States Parties 161 States Not Party 36
States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty will meet in Geneva from 18 to 22 September 2006.
1) DOES THE TREATY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE GLOBAL LANDMINE CRISIS?
2) WHAT WILL THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE OTTAWA TREATY BE ABOUT?
3) WHAT ARE THE ICBL’S EXPECTATIONS FOR THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES?
4) IS THE TREATY WORTHWHILE WITHOUT CHINA, RUSSIA, THE USA AND OTHERS ON BOARD?
5) WHAT IS THE ICBL DOING ABOUT OTHER INDISCRIMINATE WEAPONS SUCH AS CLUSTER MUNITIONS?
6) ISN’T THE MINE PROBLEM BEING SOLVED BY NEW TECHNOLOGY AND CLEARANCE TECHNIQUES (E.G. RATS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS)?
7) WHAT IS THE MINE BAN TREATY AND HOW DOES A COUNTRY JOIN?
8) WHAT IS THE ICBL?
_____________________________________
Yes, on the whole we are most encouraged! A great deal of headway has been made since the treaty was established (3 December 1997) and came into force (1 March 1999).Some key achievements are:
However, much remains to be done. Continued mine use by states and non-state actors in several conflicts is of grave concern, as is continued mine production in thirteen countries. Although the annual rate of injuries and deaths caused by antipersonnel mines diminishes, the absolute number of mine survivors keeps growing each year (in 2006 it is estimated at 400,000 people worldwide) and many of their needs are not being met. At the same time, demining and risk education to safeguard lives and livelihoods remain an important priority. During the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World in November 2004, 24 countries were identified as needing to improve survivor assistance as a priority.
More: Landmine Monitor Report
The Seventh Meeting of the States Parties will provide an opportunity to review progress on the Nairobi Action Plan (NAP), the ambitious 70-commitment plan agreed to by States Parties at the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World (2004). The NAP charts the road ahead for mine action and the universalization of the mine ban until 2009. It includes provisions on:
One of the meeting's main issues is that States Parties will have to agree on a procedure to evaluate individual extension requests to the treaty-mandated 10-year deadline for mine clearance. The procedure would have to be an opportunity for mine-affected States working in good faith to look closely at the performance of their current mine action operations, and to explain what external assistance they need to complete the clearance process.
The Meeting involves everyone engaged in the fight against antipersonnel landmines: government representatives, civil society players including mine action operators, and representatives of international organizations. As in previous meetings of this kind, a number of States not Parties are expected to send observers. The ICBL is a full participant in the Meeting, with official non-delegate status. Our delegation will consist of over 100 people including campaigners, landmine survivors, deminers and experts from across the world.
Nine years after the Mine Ban Treaty was signed, we have all the right words: the words of the treaty, which set the goal of “ending the suffering caused by landmines” and charted the road to reach that goal; the Nairobi Action Plan, which put forward detailed recommendations on implementing and universalizing the treaty; and the words of States Parties, which continue to show their commitment to the goals and obligations of the treaty.
Still, reality on the ground tells a different story:
We are going to work with governments to make sure they go from words to reality, and:
It is most regrettable that these countries, and a few dozen others, remain outside of the treaty. However, this does not take away from the importance of the treaty, nor weaken its achievements as one of the few current successes stories in International Humanitarian Law and multilateral diplomacy. Over three-quarters of the world’s states have joined the treaty, and even without the support of China, Russia and the USA, great progress is being made in implementing and promoting its provisions. (See above: Does the treaty make a difference to the global landmine crisis.) In sum, the ban and the treaty are working, even without these holdout countries.
It is significant that some States not Parties to the treaty are responding to international pressure on this issue. Many are in de facto compliance with the treaty even though they are not legally bound by it. The USA, despite its disappointing policy reversal in March 2004, is basically abiding by the treaty in practice: it has not used mines since 1991, exported since 1992 nor produced since 1997. It has destroyed part of its antipersonnel mines stockpile and is the biggest contributor to clearance efforts. However, without an official commitment, these trends could be reversed: the US has been developing new mines that appear to be incompatible with the Mine Ban Treaty. A full-rate production decision has been delayed by the Congress, but the issue will come up again once a study on the indiscriminate consequences of the weapon is completed. The production of these new victim-activated mines would be a dramatic step away from previous US practice and the Mine Ban Treaty.
Other examples of non-members respecting treaty norms include: China and others’ moratoria on the export of antipersonnel landmines and Finland, Israel and Poland which have given up production.
It is worth noting too that these holdout countries are a shrinking minority. The vast majority of countries are committed to the treaty, including all the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa but Somalia, all of NATO but the USA, all of the Americas but Cuba and the USA, all of the EU except Finland and Poland (a signatory).
Nevertheless, we urge those countries that have not yet joined to embrace a ban on antipersonnel landmines and take a step towards the Mine Ban Treaty. Especially, we urge those still using this indiscriminate weapon to cease, for example Russia which uses mines in Chechnya, and those that still produce to halt.
More: States Parties, States Not Parties
We recognize the humanitarian impact of unexploded ordnance other than antipersonnel landmines. Indeed, the field experience of member organizations of the ICBL is that, like antipersonnel mines, such explosive remnants of war cause widespread civilian casualties and hinder reconstruction and development by preventing safe access to infrastructure and land.
It should be noted that the Mine Ban Treaty is focused on antipersonnel landmines and does not specifically address these other weapons. Thus, the ICBL supports efforts to create new international humanitarian law on the wider problem of explosive remnants of war. In recognition of the problem, several NGOs, some of which are members of the ICBL, have created a new coalition called the Clusters Munition Coalition. They have called for a moratorium on the use, production and trade of cluster weapons until the humanitarian concerns can be effectively addressed. The ICBL supports this call and encourages others to join the Coalition.
More: Cluster Munition Coalition
Unfortunately no new developments to date provide a magic solution. Clearance continues to rely on a 'toolbox approach', which includes manual and mechanical demining and the use of mine detection dogs. Related areas of surveys, fencing or marking and mine risk education also play an important role in preventing or minimizing casualties.
Research and development is welcomed particularly where it improves the speed, safety and efficiency of existing clearance methods. But R&D needs to be well-coordinated and focused on operational needs. For example, there’s no point spending lots of money on developing a hi-tech solution if this won’t ultimately work in the mine-infested rice paddies of Cambodia or dusty plains of Afghanistan.
More: Mine Action Working Group
The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty is the international agreement that bans antipersonnel landmines. Also referred to as the Ottawa Convention, it is officially titled: the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.
The treaty is the most comprehensive international instrument for ridding the world of the scourge of mines and deals with everything from mine use, production and trade to victim assistance, mine clearance and stockpile destruction. For the first time ever, a conventional weapon in widespread use, has been outlawed.
In December 1997 a total of 122 governments signed the treaty in Ottawa, Canada. In September the following year, Burkina Faso was the 40th country to ratify, triggering entry into force six months later; thus, on 1 March 1999 the treaty became binding under international law, and did so quicker than any treaty of its kind in history.
A government needs to ratify or accede to the treaty in order to become formally bound by its provisions. Accession is the procedure open to governments that did not sign the treaty when it was open to signature (between December 1997 and March 1999). Ratification is open to signatory countries who signed before March 1999.
As of 1 September 2006, there are a total of 151 States Parties and three signatories. A total of 40 countries remain outside of the treaty entirely (plus the newly formed
Republic of Montenegro whose status with regard to the treaty is pending clarification). The remaining holdouts include China, Egypt, Finland, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
More: States Parties, States not Parties, the Treaty Text
In 1992, six organizations came together to launch what was at that time seen as a 'utopian dream': the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). Today the ICBL is supported by over 1,400 non-governmental organizations in more than 90 countries and continues its work to turn the words of the landmine 1997 Mine Ban Treaty into a reality.
The campaign calls for an international ban on the use, production, stockpiling, sale, transfer or export of antipersonnel landmines. It advocates for: ratification of and accession to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty; implementation and monitoring treaty; increased resources for humanitarian demining and mine risk education programs; and increased resources for landmine survivors rehabilitation and socio-economic reintegration.
In recognition of its achievements, the campaign was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, together with its then coordinator, Jody Williams. The Norwegian Nobel Committee applauded the campaign for changing a ban from "a vision to a feasible reality" and recognized that it offers a model for other processes in the field of disarmament and peace. Since the adoption of the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL has remained committed to capitalizing on the global political momentum that it helped to create. "We will continue to work diligently… [towards] our goal of a world free of mines where all survivors can live in dignity" (Jody Williams, September 2002).
The ICBL has four staff members, a management committee of five people and an advisory board made up of 21 member organizations. ICBL members include human rights, humanitarian, children, peace, disability, veterans, medical, humanitarian, mine action, development, arms control, religious, environmental and women's groups.
