Challenges of Universalization in Asia

The news of Brunei's ratification of the Mine Ban Convention on the 24th April was greeted by the ICBL and the rest of the Mine Action community with much enthusiasm. Brunei is not a mine affected country; still it took the country over eight years and a few advocacy visits to complete the process. The ICBL's Diplomatic Advisor, Ambassador Satnam Singh had visited Brunei just a few weeks ago to accelerate the process.

Brunei Darussalam is the 151st State Party to the Convention; 43 more to get onboard. At least half of those still outside are in Asia and Pacific. Universalization in this region, therefore, presents a formidable challenge.

The Asia-Pacific countries outside the Convention present a very diverse canvas, even though almost all of them profess sensitivity to the human suffering caused by the use of anti personnel mines and broadly subscribe to the ultimate goal of a 'Mine Free World'.

First of all, we have countries like Myanmar and Nepal, both afflicted with insurgency, and still active users of antipersonnel mines. They are closely followed by Uzbekistan, Iran, North and South Korea which may not be current users but want to keep their borders mined, justifying such a decision in their security interests. Then comes the category of the countries which have had a history of conflict or tension with neighbours. While carrying out partial or full demining, they still want to retain the option to use antipersonnel mines in the future, as a part of their defence doctrine. India, Pakistan, China and Vietnam fall in this category.

Another category is of the countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Singapore that have never or rarely used antipersonnel mines in the past, but want to retain the option, just in case...

Pacific Island countries viz. Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Tonga and Tuvalu fall in altogether a different category. They have no landmine problem; have neither used nor have intention to use them nor do they lack political will. However, lack of institutional capacity is coming in the way of their accession.

Then, there are individual cases like Indonesia where even after eight years, ratification is waiting to receive the requisite priority; Sri Lanka, an ongoing victim of internal conflict, that would wish to see both sides reaching an understanding on outlawing the use of antipersonnel mines before accession; Mongolia, where the country’s secrecy laws are awaiting to be amended to declare its stockpile before eventual destruction and Laos which has no specific reason to delay accession, but would still wish to have some more time.

It is interesting to note that 10 out of 17 Asian countries (excluding Pacific) plus Russia have common borders with China. The big neighbour's early accession is bound to have a salutary impact on the policy of most of these countries.

During the last couple of years, the ICBL has dedicated an increasing amount of time and attention to Asia. Advocacy missions were undertaken to six Asian countries during this period; Kazakhstan (April 04), Indonesia and Singapore (July 05), China and Mongolia (Sept 05) and Brunei (March 06). These missions made a definite headway in advancing the cause of universalization. In all cases, they well-served the purpose of sensitizing the concerned governments to address the issue of accession sooner than later, and meanwhile, expand their involvement in diverse aspects of the Convention. Successful efforts have also been made to bring about flexibility in India’s attitude towards the Convention.

Considerable more work needs to be done to meet the continuing challenges of universalization in Asia. The ICBL, in coordination with its partners in the movement, is bracing itself for the tasks ahead. The Campaign is fully determined to keep up its efforts in the region to relentlessly march towards the eventual goal of a 'Mine Free World'.