States Parties 161 States Not Party 36
Survivors engaging with governments
The ICBL delegation to the 9th Meeting of the States Parties comprises many mine survivors from across the world. Over the course of the week, they will meet to share advocacy experiences and strategies, and will call directly upon government representatives, through one on one meetings, to keep their word and fulfill the victim assistance promises made over a decade ago. Survivors are available for interviews in many languages.
15 States unable to clear their mined areas before 2009
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Chad, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Jordan, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Senegal, Thailand, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe have submitted mine clearance extension requests that will be voted upon by States Parties during the week.
Funding, environmental conditions and difficulty of terrain are regularly cited by states as a reason for lack of progress in their demining programs. However, evidence suggests that lack of sufficient political will and poor management of demining operations are equally to blame. For at least Denmark, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Peru, the United Kingdom and Venezuela, a greater effort would have likely resulted in the state being able to comply with the 2009 deadline.
In many cases, excessive and inaccurate estimates of mine contamination impede effective planning and priority setting of demining operations; insufficient funding mean that clearance targets will not be met; and certain areas have been excluded from clearance plans, which falls short of the Mine Ban Treaty requirement to clear all mines in all mined areas.
Mine clearance experts are available for interviews.
The United Kingdom – Thumbing its nose at its clearance obligations
The United Kingdom is responsible for clearing 117 mined areas in the Falkland Islands. Over the last nine years, not a single mined area has been cleared. A joint UK-Argentine feasibility study, the plan for which was first announced in 2001, was conducted in 2007. The UK is now asking for a 10-year deadline extension, without setting any date for starting demining operations. Environmental challenges and the cost of clearance are cited as causes for delay.
The minefields are well known to the locals and have not injured or killed anyone yet. But the message sent by the UK is clearly that they intend to pick and choose which treaty obligations they intend to abide by in good faith, and which they will brush aside. The example set for other States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty is a major concern.
Colombia – Hosting the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty in 2009
Colombia has suffered four decades of internal conflict, and non-state armed groups continue to produce antipersonnel mines and improvised explosive devices and to use them on a regular basis. According to Landmine Monitor, Colombia is the country where the highest number of mine and explosive remnants of war casualties were recorded in 2007 (895 casualties; under-reporting of civilian casualties is certain as many people do not report incidents for fear of being suspected of belonging to non-state armed groups.)
The ongoing conflict poses serious challenges to humanitarian mine action. Mine survivors are facing serious difficulties and obstacles in accessing the services they have the need for and right to. Colombia acknowledges that survivors have limited opportunities, limited access to high-quality assistance, do not know their rights and have difficulties obtaining them.
Colombia will host the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty in 2009, which will most likely bring the spotlight on the many challenges faced by the country.
The Mine Ban Treaty and its sister treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions
The Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted by 107 states in Dublin in May 2008 and will open for signature in Oslo on 3 December 2008. It is the most important disarmament/humanitarian treaty of the decade. The Convention on Cluster Munitions was inspired by the same humanitarian imperatives as the Mine Ban Treaty: preventing future humanitarian harm caused by certain types of indiscriminate conventional weapons and addressing their post-conflict effects through clearance and victim assistance.
As the Mine Ban Treaty has done, the Convention on Cluster Munitions will make a real difference, saving thousands of civilian lives, providing relief and assistance to those affected and stigmatizing the weapon as unacceptable. Given the complementary nature of the two conventions – both in terms of humanitarian principle and practical implementation – joining the Convention on Cluster Munitions should be a natural step for all States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty.
