Encounters with landmines prompted me to conduct an intensive study on their impact and on security governance in Zimbabwe. Landmines are viewed as symbols of a historically commissioned violence that is still manifesting uncontrollably. Globally, the dangers of landmines have been noted by several individuals in positions of high office. For example, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and the South African cleric and Nobel Laureate, Bishop Desmond Tutu, both perceived landmines as unmerciful and indiscriminate, especially towards civilians, even after wars are over.
Having grown up in Mashonaland Central Province, Zimbabwe, near the border with Mozambique, I was aware that some parts of this border still contain minefields. Initial official records from the Zimbabwe Mine Action Centre, as well as a survey conducted by Martin Rupiah, show a stretch of 766 km² of minefields. As part of my research, I interviewed a former sergeant of the Rhodesian Engineering Corps (RhE), a unit of the Rhodesian Army.
This former sergeant claimed that they were responsible for constructing minefields in Zimbabwe during the armed conflict against the nationalist liberators, a conflict that ended in 1980. This is not to say the nationalist liberators did not themselves use landmines during the conflict. They used them sparingly, especially anti-tank landmines, but did not construct minefields. Minefields were constructed by the Rhodesian Army in six operations: Hurricane (1972), Thrasher (1976), Repulse (1976), Tangent (1977), Grapple (1977) and Splinter (1978).
According to the former sergeant, the logic of constructing minefields was to strengthen the Rhodesian forces against a growing national liberation force. They wanted to restrict the nationalist liberators’ movement, depopulate borderlands, create no-go areas and establish ‘free-firing zones’ where they could shoot to kill anyone found within minefield areas. In a few cases, they were used to secure power stations, installations and other assets from sabotage – for example, the Kariba Power Station.
Humanitarian consequences
I conducted my fieldwork in Mukumbura, in north-eastern Zimbabwe, along the border with Mozambique. The minefield ran alongside villages and populated areas, prompting a humanitarian intervention. Although clearance was happening, it was slow, and enhanced post-clearance checks were needed, since some landmines were still being found in cleared areas. This led to swathes of cleared land remaining unoccupied. Those who did occupy the land often put their livestock to graze there, in the hope of detonating the remaining mines.
Using livestock such as cattle for such a purpose was a huge sacrifice. For rural people who survive on subsistence farming, cattle are a living bank, an investment, a source of draught power, manure and food (milk and meat). They are also used to bind marriages and appease avenging spirits. Farmers were reluctant to use their animals in such a way, but it was preferable to seeing a human succumb to a landmine.
When I went into former minefields, I saw many bald patches of land. In some places, only sparse, small, thorny vegetation remained. The contrast with areas outside the minefields – where mopane trees thrived – was unmistakable.
The former sergeant explained that these conditions were a result of defoliants (herbicides) used to clear and inhibit vegetation from growing within minefields. He also pointed to land degradation caused by heavy demining machinery, which compacted the soil, releasing oil and smoke that further damaged it.
I observed that some people were trying to cultivate crops in former minefields, but in the end, the harvest was poor compared to fields outside. This prompted me to conduct a laboratory test of the soil, since landmines are known to release toxins that impact soil health, such as trinitrotoluene, depleted uranium, zinc and other heavy metals like cadmium, lead and mercury. The tests found traces of landmine toxins, but no heavy metals were detected.
Social and cultural consequences
Participants struggled to articulate some of their concerns relating to landmines. Yet it was clear these problems were interconnected. For example, landmines are notorious for attacking the genitals because they are usually triggered by feet. Some were unable to have children, and in a culture in which they were expected to contribute to the greater family, ensuring their names would not be forgotten, failure to do so brought discrimination and loss of respect.
Some participants explained that landmines affect community cultural practices, symbols and values, and the people’s relationship with nature. For example, forests are sources of energy (wood) and medicines, and are used as a resting place for the deceased, and for veneration ceremonies like rainmaking. Due to landmines, the people felt they could not benefit from the forests and were not free to practise their traditions.
One of the stories I often heard was of victims and their relatives who were unable to pay for prolonged hospitalisation after mine attacks. Usually, relatives demanded the discharge of the patient and cared for them at home. At home, sick people were often secluded, with some taken into the forests for a cure. They said it was meant to prevent contagion and to remove the foul smell caused by deep wounds. Unfortunately, the move appeared to trigger biopolitics or hidden politics of smell. I see a sensory classification, the ordering of bodies, objects and spaces, the creation of hierarchies, and mental stresses and insecurities for victims.
Several women struggled with the desire to become mothers and wives, while others suffered from missed or painful menstruation, bowel incontinence, episodic flashbacks, pain and shame. These hardships struck a hard blow to their ability to enjoy life. I understood that some of the women felt that male victims were treated and judged less harshly by society. This was because men were still able to marry despite their disability, and could sometimes intoxicate themselves to escape their misery – options less available to women.
All those who lost their sight viewed their state as undesirable. Having sight was their highest priority. They felt sight would protect them from plunging into danger when all other senses failed. Some school-aged victims dropped out of education. Some explained that they could not walk, cope, lacked money, and the schools lacked sufficient resources to support their learning, for example, sign language teachers and Braille.
Policy and solutions
Zimbabwe has shown commitment to eradicating the scourge of landmines. Yet challenges remain. I recommended periodic surveys to update and provide accurate data for stakeholders. Technology remains essential, but is still a missing link in demining. The use of metal detectors and mechanical means make the process slow, costly and sometimes dangerous for operators.
Alternative ways of financing mine clearance should be explored, including innovative models that create long-term stability. Improving trauma care and establishing rehabilitation centres near minefields is also necessary to reduce deaths and suffering among mine victims. Research and development are essential, since problems evolve rather than end. Researchers must therefore reflect both present-day and future challenges to inform human progress.
Fradreck J. Mujuru is a PhD Scholar in the Department of International Relations and Governance Studies, Shiv Nadar University, India.
This contribution is based on a recent article published in the Global Social Challenges Journal as part of our Early Career Research (ECR) programme, which supports emerging scholars from the Global South and diasporas in addressing urgent global social challenges through innovative and accessible research.
Still gnawing: landmines and security governance in Zimbabwe by Fradreck J. Mujuru is available to read open access in the Global Social Challenges Journal on Bristol University Press Digital here.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image: Rutendo Petros via Unsplash