Williams has taken umbrage with many of the policies of the United States government from being an outspoken dissident against the war in Iraq as well as the Patriot Act. But, her real crusade has been fighting against the use of International land mines If only the nation’s leaders would take the lead of one Ms. Jody Williams, perhaps, there would be a reduction in the use of landmines, nuclear weapons, and the threats brought about by global terrorism. Williams mission of peace only failed because governments like the Big Five are more interested in their violent wars then ending the arms race no matter how loud or how long they say they are out for a better world with peace being their first mission. When world leaders were called to the ultimate test of banning landmines they chose warfare tactics, not peaceful tactics. Are you surprised that there is a war on terrorism? Is not what this outcome of rejecting a very noble ideal brings when world leaders are incessant on acquiring power and ensuring that conventional warfare as well as unconventional warfare is okay. Although not a military expert, the use of landmines seems as unnatural as it can be pertaining to the natural order of the earth and people who could be directly harmed by it. The use of the internet in Williams fight against real state terrorism deserved every bit the Nobel Peace Prize, and those nation-states who rejected her wishes, ought never be given a free pass as its sincere desire to deescalate the war on terrorism, or even the war in cyberterrorism. In a very positive way, the Internet was effective mobilizing the efforts of 1997 Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams as she and her allies used the Internet to challenge the Big Five powers who were opposed to banning landmines. Yes, the Big Five powers opposed a treaty to ban landmines but this did not stop her campaign to make this ideal and moral principle a reality. Williams credited the use of the internet and the best weapon she had used to bring this important issue to the forefront worldwide, but it was specifically the use of e-mails to get her direct message across as well as to communicate with those who supported her cause. (2) Williams resorted to the use of fax machines before e-mail on the Internet became more popular to use. Williams remarked how significant the use of the fax machine was in the early days of the landmine campaign saying it allowed the ICBL to have “a permanent, written record of almost everything in the development of the campaign from day one.” The most significant aspect of the whole international campaign was to regularly keep others up to date about the campaign’s movement. The move to using the e-mail servers occurred in June of 1995 at the Third International NGO Conference on Landmines, in Phnom Penh, and in 1994, dubbed the “Cambodian Campaign to Ban Landmines.” (3)

Jody Williams has been an activist on issues relating to foreign policy issues mainly in Central America during the years of turmoil and internal strife there during the 1980s. Williams witnessed “firsthand the impact of war, how it affected the poorest of the poor.” She was then involved in coordinating a plan regarding landmines once there was peace in the region. Williams did not start out with a vast organization with only three original members advocating peace until it grew as large as it is now. (4)

Teaching English in Mexico after graduating from college, Williams by 1981, was moved enough to want to help the poor while advocating for peace and justice in El Salvador until 1991. At this time Williams became involved with the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. while, also, being hired to coordinate an international campaign to ban land mines for and Medico International out of Germany. Williams is a woman of peace by the leadership and coordination of banning all landmines. Although being the leader of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines is no small task, Williams gallantly set out on a mission with by November, 1991 void of many resources but a moral objective that included a campaign of one, with no headquarters or funds, but, by 1996, grew into a colossal organizations of 1,200 people. (5)

Williams said it was the non-governmental organizations beginning their noble mission in late 1991 and early 1992 as well as children's groups, development organizations, refugee organizations, medical and humanitarian relief groups, which were responsible for her Nobel Peace Prize. This handful set of NGOs, with their roots in humanitarian and human rights work were brought together in an organized effort to ban antipersonnel landmines. Williams said the collective effort to ban antipersonnel landmines came together in October of 1992 when Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, Medico International, Mines Advisory Group, Physicians for Human Rights and Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation came together to issue a “Joint Call to Ban Antipersonnel Landmines.” These groups were the steering committee of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, whose mission was to “end to the use, production, trade and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines,” and for “governments to increase resources for humanitarian mine clearance and for victim assistance.” Their work brings about the “recognition of the fact that NGOs have worked in close cooperation with governments for the first time on an arms control issue, with the United Nations, with the International Committee of the Red Cross. Together, we have set a precedent.” Williams viewed this achievement in a historic sense to “rid the world of one indiscriminate weapon.” Williams said the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, “started a process which in the space of a few years changed a ban on antipersonnel mines from a vision to a feasible reality.” More important she gave much of the credit to “the governments of several small and medium-sized countries taking the issue up...this work has grown into a convincing example of an effective policy for peace.” Her fight has also been aimed at those landmines which are “stockpiled and ready for use.“ (6) The United States is not part of the landmine ban treaty, but she says it makes claims to be fighting against terrorism. Yet, the one major form of human terrorism on land are the tragic land mines that cause more human suffering than is necessary. Not only is the United States not part of this treaty, but other nations who have refused to sign onto this treaty are: China; Russia; India; Pakistan; Iran; Iraq; and Israel. (7)

Williams mused that although the issue to ban landmines was brought to the forefront in the late 1970s by the International Committee of the Red Cross to see how these mines were in fact, “indiscriminate” many people were not sure they wanted to make this a primary concern. She went on to say how these weapons should be made a primary concern and their impact as both an unconventional and conventional weapon. (8) She indicated that there was very little support in the 1970’s to ban landmines despite the efforts of the ICRC who saw this as an issue that needed to be confronted to restrict or eliminate landmines. She looked at the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which came of the call to ban landmines in the 1970’s as highly ineffective. Williams criticized this treaty’s feeble attempt to regulate the use of landmines. She said it was unrealistic that the people associated with the CCW, actually thought they could work with military commanders to limit the use of landmines during war. She points out that in the heat of battle, “the laws of war do not exactly come to mind... trying to save your skin...use anything and everything at your disposal...” (9) Once Belgium signed the ban treaty in March of 1995, a domino effect of other nations joined including Austria, Norway, and Sweden. Williams said the CCW was unable to ban the weapon in their convention which meant that success was not achieved. Their strategy was to get the governments of the world to take international measures to ban antipersonnel landmines or its production did not work too well. The only thing that did happen positive was exposing the weaknesses of the CCW along “with the pressure that we were able to generate...heightened international attention to the issue...” Williams saw the CCW as a failure as many “governments were calling for a ban. What had once been called a utopian goal of NGOs was gaining in strength and momentum” She pointed out the great cooperation of NGOs and governments. “Historically NGOs and governments have too often seen each other as adversaries, not colleagues, and we were shocked that they came. Seven or nine came to the first meeting, 14 to the second, and 17 to the third” What the CCW review process failed to do is what the ICBL achieved with their meeting in October from October 3-5, 1997, in Ottawa. which brought together, pro-ban governments to strategize about the ban of landmines. There were fifty active governments as well as twenty-four passive nations at the Ottawa Conference. Lloyd Axworthy, the Foreign Minister of Canada. Foreign Minister Axworthy challenged the world to return to Canada in a year to sign an international treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, which is now known as the “Axworthy Challenge.” She spoke about the importance of the International Campaign. (10) Williams said that “the primary objectives of the conference were to develop an Ottawa Declaration, which states would sign signalling their intention to ban landmines, and an "Agenda for Action," which outlined concrete steps on the road to a ban.” (11) She also said that “the treaty negotiations were historic“ as many nations came around to see that a destructive entity could be replaced through a dedicated effort. She said that:

“for the first time, smaller and middle-sized powers had come together, to work in close cooperation with the nongovernmental organizations of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, to negotiate a treaty which would remove from the world's arsenals a weapon in widespread use. For the first time, smaller and middle-sized powers had not yielded ground to intense pressure from a superpower to weaken the treaty to accommodate the policies of that one country. Perhaps for the first time, negotiations ended with a treaty stronger than the draft on which the negotiations were based! The treaty had not been held hostage to rule by consensus, which would have inevitably resulted in a gutted treaty” ⁽¹²⁾

One of the greatest myths of modern times is that when wars end, the killing stops. Reality, however, is far more grim. Landmines are the silent sentinels planted in the ground by opposing armies in every war since World War I, which continues to kill and maim others, long after peace treaties are signed. Jeff Trussel describes Jody Williams being moved by the stories and lives of Viet Nam veterans which proved to be the motivating force in her crusade to forever ban land mines. Her motto with veterans groups was “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” with this deadly problem that could no longer be ignored by world leaders. (13) Landmines should be a reminder to everyone who thinks that when wars stop or the shooting ends is grossly incorrect. Williams pointed out that the impact of landmines has no discriminatory capability as “once the soldier walks away from the weapon, the landmine cannot tell the difference between a soldier or a civilian -- a woman, a child...” Thus, Williams goes on to say, once peace is declared the landmine does not recognize that peace...war ends, the landmine goes on killing.” (14)

Williams looks at landmines on the ground as “weapons of mass destruction in slow motion.” (15) She cited the success of the landmine campaign for how short of a time it took for the objectives to be accomplished being grateful that there is now a ban on landmines around the world due to smaller and mid-sized nations who signed on to the treaty, banning the use of lending, production, trade, and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines. Williams was proud that the banning of landmines had been accomplished in “record time.” (16) According to Williams, regular diplomatic channels would have buried this dream to ban landmines from the start, stating that its success was because “we did it outside of the normal diplomatic channels which made it possible.” Williams said that had this treaty “been negotiated in Geneva in the CD, the Conference on Disarmament, we would not have the treaty we have today.” (17) She was encouraged that some smaller and middle sized governments are conducting their foreign policies following the Cold War era in partnership towards multilateralism, important to global success. Williams said that despite the United States not signing the treaty that it was still successful, viewing the inaction of the Clinton administration as a “low point” rather than “disappointment.” (18) The ban on land mind treaty, even without the United States, is “binding international law more quickly than any treaty in history.” Williams was hoping the ninety nations she worked with to sign the treaty at Oslo in 1997, but when it was all done there were one hundred and twenty-two nations who signed the land mine ban treaty which stipulated the halting of the use, production, stockpiling, sale, transfer or export of anti-personnel land mines, excluding the United States. (19) The treaty has been ratified by 131 out of the 146 nations who signed it with the exception of the United States and Cuba on the Western Hemisphere who have not agreed to it. There are only twelve land-mine producing nations opposed to fifty-six when Williams began her peace march. She said "together we are a superpower," about the collective effort. (20)

Williams believes that winning the Nobel Peace Prize led other governments like Japan and its Foreign Minister Obuchi to take a second look at “the contradictions in Japanese policy, in regard to more financial assistance for mine victims. Since that time Japan had signed the treaty and ratified it. Williams says access to leaders and international figures comes more rapidly when they view you as a legitimate player. Now Williams is able to meet foreign ministers and presidents as opposed to one of their second secretaries twice removed. Williams prefers that nations ratify the treaty before the minimum five years, when the first review conference takes place to see the success of the land mine ban treaty. Williams wants the treaty to reach the pinnacle of a “firmly established international law, that we will be approaching universalization, meaning every government will be on board.” (21) According to William's, the United States needs to be

“pressed to sign the treaty, obviously. I mean, one of the goals of the campaign is universalization. That means everybody. That means the United States as well...There's not a lot of fear that the United States is going to mine Massachusetts Avenue. You know. We do want them on board...because, in the belief that they would bring many with them. Well, they didn't come on board, but we got many anyway...The US probably isn't going to run around and sell its landmines. So, it's a, you know, points of debate within the campaign.” (22)

Despite the lack of effort by the United States, Russia, and China to sign the treaty, however, Williams thought that Bosnia, Croatia, Angola, Cambodia, and Afghanistan were more important to the land mine treaty because it had been living with contamination. Williams was hoping these nations would not back track into a situation like Angola which it might “sink into war, again.” The most important challenge is for nations to first sign the ban and then secondly, to destroy their stocks. (23) Williams said that Princess Diana brought the public’s attention to the use of land mines in Angola bringing much needed media attention that “gave a face to the victims.” Williams also mentioned Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former South African President Nelson Mandela who have made enormous contributions in helping Africa to ban landmines while they moved ahead with this treaty despite President Clinton’s objections of Mandela to sign the treaty. (24)

Williams said that “the work of the ICBL and its contributions to making the world a better place demonstrates clearly that the Internet can be an effective tool to promote peace.” Williams views the advances in communications technology as the greatest technological innovation in the past one hundred years, which affords people more access to information systems to make changes in the world. Williams says that its up to people to have the right values to use this technological innovation in the correct manner to help improve the quality of life for all people. According to Jody Williams, the use of the Internet contributed to their ability to communicate with others to ban landmines. This new technology medium helped with staff meetings, file structures from online, calendars, and instant messages among workers who lived in differing time zones. (25) She said that the Internet made their work more expedient and efficient, saying that, “from the first days of the landmine campaign in 1992, we understood that breakthroughs in communications technology could dramatically enhance the effectiveness of our work. The ICBL continues its cutting-edge use of new technologies...” (26) Thus, Williams used the Internet in her campaign because she felt frustrated by the lack of positive response from the likes of former U. S. President William J. Clinton to ban landmines. Williams views the Nobel Prize as lending some “moral authority” to ending landmines lamenting that many nations do “not want to be on the side of humanity,” adding that the United States, China, India, and Pakistan have chosen to “stay outside of the tide of history.” Williams had sharp criticism for the Clinton administration whom she said “has not wanted to be part of the tide of history. It’s wanted to stand outside the tide of history.” (27)

Williams lost respect for Clinton who refused to congratulate her for being named Nobel Peace Prize winner, saying he adheres to a double standard as a leader. Williams who leads the organization, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines has led a campaign to rid the entire world of land mines which has been either killing or maiming close to twenty-six thousand people while eighty percent of these victims are not military personnel but civilians. The justification that the American government gave as why it opposed anti-personnel land mines was its necessity to keep the soldiers protected on the Korean border, but she dismissed these reasons about the borders on the Korean border as an excuse, saying “the United States, I think, is using that largely as an excuse to hold onto its anti-personnel land mines.” According to Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch, this notion purported by the United States is hogwash and unfounded, saying this “idea that you have to have mines for border defense has been rejected by some 100 governments.” Williams maintains that “until that treaty becomes international law, until the countries sign it and destroy their stockpiles, it is just beautiful words on paper.” (28) Williams also rejected the notion that President Clinton would ask the Pentagon to see if another mechanism could replace the landmines for battle purposes. After citing that most of NATO, including France, UK, Germany have made the decision to get rid of landmines, but, declaring it an illegal weapon, the Clinton administration who did not see this need had taken an “absurd” position refusing to join the treaty. Williams said:

Why does the one remaining superpower with the most advanced war weapons in the world still need to rely on the landmine? Why does it need to keep it until it gets an alternative? The world has determined this is an illegal weapon. Everybody else is ready to give it up but the United States. It wants to keep using an illegal weapon until it finds an alternative. I think that’s shameful. (29)

Williams pointed to the cost effectiveness of using e-mail in the campaign over the telephone or fax machine. but, said that “while e-mail is a fabulous tool for communication, nothing replaces personal relationships, however, in building a social movement.” The Internet has also provided the chance to expand operations in a loose structured way with a staff of eight people in five different offices in three different continents. (30) She also cited the significance of the Internet to grow the campaign network with both with internal and external communications among government officials they were working with. The working partnerships with allies who wanted to ban landmines brought the awareness to the forefront, within only five years. Williams proudly said that this was “build(ing) global awareness of the landmine crisis and achieve the Mine Ban Treaty in a historic process.” (31)

The use of landmines is part of defense strategy policy, not some rogue nation or terrorist who just so chooses to use this tactic. In fact, throughout history this terror-like method has been employed with great use. Williams illustrates the historical use of landmines in warfare. This is why she took up the cause on the Internet to bring about positive peace which is not attempted in conflict resolution situations as it ought to be. From the Civil War in the United States to the Crimean War, landmines have been used. Conflicts since the end of World War II have consisted mainly of internal strife which has seen the use of landmines as “the weapon of choice” The result of these internal conflicts has seen the advent of landmine use in over seventy countries on the globe, with Williams pointing out that “the overwhelming majority of those countries are found in the developing world.” Williams was accurate pointing out that during the Cold War both the Soviet Union and the United States were fighting proxy wars and behind many of the internal conflicts where these weapons were proliferated. Now with the end of the Cold War, she thinks that war and peace should be looked at, in a new way. Williams saw the antipersonnel landmine as “the most insidious weapon” which has “contaminated the globe in epidemic proportion.” These nations lack adequate resources in the way of prevention and clean up to restore postwar after-effects. The other human result has been the victims, people with faces, but now who lack limbs because they were maimed. As Williams has said the this is not a huge “global humanitarian crisis” Williams indicated that the severity of this epidemic as it reaches Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Angola, Somalia, Mozambique, and Afghanistan. (32)

Williams has been a harsh critic of American foreign policy n she thinks its exploitive, oppressive, and one that does not speak to the highest moral standing, but makes distinctions between the people and government, which is something the Bush administration seems to have forgotten. One must remember that there are millions of people in the world who do not emulate President Bush or Osama bin Laden. Williams said that “people around the world don't dislike the people of America. They dislike the policies and actions of the American government. It's your responsibility to find out what your government is doing in your name.” As Williams sees it with the war in Iraq being waged by the Bush administration, “it's our responsibility to stand up and ask questions when we're being led to war.” (33)

Williams in her consistent advocacy for peace, viewed September 11, 2001, as a “direct” strike on the United States, realizing “too many innocent people died...too many families lost their loved ones in this unspeakable, terrorist attack of unprecedented scope.” (34) Williams said attacks in response might not be the best measure to bring about international justice, even as the crime was perpetrated by terrorists in an obvious crime against humanity. (35) In the aftermath of the attacks, Williams still did not favor the escalation of violence preferring peace, justice and human rights, rather than creating more hostilities after the attacks on America. She relied on statements made by Human Rights Watch, who helped establish the ICBL as a guide to the response America chose afterwards. (36) Williams said that:

“When innocent civilian lives are taken in any kind of military or terrorist attack, the mind recoils. When it happens in our country, a country not at war, it seems impossible. Attacks on innocent people anywhere cannot be tolerated. Those who perpetrated this heinous crime need to be brought to justice. They need to be found and tried in a court of law. Their network needs to be dismantled” ⁽³⁷⁾

When a Nobel Peace Prize Winner uses the Internet to get an important social and moral issue across what kind of war is there really on the Internet? Thus, Jody Williams analysis of the Patriot Act which was passed in super-speed by the Bush administration is worthy to note here. The Patriot Act extends the role of foreign policy in a more energetic way for the Executive branch as it seeks to implement initiatives or choices it makes both at home and abroad. The extension of the Executive branch‘s role with the Patriot Act follows the trend set forth by the passage of NSC-68 during the Truman administration. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks there was a push to restrict civil liberties and free speech. It was peace activists in general who typically speak out against aggressive foreign policy choices that would be the prime target of government officials and their allies trying to limit dissent. One of these people who valiantly spoke out against the repressive Bush administration’s policies was Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams.

It is Section 802 of the Patriot Act which can adversely effect people like Jody Williams or other peace activists and dissidents in the future if there is a broad reading of who is being subversive to the foreign policies of the United States government. Williams was quite profound with her prescient analysis of the Patriot Act. Williams argued that extreme, knee-jerk measures such as the Patriot Act. should not be applied in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. Williams said that individual freedoms should never be jeopardized or compromised by instituting laws which would bring about loyalty oaths to the government with a sharp increase of subservient and deference those governing. Williams in the aftermath of the 9-11-2001 attacks as it related to the rush to pass the new repressive Patriot Act said:

This terrorist attack has been called an attack on freedom. It obviously is. Civilians in an open society not at war have been killed. But many have also expressed concern that other freedoms are at risk as well in the aftermath of the terror. History has shown too many times that when a country sees itself in a state of war, individual freedoms are subordinated to the survival of the state. (38)

Williams is right in her analysis that although the Patriot Act is the Bush administration’s attempt to control the terrorist threat inside America but perhaps. even more to serve as a cosmetic fix to assure Americans they are safe on native soil. As is the present case, the Bush administration has put those who criticize the polices of the government on notice. President Bush made the statement regarding Section 802 and of due process with the Patriot Act that “we're making it easier to seize the assets of groups and individuals involved in terrorism. The government will have wider latitude in deporting known terrorists and their supporters....This legislation is essential not only to pursuing and punishing terrorists, but also preventing more atrocities in the hands of the evil ones.”(39)

Williams is right that the Patriot Act of the Bush administration speaks to undemocratic laws and measures. It is Section 802 of the Patriot Act speaks to the undemocratic law of those who choose to criticize American policy. This provision allows the creation of a federal crime which is deemed “domestic terrorism.” which speaks to political oppression. In this section it specifically says that in section that “ (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; `(B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’” In very “broad wording,” as legal scholar Nancy Chang points out, Section 802 is an extension to “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws, if they appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion...occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” (40) This could also throw into question one’s rights to demonstrate or organize efforts such as activism as Jody Williams did when she used the Internet to mobilize the campaign to fight the use of landmines.

As Nancy Chang and other critics of Section 802 have pointed out, the language is quite “vague” which could lead to an interpretation by law enforcement agencies to make surveillance a regular occurrence on political organizations, individual activities based on associations alone, and criticisms of American policy. The real harsh penalty which could result with this act is that political dissent, otherwise constitutional and legal, would be now considered to be a criminal or terrorist offense by prosecutors under the jurisdiction of Attorney General Ashcroft. So, when Attorney General Ashcroft uses the language found in the Patriot Act that which uses words to intimidate those who might want to engage in political protests, like, “appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” the implication of Ashcroft is these people are a threat and danger to society. The right-wing in my estimation is preparing to turn the clock back to a time long gone by, as civil rights gains made in the 1960s, are now threatened to be illegal in the eyes of Bush and Ashcroft. In this draconian set of laws, it appears that even Martin Luther King, Jr. would be thought of as a terrorist by this administration. (41)

In sum, the Bush Administration told Williams that its interagency will review the policy of the Clinton administration with the proposal that the United States would join the land mine ban treaty in 2006 if certain conditions were met. However, it appears this land mine ban treaty will not occur any time soon despite assurances from the Bush administration to revise the Clinton directive, which only pushes the hope for this international treaty away from the goal. However, the success of the Internet in Jody Williams campaign to ban landmines showed what a positive impact the Internet can have in the political process in getting out a peaceful message to wars and destruction. This was no small feat and Williams should be viewed in the same manner as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King, Jr. in serving the needs of men, women and children throughout the world. Her use of the Internet was ingenuity in motion and the result was successful despite the lack of participation by the United States to join. The Internet was the medium that allowed this peacemaker to see her own dream fulfilled. At the same time, Williams every move and right to dissent against American foreign policy might be in real jeopardy if the Patriot Act ever rears its ugly head as Section 802 stipulates.

42. Trussel: “LIFESAVER HERO: JODY WILLIAMS.”