The EconomistFebruary 15th 2020 United States 252 that policy essentially amounted to an
eventual blanket ban, with the aim of forc-
ing the armed forces to shift to remotely
detonated mines (which are not covered by
Ottawa). America’s stockpile was last re-
plenished in 1997, and is expected to be-
come obsolete by the early 2030s. Mr
Trump’s new guidance crucially allows the
development and production of new de-
vices. The Pentagon may be especially ea-
ger to restock its cupboard as nuclear talks
with North Korea falter and the prospect of
conflict returns.
Yet landmines are reviled weapons, and
not without good reason. “They’re indis-
criminate,” says General Brooks, “so any-
one or anything that moves through that
area can be a problem.” That includes
friendly forces—modern armies shun stat-
ic defences in favour of what they call
“manoeuvre warfare”, so today’s defensive
minefield can be tomorrow’s headache.
And that also includes civilians. Landmine
casualties have fallen sharply over the
years, but at least 2,000 people were killed
or wounded by manufactured or impro-
vised apls in 2018, according to data col-
lected by the Landmine and Cluster Muni-
tion Monitor, a research group. Laying a
mine can cost a few dollars; clearing one
can require $1,000.
The Pentagon has an answer to this. It
says that it only possesses, would only pro-
duce and would only use “non-persistent”
landmines with the capacity to self-de-
struct or, failing that, to self-deactivate,
with a battery losing its charge, within 30
days (some models can blow themselves
up in as little as a few hours). It claims that
such features are remarkably reliable. In
2004 the Bush administration said it had
tested over 67,000 landmines in a variety of
conditions “with no failures of the self-de-
struct system”. Today the Pentagon says
that only six landmines out of 1m are ex-
pected to remain active as duds, a rate of
less than one in 167,000. But experts and
ngos roll their eyes at such claims.
“When the technology is brought into
the battlefield, we see that the actual data
doesn’t match with the promises,” says
Erik Tollefsen, head of Weapons Contami-
nation for the International Committee of
the Red Cross. He says that impressive reli-
ability rates are usually derived from tests
in sterile conditions, and prove wildly ex-
aggerated in practice. In 2002 a report by
the Government Accountability Office, an
agency that audits the federal government,
noted that during the Gulf war one in
10,000 mines were expected to remain ac-
tive, which would have produced 12 duds.
The actual figure was almost 2,000.
The development of “smart” landmines
has stalled in part because research fund-
ing plummeted when the Ottawa treaty
came into force 20 years ago. “There isn’t a
full technological solution to it that’s 100%
certain at this point,” acknowledges Gen-
eral Brooks. “But honestly that’s the nature
of anything and everything that happens in
conditions of war”.
Others argue that there are perfectly via-
ble alternatives. In 2001 a Pentagon-spon-
sored study by the National Research
Council, an arm of the United States Na-
tional Academies, noted that “the rapid
emergence of new technologies after 2006
will create opportunities for the develop-
ment of systems that can outperform to-
day’s antipersonnel landmines and that
would be compliant with Ottawa”. In par-ticular, remotely activated mines (rather
than victim-activated ones) are allowed
under the treaty if the person triggering the
device has the would-be victim in sight, al-
though this makes them harder to use at
range and hostage to a breakdown of com-
munications. In 2018 Finland—a late and
reluctant signatory to Ottawa, given its
long border with Russia—said it was devel-
oping a new, remote-controlled variety of
anti-personnel “bounding” mine that leaps
into the air and fires metal bullets down-
wards. In the world of weaponry, that is
what passes for humane. 7“T
ariffs costAmericanjobs”isa
sobering chant. And for the 30
marchers (with 200 signs and mar-
shalled by six police vehicles) in Wash-
ington, dc, that was the point. On Febru-
ary 9th they met to protest against the
looming threat of tariffs of up to 100% on
wine imported from the European Un-
ion. Kevin Rapp, an importer of Italian
wines and the march organiser, got
involved because, if tariffs happen, they
would close his business. In vino veritas.
It all started on October 18th, when as
part of a long-running dispute over
subsidies for Airbus, a European aircraft
manufacturer, the Trump administration
hit wine from France, Spain, Germany
and Britain with tariffs of 25%. In a nor-
mal year wine imports fall by 10-20%
from October to November, as retailers
stop stocking up for the holiday season.InNovember 2019 purchases fell by over
30% once the duties were in place.
Regulations require many middle-
men between makers and drinkers of
wine, which means that the industry has
both low margins and lots of markups.
Christopher Lombardo of ibisWorld, a
market-research firm, reports that so far
many distributors have opted to swallow
the tariffs at the expense of their profit
margins. For smaller businesses, he
warns, this is unsustainable.
If the tariff of 25% has stained balance
sheets red, a jump to 100% would put
many out of business. “We would be
done,” says Andrea Wallace, who works
for a wine importer that has already paid
$40,000 in duties. When the tariffs were
applied her company had two containers
of wine “on the water”, which suddenly
became 25% more expensive than they
had planned for. Now, she says, “we’re all
gun-shy” about putting wine on the
water, in case they get hit.
Hard-nosed officials may discount
this. At a hearing to discuss a tariff threat
on French champagne, United States
Trade Representative officials quizzed
merchants about whether drinkers could
switch to different sorts of wines—per-
haps even the American sort? The sug-
gestion is an affront to sommeliers, who
see the quality or character of a wine as
intrinsically linked to its origin.
Thus far winesellers have avoided
passing the full cost of the tariffs on to
drinkers. But according to Chris Bitter of
Vintage Economics, a market-research
company, the most extreme scenario
would see tariffs covering almost all
imported European wine, more than a
quarter of American consumption by
value, and around one in every six bottles
sold. If that happens, expect Barolo-
drinkers to mount the barricades.Vin-dictive
TrumpenomicsWASHINGTON, DC
Drinkers of European wine face mounting tariff billsBarol-oh-no