Updated June 28, 2022
U.S. Antipersonnel Landmine Use Policy
Current United States Policy on Anti-
adopted the Ottawa Convention text; the treaty entered into
Personnel Landmines (APLs)
force in 1999. The Clinton Administration declined to sign
On June 21, 2022, National Security Council (NSC)
the Ottawa Convention, arguing then that the agreement
Spokesperson Adrienne Watson announced that the United
would preclude U.S. use of APLs in the DMZ.
States will “align its policy concerning use” of
antipersonnel landmines (APLs) “outside of the Korean
In February 2004, the George W. Bush Administration
Peninsula with key provisions” of The Convention on the
announced the United States would use persistent APLs
Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and
only in the DMZ until 2010, after which the United States
Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.
would not use such mines anywhere. The Bush
Commonly known as the Ottawa Convention, the treaty
Administration also indicated that the United States would
requires states parties to stop the production, use, and
develop alternatives to persistent landmines.
transfer of APLs, as well as destroy all stockpiled APLs,
except for the “minimum number absolutely necessary” for
Following a review of U.S. policy regarding APLs, the
training purposes. The Biden Administration arrived at this
Barack Obama Administration announced several changes
decision after conducting a “comprehensive policy review,”
to that policy. A National Security Council spokesperson
according to a June 21 White House fact sheet.
stated in June 2014 that the United States would not in the
future “produce or otherwise acquire any” APLs, including
Background
for the purpose of replacing expiring stockpiles. The
Following the 1991 end of the Cold War, a number of
Department of State noted in December 2014 that the
governments began to question the utility of APLs in light
United States was “pursuing solutions that would be
of increasing civilian and U.N. peacekeeper casualties
compliant” with the Ottawa Convention and that would
resulting from abandoned, unmarked, or unregistered
“ultimately allow us to accede to the convention while
minefields. The United States last used APLs during the
ensuring that we are still able to meet our alliance
1991 Gulf War, except for “one single incident of one
commitments” to South Korea.
munition being used in the 2002 timeframe in
Afghanistan,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
In 2014 the Obama Administration announced the APL
Stanley Brown explained in a June 21, 2022, briefing.
policy which the administration later issued in January 2016
as Policy Directive-37 (PPD-37). PPD-37 forbade the use
In 1996, President William Clinton announced a policy that
of APLs “outside the Korean Peninsula,” as well as
immediately discontinued U.S. use of “persistent APLs”
assisting, encouraging, or inducing “anyone outside the
except in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating North
Korean Peninsula to engage in activity prohibited by the
and South Korea. Persistent APLs lack self-destructing and
Ottawa Convention.” Pursuant to this policy, the United
self-deactivating features. President Clinton also supported
States would “undertake to destroy APL stockpiles not
negotiation in the United Nations of a worldwide ban on
required for the defense” of South Korea.
APLs. In November 1996, the United States introduced a
resolution to the U.N. General Assembly urging
In January 2020 the Department of Defense (DOD)
governments “to pursue vigorously an effective, legally-
announced a new APL policy. According to a January 31,
binding international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling,
2020, DOD memorandum, President Trump, subsequent to
production and transfer” of APLs “with a view to
an internal DOD review, “decided to cancel” PPD-37. The
completing the negotiation as soon as possible.” While
DOD memorandum permitted Combatant Commanders to
many governments supported such a ban, others were
authorize the use of nonpersistent APLs regardless of
concerned that verifying such a ban would be difficult and
geographic location “when necessary for mission success in
that APLs still played a useful role in military operations.
major contingencies or other exceptional circumstances.”
The memorandum permitted DOD to “acquire, retain, and
At the conclusion of an October 1996 conference in Ottawa,
transfer a limited number of persistent landmines” for
a number of governments agreed to work toward “the
training purposes.
earliest possible conclusion of a legally-binding
international agreement to ban anti-personnel mines.”
During a January 31, 2020, press briefing, a DOD official
Using language identical to the U.S.-sponsored version
noted the potential need for the United States to develop
described above, the General Assembly adopted a
new self-destructing APLs for use in accordance with the
resolution in December of 1996 exhorting governments to
new policy. The above-cited memorandum stipulated that
adopt an international ban on APLs. Following several
“Military Departments should explore acquiring landmines
multilateral meetings, a September 1997 conference in Oslo
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S. Antipersonnel Landmine Use Policy
and landmine alternatives that could further reduce the risk
Potential Issues for Congress
of unintended harm to noncombatants.”
The June 2022 APL policy potentially raises a number of
issues for consideration. Some of these issues include the
Additional Information on June 2022
following:
APL Policy Decision
A June 21, 2022 White House Fact Sheet states that the
With an estimated 3 million APLs in U.S. military
United States will not
stockpiles, how many of these APLs will be retained for
the defense of South Korea?
“develop, produce, or acquire” APLs;
What are DOD’s plans for destroying the remaining
“export or transfer” such landmines, “except when
U.S. APL stockpile? How many and what types of APLs
necessary for activities related to” mine detection,
will be destroyed? Where will this destruction take
removal, or destruction;
place? What is the program timeline for the destruction
of excess APLs and what is the estimated budget
“use APLs outside of the Korean Peninsula”; or
requirement for APL destruction?
“assist, encourage, or induce anyone, outside of the
Are there any current DOD or Service programs that
context of the Korean Peninsula, to engage in any
will need to be modified or terminated to comply with
activity that would be prohibited by the Ottawa
the new APL policy? If so, what are the specific
Convention.”
programs involved and what are the associated
operational and budgetary costs?
According to the fact sheet, the United States will also
“[u]ndertake to destroy all APL stockpiles not required for
The new APL policy directs DOD to “undertake diligent
the defense” of South Korea. Principal Deputy Assistant
efforts to pursue alternatives to anti-personnel
Secretary Brown noted during the April 21, 2022, briefing
landmines that would be compliant with and ultimately
that the United States has an estimated 3 million APLs in its
allow the United States to accede to the Ottawa
stockpile, but he did not specify the number necessary for
Convention.” What is the current status of efforts to
defending South Korea.
develop such alternatives? Are there specific DOD
programs of record ongoing or under consideration?
Although South Korea owns all minefields in the DMZ,
Are there related budget estimates for these efforts?
U.S. accession to the Ottawa Convention would still
prohibit the United States from meeting its defense
Regarding the U.S. provision of APLs to Ukraine,
responsibilities to South Korea, Brown explained, citing the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brown
Ottawa Convention’s provision that parties must not “assist,
explained during the June 21, 2022, briefing that that the
encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any
U.S.-supplied Claymore mines (M-18A1 APL) comply
activity prohibited” by the treaty.
with the Ottawa Convention because the mines “are
command-detonated with a person in the loop who can
President Biden “will direct the Department of Defense to
actually detonate them.” This statement suggests that M-
undertake diligent efforts to pursue alternatives to anti-
18A1 Claymore APLs are still used by DOD. As DOD
personnel landmines that would be compliant with and
eventually develops “alternatives to APLs,” are there
ultimately allow the United States to accede to the Ottawa
plans to phase out M-18A1 Claymore APLs or are they
Convention,” NSC Spokesperson Watson stated. Asked
to be retained for use?
during the June 21, 2022 briefing about the status of such
alternatives, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Brown
Andrew Feickert, Specialist in Military Ground Forces
referred the questioner to DOD “for the specific acquisition
Paul K. Kerr, Specialist in Nonproliferation
and operational capabilities of future devices.”
IF11440
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S. Antipersonnel Landmine Use Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11440 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED