuna

DATE: March 3, 1999 TIME: 13:00 - 14:00 EST

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Hello, and I'm Ivan Silva Acuna. Welcome to Worldnet's "Dialogue." Many people, mostly in the developing world, face the daily threat of being killed or maimed by the thousands and millions of abandoned land mines.

These hidden killers have claimed about 26,000 casualties each year. Because most land mines are long-lived and very difficult to detect, they continue to remain a threat to civilian populations.

The United States and the European Commission have joined forces to work together on a wide range of technological initiatives to help remove by the year 2010 all of the land mines. As we all know, every mine removed from the ground is potentially another child saved.

Joining us to discuss these issues today are Ambassador Donald Steinberg, special representative of the president and the secretary of state for global humanitarian de-mining; and Mr. Robert Beecroft, deputy assistant secretary of State for political military affairs. Welcome to Worldnet's "Dialogue," both of you.

We are going to begin this program on de-mining with the participation of the United States and Europe. What would you like to tell us, Mr. Ambassador?

AMB. STEINBERG: Mr. Silva Acuna, it's an honor to be here today to talk about the global humanitarian de-mining programs of the United States and other countries. I am charged in my current responsibility with overseeing the president's de-mining 2010 initiative, which has as its basic goal eliminating the threat of land mines to civilians around the world within the next decade. Land mines have been an everyday part of my life for the better part of this decade. I first went to Africa, serving as the president's special assistant for Africa, in 1994, and traveled to some of the most mine-affected countries, including Mozambique, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Angola. And in Angola we went to a small village, Kweto (ph), which had been destroyed by three decades of civil war. And as we walked into a clinic in Kweto (ph), we saw a woman on an operating table who was having her leg removed and giving birth at the same time. We later heard the story that she was seven months pregnant, had been starving, walked into a mango grove, which she knew was mined, but she decided to go into the grove anyway to get food. She stepped on a land mine. The mine stimulated labor, and she probably -- neither she nor her child would survive that accident.

Later, serving as American ambassador to Angola for three and a half years, I witnessed the everyday tragedy of these weapons. In Angola there are 80,000 amputees from land mine accidents. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have been driven from their homes. And the entire country of 10 to 11 million people suffers the economic, environmental and psychological degradation of these weapons. And it was for that reason that I was so pleased when the president asked me to be his special representative for global humanitarian de-mining.

Under our global program, we have dedicated about $270 million over the last five years, and an additional $100 million this year to assisting 25 countries around the world on a whole variety of programs -- mine awareness programs to teach children and their parents about how to identify and avoid these weapons; assistance to countries who have put together mine action centers, to enable them to address the problems of land mines; assistance to groups that are doing victim assistance. And there are about 300,000 victims of these accidents around the world, and they need not only medical support and prosthetic devices, but they also need psychological and rehabilitative integration assistance.

All these programs work with the United Nations, with the host countries, with our European allies, and a variety of other parties to these difficulties. Clearly this is only part of the solution. The full solution to the problem of eliminating the threat of land mines to civilians by the year 2010 lies in a global coalition united to fight these weapons. Thank you.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Mr. Beecroft, can you describe the cooperation among countries to de-mine?

MR. BEECROFT: Well, thank you very much. First, it's a pleasure to be here. The work that I do and the work that Ambassador Steinberg does are directly complementary in the United States' effort to work with countries around the world with the goal of eliminating land mines that are a threat to people by the year 2010.

My experience is somewhat similar to that of Ambassador Steinberg. I served as our deputy chief of embassy in Jordan, and then went as our chief of embassy in Sarajevo. In both countries I was able to experience the tragedy, the human tragedy that is a result of land mines everyday around the world.

I now am the chair of the group in the U.S. government that works to actually come up with practical solutions on the ground in countries around the world to the problem of de-mining. As Ambassador Steinberg mentioned, our assistance, which began in 1993, supports humanitarian de-mining programs working with governments, and also working with non-governmental organizations to eliminate the scourge of land mines wherever possible. More than $270 million -- it is by far the largest contribution of any country in the world. We also support assistance to the victims of land mines and other war-related casualties through the Patrick J. Leahy War Victims Fund. And the United States has provided almost $46 million to that fund since it began 10 years ago.

We depend on funds from the United States Congress, and in some cases we work, as I said, in cooperation with non-governmental organizations which have their own sources of funding. Each year we determine how much money and to what countries that money will go on an annual basis, depending on how ready they are to implement de-mining programs -- the actual removal of mines from the ground. We want to see practical progress in as many countries as possible.

Although our funding is considerable, it is not without limits. So every year we have to decide on a case-by-case basis what countries are ready to work with us in ways that will make life for the people in those countries better, and without the risk of land mines.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Thank you very much. And we will now welcome our participants who are standing by in line in Lima, Quito and Ottawa. We will go first to Lima, Peru. In Lima, go ahead please.

Q: Hello, my name is Isabelle Sacco (ph). I am the editor-in-chief of a daily newspaper, El Sol, in Lima, and I would like to ask both of the panelists if they believe that the cooperation of the United States to help in de-mining should be filtered through multilateral organizations -- in our case the Organization of American States -- or should it be given directly to governments that have shown real ability and interest to use the funds appropriately?

MR. BEECROFT: Well, I can say that we have had success in both areas. In fact, our program of cooperation with the OAS has been highly successful, and it also helps to broaden the scope and the range beyond single countries in a region. Where an organization such as the Organization of American States shows both the interest and the capacity to help in this endeavor, we think that a regional focus is a good one. Not all areas in the world, however, have the advantage of the Americas in having an organization like the OAS. In those cases, as I said earlier, we work with individual countries. But in short, we don't see it as either-or; we see it as both, depending on the circumstances in a given region.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Yes, thank you. And we go to Ottawa now to continue this dialogue on de-mining.

We have participants from Ecuador and Peru standing by. Those two countries, as you know, have recently reached a border agreement and are now working together, and are in fact working on the delicate task of de-mining in the border area. What has been the reaction of the two countries as they join this campaign to deactivate mines in that zone?

AMB. STEINBERG: I think the United States has stepped forward as a guarantor of the peace agreement between Peru and Ecuador to assist the process of demarcation and de-mining of that border area. When I was in Mexico City in the middle of January I had an opportunity to talk with the representatives of both Peru and Ecuador about what their requirements were. And a multi-agency team has just returned from that border area. We announced in Mexico City our intention to provide substantial amounts of resources to assist that process, and I believe that this is just one example of the United States using its resources to support individuals who are standing up for peace and national reconciliation. In Central America as well, countries are moving beyond the conflict of the past. And regrettably land mines are a lasting legacy, and for that reason we have been very pleased to work through the OAS, through the Inter-American Defense Board, to support a whole variety of programs in Central America that indeed operate under Mr. Beecroft's aegis.

MR. BEECROFT: Let me say first that we are proud and we congratulate both Ecuador and Peru for having ended their hostilities and signed a peace treaty which has now been ratified. This is a remarkable, and we think a praiseworthy step in their own bilateral relations and in setting an example for many parts of the world where conflicts continue.

As Ambassador Steinberg pointed out, an American team recently visited both countries -- that was in February. Another team will be visiting both countries in April to take this on to its next step, which will be to determine the exact requirements that are needed in both states.

I can also note that Congress approved $500,000 in fiscal year '99 money for each country, and the Department of Defense separately has allocated $100,000 for each country, which means that we will be allotting $600,000 each to Ecuador and Peru for the start-up activities which will lead -- which will lead to a considerable and eventual complete de-mining of the border region.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Very interesting, because there is a great deal of trade activity in that border zone.

We'll go back to Lima now to continue this dialogue. Lima, go ahead please.

Q: (Inaudible) -- speaking. We'd be interested to know why the United States has not signed the Ottawa convention to bar the use of personnel land mines. I understand that there are very concrete situations and arguments -- for example, the U.S. position in Korea. But you are also at the same time providing international assistance of great value. But when will the United States assume a formal juridical position on anti-personnel mines through the Ottawa convention?

MR. BEECROFT: This is of course a question that is posed frequently to us. And you are absolutely right, Ms. Sacco (ph) that our concern is focused on Korea.

There are responsibilities that come to a world power -- sometimes these are responsibilities that we wish were not there, because if they were not there we would be able to sign the treaty. But the fact is the United States, as a world power and a world leader, is committed to the defense of South Korea in the face of a very difficult situation. Nonetheless, we remain committed to eliminating the humanitarian crisis caused by anti-personnel land mines throughout the world, and we are continuing to work toward a mine-free world.

We will end all use of anti-personnel land mines outside of Korea by the year 2003, and we are seeking to have alternatives to anti-personnel land mines ready also for Korea by 2006. While we cannot guarantee the technology that would produce an alternative, I can assure you that we are working strenuously to come up with a satisfactory technology.

I would add that we have already destroyed three and a half million non-self-destructing anti-personnel land mines. These are the types that can last for decades, and which cause humanitarian problems when used irresponsibly. We will keep only those non-self-destructing land mines needed to defend Korea and for training.

So, in sum, we will sign the Ottawa convention by the year 2006 if we succeed in finding an alternative to the systems that we now use. And we are working aggressively to identify such alternatives.

AMB. STEINBERG: I would simply add to that here in Washington on Monday, when the Ottawa treaty entered into force, we had the opportunity to sit down with a number of land mine victims at the White House. There were a dozen people who had been injured in wars going all the way back to World War II, and extending forward to Bosnia, where one young American peacekeeper regrettably stepped on a mine which caused his legs to be amputated.

It is a very emotional experience to sit down with individuals who have been injured by these weapons. What we had to explain to them is that the types of land mines that the United States is now using are not the problem. These are land mines which are self-destructing, everywhere except in Korea, which means that after a certain period of time -- and it's usually a question of a few hours -- they destruct. And if in the rare cases they do not destruct their battery goes dead within the question of a few days. We have never had worldwide a civilian victim of an American self-destructing land mine. The only exception to that use is in Korea. And in Korea our land mines are in the demilitarized zone. Civilians do not go into the demilitarized zone. We believe that they are essential there. And so we understand greatly the deep emotion that surrounds this issue. But I would say that the United States is part of the solution to this problem.

Q: Isabelle Sacco (ph) speaking in Lima. In your analysis of the countries most affected by anti-personnel mines, where do Ecuador and Peru stand? The degree of severity of the problem in those two countries relative to others?

MR. BEECROFT: Well, as I said before, Ecuador and Peru are moving in exactly the right direction to eliminate this problem, and we are proud to be working with them.

Now, with the money that is available, both now and in future years, we will be working with the government of Ecuador, specifically for a bilateral assistance program, and we will be providing a long-term de-mining training program.

In the case of Peru, the army of Peru is assuming all responsibility for its de-mining, and we are pleased to be cooperating with the de-miners of Peru.

I would say that to answer your specific question, the problem of Ecuador and Peru was one that we took very seriously, and one that had great significance, because of the fact that South America generally is an area which has perhaps less serious a mining crisis than other parts of the world. And I think for example of Africa, the Middle East or Korea. So if this is an area in which we can contribute to eliminating mines on a large scale, again Latin America can serve as a model to much of the rest of the world.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Did you want to add something, Mr. Ambassador?

AMB. STEINBERG: I would simply add that if you look at it as Mr. Beecroft said, as a question of the number of mines, or their potential humanitarian impact, certainly the problem on the border of Peru and Ecuador is less important. However, it is one of those very important cases where cooperation in the demarcation and de-mining of that border can serve as a confidence-building measure, and can put to end definitively any conflict in that area. And so it has a political significance that goes well beyond the absolute threat to humanitarian concerns. We have 60 million -- at least -- land mines planted around the world in some 70 countries. In Angola, where I served as ambassador, we have probably about five million land mines planted in the entire country, and regrettably it appears that even more are being planted today. That degree of concern has prompted us to engage in a long-term effort in Angola. The hope is that in Peru and in Ecuador we can assist those governments to go in, eliminate the problem and proceed with their reconciliation.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Thank you. We will now try to contact Ottawa, which is in fact the site of the anti-personnel mine convention, ratified by 67 countries, signed by 34. Go ahead please in Ottawa.

Q: Good afternoon from Ottawa. Let me say first of all that we joined the program just a few minutes late, so we missed Ambassador Steinberg's remarks. I certainly won't ask him to repeat them, but if he could fold into his responses perhaps some of the points he made in his introductory remarks, we would certainly be grateful in Ottawa.

But with that proviso, I'd pass on to our first question.

Q: My name is Ken Paul (ph). I write for a medical post. The prime readership is physicians. I prepared for this news conference by watching a one-hour video on what Canadian forces personnel have been doing in various parts of the world on mine-clearing programs. And one thing that struck me was that the lucky ones, or the lucky victims, are the ones that are killed, the one that don't arrive in hospital, because there is a long-term health impact on the infrastructure, the hospitals, the physicians, the treatment staff, and beyond that long-term rehabilitation. I am wondering if you have any sense of what that cost is to various countries' economies in Europe, Central and South America.

AMB. STEINBERG: The specific question obviously depends upon which country that we are dealing with. In a country like Cambodia it is estimated that if a member of your family is injured through a land mine accident, 150 percent of the family income from then on is dedicated to assisting not only the medical, but also the social and psychological reintegration of an individual. Obviously it's a tremendous cost.

The medical side of this issue is one that we've paid a lot of attention to, both through the Patrick J. Leahy War Victims Fund and through other parts of our government. The Department of Education, for example, has funded substantial research and development prosthetic devices which are engaged in appropriate technology so that they can be used by victims in some of the poorest countries. We are also considering some proposals to link up through telemedicine the various care-givers, and essentially the first care-givers, so that the knowledge that we have worldwide can be applied literally on the front lines.

Additionally, we are working with groups like the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, Medikosh (ph) from Germany, Handicapped International, and the Physicians Against Land Mines on other programs to extend the knowledge that we have, and in many cases developed for military uses. And I am sure that's the case in Canada as well -- and expanding that to the more than 300,000 victims of land mine accidents. Again, as our moderator said, there are about 26,000 accidents each year, but cumulatively that has added up to about 300,000 victims around the world, and they do represent a tremendous economic cost to countries that simply can't afford it.

MR. BEECROFT: I'd just like to add, based on my experience in the Balkans, that the whole question of medical follow-up to land mine victims is one that we are paying increasing attention to. I can point out, for example, that the Slovenian de-mining trust fund, which is going to be assuming a considerable amount of the funding responsibility for de-mining operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, also concerns itself with medical follow-up. And I could point out in that respect that the hospitals in Slovenia are experienced, sad to say, in prosthetics, and that a number of land mine victims from Bosnia are already in Ljubljana in the process of rehabilitation.

Another area in which we have focused increasingly in the Balkans is the question of insurance for de-miners. Sad to say, this is something that is absolutely essential if we are going to find people who will actually be willing to go out and search for mines. And I'd like to pay tribute to Canada's role in actually helping to fund this insurance in ways that have advanced de-mining in the Balkans.

Q: I would like to know whether the White House and/or Congress has come under any pressure from the American Medical Association to act, notwithstanding the considerations in Korea in the DMZ, to act more immediately on a ban of production -- never mind a ban on exports, which you have implemented, a ban on production of land mines.

AMB. STEINBERG: The group, Physicians Against Land Mines, is a part of the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines, which has urged the administration to immediately sign onto the Oslo convention. We are working indeed closely with them on a whole variety of programs, and we are funding their activities. But they nonetheless believe that American signature of the Ottawa convention would be an important element as well. So the short answer is yes.

Q: I'm Ken Paul (ph) again. I'm going to move away from the medical aspect with another question. The cost of clearing land mines from areas has been evaluated to be as much as $1,000 a unit. The cost of an efficient stockpile destruction process would be about a dollar a mine. While the stockpiled mines don't present an immediate threat to civilians that laid mines do, their destruction would rapidly decreases the magnitude of the potential threat facing civilians. Stockpile destruction would at least make it more difficult to replace lifted mines in areas of conflict. And given that, would the U.S. be supportive of stockpile destruction program assistance?

MR. BEECROFT: Well, the answer is yes, we are supportive of it. The problem from our own point of view is the restrictions placed on funding by the U.S. Congress, which has made it clear that our own funding is to be devoted specifically to removing land mines from the ground.

We -- I had interesting talks in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, and we discussed ways that we might be able to look more creatively at means of getting to stockpiles. I was in Moldova last month, where there are between 50,- and 60,000 tons of old Soviet-era munitions, including land mines, rusting away on the ground. And I can only agree with the point that it makes a lot of sense to try to get to the land mines that are a part of that stockpile before they get into the ground. And I am optimistic that we will find ways to make this more a part of our future priorities and activities.

AMB. STEINBERG: If I can add, we were very pleased that the memorandum of understanding that was reached between President Kuchma and Prime Minister Chretien regarding Canadian assistance to the Ukraine. We have had a number of discussions in that regard. The logic, as Deputy Assistant Secretary Beecroft has said, of destroying land mines before they ever enter the ground is very clear. In Angola we were engaged in a long-term exercise to destroy the stockpiles that both the government and UNITA held of land mines. And indeed when Secretary Christopher visited Angola he personally pressed the button that destroyed tons of land mines as a symbol of reconciliation and American support for that effort. And I entirely share Mr. Beecroft's views that we should indeed find a way to creatively work with countries around the world who are interested in doing the same things.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Thank you, Ottawa, for such interesting comments and questions. We'll continue our dialogue now going back to Quito, Ecuador. Go ahead please.

Q: My name is Francisco Werta (ph) from -- (inaudible) -- Expresso daily newspaper. Again, Francisco Werta (ph) of the daily newspaper Expresso in Quito, Ecuador. Greetings to both the panelists in Washington and in Ottawa.

I was a member of the peace negotiating mission in mutual security confidence-building measures for Peru, and mining of course was an important subject. Peru wanted to deal with de-mining after the signing of the peace treaty. And I do understand the situation of the mines in Korea and how unique it is, so I don't want to go back to that. But as have physicians and mentioned of the convention of Ottawa -- I am thinking of the convention on the promotion on health, and I think that we cannot continue to act as we do and sometimes talk about nutrition in towns and villages where there is no safe drinking water. So we have to of course provide assistance to those who are injured to deactivate existing mines, but it would be wise not to place any of the mines that have already been manufactured and to destroy them. And even if the United States cannot sign the convention or remove the mines from Korea, then at least to join in a campaign not to make mines -- China, the United States and others continue to make mines. And the situation in Iraq may be difficult, but I think if the rest of the countries of the world committed not to making any further mines, that would go a long way towards achieving the goals of the convention of Ottawa. What do you think is the likelihood of such an undertaking?

MR. BEECROFT: The United States does not -- is not a major manufacturer of mines. The United States in general is committed by now to manufacturing only non-self-destructing anti-personnel mines used entirely for our purposes. We don't export them. And I would agree that our goal -- and not a long-term goal -- should be to cease manufacturing mines altogether.

Let me remind you again that the United States is committed to do everything it can to have alternatives to mines ready in Korea, which is the one country where, as we have said, we still need them, and to sign onto the Ottawa convention as soon as possible. And furthermore, Ambassador Steinberg has pointed out that President Clinton's de-mining 2010 initiative has a goal to remove all mines that threaten civilians. Obviously it would not be consistent and not logical to continue manufacturing mines under those circumstances.

Q: Hello, this question is for Ambassador Steinberg. My name is Simone Espinosa (ph). I am a journalist with the weekly news magazine -- (inaudible) -- in Quito, Ecuador. First I want to thank you for the forthcoming assistance from the United States to deactivate mines in the border area between Peru and Ecuador, which is very important to us.

My question is this: Hearing the ambassador comment about the self-destructive mines used by the United States, are we to infer that the mines that have been placed in Central America, and specifically in El Salvador and Nicaragua, that some of them are not self-destructing, and that those were the ones placed by the Sandinistas and the -- (inaudible) -- guerrillas, and that those placed by the U.S. military in El Salvador are self-destructing? I am not sure if I understood correctly.

AMB. STEINBERG: I'm talking essentially from now on. Clearly there are mines in Central America that are not self-destructing. Indeed if they are self-destructing they would be gone now, because in general these weapons have a very limited life -- a question of a matter of hours, and not even days.

There are still land mines in Central America, regrettably. And our effort to eliminate those land mines has been complicated dramatically by Hurricane Mitch, which has unfortunately destroyed a fair amount of the equipment that we have provided through the OAS, as well as actually moved land mines. And the waters that came with Hurricane Mitch in some cases have moved land mines 25 miles from where we knew they were to other areas. And we have had some accidents because of that.

The only land mines that the United States uses outside of Korea, or would use outside of Korea, are associated with our anti-tank systems. And I am going to go into some detail on this, and please forgive me. But we use anti-tank weapons, which are legal under the Ottawa treaty, and many countries indeed use them, which include an anti-personnel submunition. And basically in the middle is the anti-tank mine, and surrounding it is a series of anti-personnel weapons. These are intended to prevent a foreign military from deactivating the anti-tank weapons. They are in effect a booby trap. They last, as I said, only a question of hours. Their attempt is not to leave the weapons there permanently but to temporarily halt a deactivation.

We are attempting to come up with an alternative to these. One of the proposals that we are investigating that has great promise is what we call the "man in the loop" approach, whereby instead of these anti-personnel sub-munitions actually exploding they would simply send off a sensor, which would go to another individual who would have to determine exactly what is going on on the ground. And, as I said before, we have never had a case of a self-destructing land mine hurting a civilian anywhere in the world in the entire period that these were used.

Q: This is Francisco Werta (ph) from Expresso newspaper. I also want to thank you, as Mr. Espinosa has done, for the help of the United States to deactivate the mines in the Ecuador-Peru border zone. But I would like to bring up something. I want to mention civilians, and of course the military are also exposed. What sort of plans are there for humanitarian aid for the rehabilitation not only of civilians but of military personnel who have suffered serious injury because of these mines.

MR. BEECROFT: I don't know, and can't tell you what specific plans there are. But I can tell you that we are working closely with the government of Ecuador and the government of Peru, and I would think that as part of the dialogue that we are having with your government and the government of Peru, any concerns that have to do with rehabilitation and dealing with care of victims should be part of our discussion.

I mentioned that we are sending a team which will conduct what we call a requirement determination cite survey. They will be visiting your country within the next month, and this certainly should be a topic on the agenda. It certainly is an issue that matters in human terms and that we will want to take into account.

Q: This is Simon Espinosa (ph) speaking, and I have a question for Mr. Beecroft. My question has to do with the ethical dimension, which has been partly addressed by your comments on the self-destructing mines. But what justifies an anti-military or anti-personnel land mine, and what justifies an anti-civilian land mine? Are these justifiable in the case of land mines that are not self-destructive, because they might kill a civilian or military person, but in either case they are killing a human being? And because the answer might seem obvious, I have another question.

You mentioned the personnel who take on the high risk of deactivating mines, the security personnel. I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about the costs of those undertakings, and is there a special compensation for this kind of hero? Is there any sort of medal or special award given to those who undertake this very dangerous job?

MR. BEECROFT: Well, you know, I taught for six years with the Jesuits, and when you get into the ethical questions, I am tempted to go on at some length. I will avoid that, and simply say that we are talking obviously about a weapon of war. There is no ethical justification for a land mine injuring a civilian. Unfortunately land mines are not selective.

One of the phenomena of war in the 20th century has been that, unlike the past, more civilians have been killed than military. We are in a new era of war-making, which sad to say affects noncombatants more than it affects combatants. Land mines are part of this larger tragedy, and that is why we have to deal with it globally, which is what we are trying to do. Nothing justifies the taking of a life, but a land mine is a weapon of war. And, as I say, the unfortunate thing is that land mines too often in the past have been put into the ground and forgotten. That's certainly true in Bosnia, where they were actually used by local peasants and farmers to try to protect their own fields, in the thought that eventually they would come back. In many cases they have not come back. Others have tried to till those fields and have lost limbs or have lost their lives.

As far as deactivators and the cost, I don't know about special compensation or special rewards. What I can say is this: our programs around the world are not designed to remove mines ourselves; they are designed to train local governments, local militaries, to remove the mines that have been planted in the ground in those countries. That was the approach which we took in Ecuador and Peru; it's the approach we take worldwide. It is up to the countries concerned, the host countries, to recognize the brave efforts of those who go out into the fields and actually try to remove the mines. And I am sure that in Ecuador and Peru this kind of recognition is being considered -- it certainly should be.

As for the costs, Ambassador Steinberg has already mentioned -- or it might have been one of the questioners who mentioned the relative cost of dealing with the mine before it goes into the ground and dealing with the mine after.

I could add to that cost the insurance that I mentioned before, and the cost of the health care that victims have to receive. These are very high costs -- thousands and thousands of dollars for a single mine. And that's why we are all working towards the goal of eliminating the scourge of anti-personnel land mines.

AMB. STEINBERG: If I could add maybe two elements here. On the question of the ethics, regrettably what we are seeing today is more and more use of these weapons not necessarily by governments but by insurgent groups. And there is an effort by these groups to use land mines to sow disorder. I referred previously to mines that had been previously planted in Angola around food sources, knowing that the citizens were suffering malnutrition, knowing that individuals would go into mangroves and other food areas, specifically designed to cause disorder. There is nothing that could ever ethically justify that sort of behavior.

The other point I wanted to make is that we are talking a lot about the theory regarding land mines. We are talking a lot about the problems of land mines. But let me say clearly that there are some success stories out there. As we look around the world, the humanitarian de-mining efforts supported by the United States, working with the United Nations and others, have reduced by 90 percent the land mine victims in Cambodia over the course of the last decade. Previously there were about 5,000 land mine victims per year in Cambodia. Today that figure is probably down to about 500. In Afghanistan, despite the chaos that often reigns in that country, we have seen literally tens of thousands of hectares of arable land returned to cultivation. In Mozambique, 6,000 kilometers of roads have been cleared of land mines, thus permitting literally hundreds of thousands of displaced people and refugees to return to their homes. Regrettably there are other cases where we haven't seen that kind of progress.

But I think the most important thing for us to remember is that this is not an unresolvable problem. And indeed both the Ottawa convention and the president's de-mining 2010 initiative are hopeful elements which say that within the next decade, if the international community devotes the kind of resources we need, we can eliminate the threat of land mines to civilians. This involves de-mining, but it also involves mine awareness and mine avoidance programs. It involves mine mapping, detection, and it involves assistance to the survivors of land mine accidents.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Thank you very much in Quito. We are going to go back to Lima, Peru to continue the discussion. Go ahead please.

Q: This is Isabelle Sacca (ph) in Lima. I want to follow-up on some of the earlier questions of the panelists in Quito. We are very interested to know specifically what sort of assistance the United States plans to provide to this process. Will the $600,000 be used for technical assistance, equipment, or direct financing through governments, for them to use to decide how best to allocate to government agencies and how to undertake this task? And we would also like to know whether that assistance has a schedule of disbursement that has already been determined or will it go along with needs as they arise.

MR. BEECROFT: Right. As I mentioned before, the army of Peru is currently assuming all responsibility for de-mining in your country, and we are therefore working with that army. Peruvian army de-miners who have experience in counter-mine operations are currently engaged in what we call phase one or basic de-mining in areas along the border with Ecuador, and will then place border markers as part of that process.

Peru is still in the planning process for the more general and much more difficult phase two de-mining of larger areas where mines were planted. I gather that Peru is most interested in procuring additional protective clothing and mine-detection equipment, as well as equipment and explosives that would be used to destroy mines. Peru has also expressed interest in obtaining long-term de-mining training and the possibility of establishing a mine-detecting dog program.

De-mining, let's face it, is going to be very difficult in the area where the mines are located. The climate is rainy, the soil is rocky, the vegetation is thick. But your government believes, and we support this, that with international support de-mining and placing border markers could be completed within the next two or three months.

There are at present no non-governmental organizations engaged in de-mining activities in Peru, but in addition to the United States Canada, Spain and Japan are also offering de-mining assistance to Peru.

Canada has plans to acquire 50,000 U.S. dollars worth of Canadian protective de-mining suits this month, and Spain is also providing Peru with $350,000 worth of de-mining equipment.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Thank you in Lima, and we go back to Ottawa now to continue the discussion. Go ahead please.

Q: Ken Paul (ph) again. Ambassador, you've talked quite a lot about national and multinational organizations and their role in the de-mining process. There is quite a bit of private sector, apart from the Leahy Foundation you mentioned earlier, a lot of private sector involvement. I wonder if you might give us some details on that.

AMB. STEINBERG: Well, there are two aspects to that question. First is private companies that are involved in either the de-mining process itself or in the production of equipment for de-mining. And in many cases countries around the world have preferred not to develop an internal indigenous capacity to de-mine, and they have preferred to simply go out and hire an international de-mining company, and there are a number of these around. That is a rational approach in cases where there is a specific problem, but not an endemic pattern of mining.

Additionally, around the United States, as well as around Europe, elsewhere in the Western hemisphere, there are a number of companies that are producing equipment and engaged in research and development of new de-mining technology. We are encouraging that. Indeed we have a program through our Department of Defense whereby we are testing the facilities that are provided by these companies, and doing that in the soil conditions of specific countries.

But in addition to that, the United States government is working very closely with a number of American groups that are right in the middle of this issue. There is a very interesting program that the United Nations Association of the U.S.A., and an institute called the Humpty-Dumpty Institute are conducting, whereby 75 schools, churches and other groups around the United States have actually adopted mine fields. What they are doing is spending perhaps $25,000 or more of money that they are raising to de-mine a mine field in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Cambodia or Mozambique. We also have our D.C. Comics, which is Superman and Wonder Woman, that has produced a comic book for mine awareness for Central America in which these two super heroes assist the children of that region to understand what mines are all about and how to avoid them. We also have a very exciting program working with the Marshall Legacy Institute whereby we are training dogs. This is called the canine corps. And, for what it's worth, our best scientists have spent a considerable amount of money trying to replicate the nose of a dog, and we can't do it so far. And so we are working to train more and more dogs who have a unique capacity to go out and do mine detection.

And let me say, because I always get the question, our Humane Society of the United States strongly supports the use of dogs in de-mining, in part because whereas 25,000, 26,000 people are hurt by these weapons each year, more than a half million animals are also hurt by these weapons each year. And so we have these types of programs and others working with our private sector.

Q: (Inaudible) -- speaking in Quito. I think that everything that we have been talking about falls within the context of humanitarian international law that is to protect the environment, anti-drug, to ensure that neither civilians nor military personnel are injured by mines. But this is a question -- for example, an International Court of Justice, the United States has been opposed to that position -- how would you respond to that?

MR. BEECROFT: Could you perhaps rephrase the question? What exactly is the United States supposed to be opposed to?

Q: The establishment of an International Court of Justice. For example, a great deal has been written about this since the Pinochet case has been talked about in the press.

MR. BEECROFT: Let me say this: In addition to the Ottawa convention, which as I think you understand we support the goals of, the United States also is already a signatory -- although we have yet to ratify -- the amended mines protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

We are pressing in a number of areas for international cooperation. I do not think, however, that the International Court of Justice, at this point anyway, has the expertise to address these issues in ways that we would find satisfactory.

MR. SILVA ACUNA: Unfortunately we are out of time. We have been talking about humanitarian mine deactivation with Ambassador Steinberg, secretary of State for demining, and Mr. Robert Beecroft, deputy assistant secretary for political military affairs. Thank you, Lima, Quito and Ottawa. Thank you.

(end unofficial transcript)