ICBL Statement to the 2MSP

Statement of the International Campaign to Ban LandminesTo the Second Meeting of States Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty

Delivered by Stephen Goose, Human Rights Watch
Head of Delegation, ICBL

Geneva, Switzerland

12 September 2000

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen,

We appreciate this opportunity to address the Second Meeting of States Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. We are particularly pleased that the Presidency is in the extraordinarily capable hands of Ambassador Kongstad, who has worked tirelessly for many years to bring a comprehensive global ban on antipersonnel mines to fruition. His presence should remind us all that it was three years ago this month in Oslo that this treaty was negotiated and agreed to by more than eighty states. We have come a very long way since September 1997, but we have a very long way to go before our common objective of a mine-free world is accomplished.

We may be approaching a critical moment in our cooperative effort to ban antipersonnel mines. As time passes, it is natural for there to be pressures and desires on the part of both governments and NGOs to focus on other issues; new leaders, new times, and new circumstances often result in new priorities. But the unfortunate reality remains. Landmines continue to take innocent lives at an alarming rate. Landmines continue to pose a humanitarian and socio-economic problem of crisis proportions in too many countries. Too many governments and rebel groups continue to use antipersonnel mines.

Rather than yielding to the siren song of the next "hot issue," there is a need to re-double our efforts to universalize the Mine Ban Treaty, to get mines out of the ground, and to better address the needs of mine victims and mine-affected communities. This treaty and the "new diplomacy" that brought it about – an unconventional diplomacy in which governments and civil society work together – must not fail.

This Second Meeting of States Parties can play an important role in ensuring the on-going success of the mine ban movement. It can do this in part through practical steps that promote effective implementation and universalization of the treaty. In this regard, the ICBL supports the recommendations that have emerged from the Standing Committee of Experts on General Status and Operation of the Convention with respect to the re-organization of the intersessional work program, its committees and schedule. The ICBL also supports the proposed establishment of a Coordination Committee of Co-Chairs, and the proposal for an amendment to the Article 7 reporting format to facilitate reporting on victim assistance and other matters, and the recognition of the need for increased participation by mine-affected states. The ICBL very warmly welcomes the offer of Nicaragua to host the Third Meeting of States Parties.

Mr. President, thanks in no small part to your efforts, among the most notable outcomes of the First Meeting of States Parties was the establishment of the intersessional work program and the standing committees of experts. The ICBL believes that the program and committees have been an undeniable success. We have much appreciated the prominent role given to the ICBL in the intersessional work, and the close cooperation between SCE co-chairs and rapporteurs and the ICBL. We strongly urge States Parties to endorse the SCE reports and to act urgently on their recommendations. These recommendations should form the basis for an extensive and aggressive action plan to emerge from this meeting.

But more generally, this meeting and all the annual treaty meetings, should serve the purpose of reinforcing the emerging international norm against any use or possession of antipersonnel mines by anyone. One way to do that is to take note of the great progress that has been made toward relegating mines to the dustbin of history. I shall do that in a moment in reporting on Landmine Monitor findings. But an equally important aspect of reinforcing the norm is to loudly and consistently condemn those who choose to fight the tide of history and stay outside of the norm, particularly those who continue to use antipersonnel mines.

Mine users have gotten off too easily. With some exceptions, Mine Ban Treaty States Parties and signatories have not condemned instances of use regularly or forcefully enough. The ICBL urges pro-ban governments not only to criticize and stigmatize mine users consistently, but also to take concrete steps to penalize them, diplomatically or otherwise – while taking care not to penalize the civilians living in mined areas. Mine users should pay a price for the future pain they are inflicting on civilian populations.

The Landmine Monitor Report 2000 identifies eleven governments and dozens of rebel groups that have used mines since the treaty entered into force in March 1999. The heaviest use can be attributed to Russian forces in Chechnya and Yugoslav forces in Kosovo. It should be noted that Chechen rebels and Kosovo Liberation Army forces also used antipersonnel mines.

Very disturbingly, Angola, a treaty signatory, acknowledged that it continued to use mines in its conflict with UNITA, which has also used mines. There is also convincing evidence that treaty signatories Burundi and Sudan have used mines since March 1999, though both deny use. Any use of mines by anyone must be criticized, but these three governments deserve special condemnation. Even though they have yet to ratify the treaty, they are in violation of international law because they engage in activities that defeat the object and purpose of the treaty that they have signed.

Others mine users since entry into force include the following non-signatories: Democratic Republic of Congo and Eritrea in Africa; Burma, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka in Asia; and Israel in the Middle East. Russian and Pakistani use of mines may constitute violations of their obligations under Protocol II of the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

In addition to Chechnya, Kosovo, and Angola, Landmine Monitor found use of antipersonnel mines by non-state actors in Sudan, DR Congo, Senegal, Uganda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Burma, Kashmir, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Georgia, Turkey, Northern Iraq, South Lebanon, and Colombia.

The ICBL is also very concerned about continued, but unconfirmed, allegations of use of antipersonnel mines in conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo by the armies of States Parties Uganda and Zimbabwe, as well as Rwanda, which ratified in June and will formally become a State Party in December. All three of those governments deny use of mines, and Landmine Monitor has not been able to verify who is responsible for laying mines in the DRC. But numerous allegations and uncertainties about who is responsible have continued for more than two years. The ICBL believes that it has now reached the point where other States Parties should make detailed requests for clarification from Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, and should make all necessary efforts to establish the facts regarding mine use in the DRC.

These instances of use are perhaps the most disturbing findings of Landmine Monitor Report 2000. Still, antipersonnel mines are not being used today on the scale of recent decades when millions per year were being deployed. Indeed, overall, Landmine Monitor finds that virtually every trend is in the right direction. There has been a dramatic drop in production, an almost complete halt to trade, increased destruction of stockpiled mines (more than 22 million by at least 50 nations, including some 10 million antipersonnel mines destroyed since entry into force), increased funding for humanitarian mine action (more than $211 million in 1999 alone, an increase of about one-third over 1998), more land demined, and fewer mine victims in key affected countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Mozambique.

Universalization remains one of the biggest challenges facing ban supporters, and progress is mixed. A total of 139 governments – nearly three-quarters of the world’s nations – have now signed the Mine Ban Treaty, and 107 have ratified; these are very impressive numbers for a convention that is so young. However, while 35 nations have ratified since entry into force, only four new nations have acceded to the treaty since then (Tajikistan, Liberia, Nauru, and Kiribati). We were very encouraged by the ratification of Bangladesh last week, the first nation in South Asia to do so. We received the good news this morning that Gabon and Moldova have ratified.

Before moving on from Landmine Monitor findings, I would like to thank the dozen governments as well as the private sources that have funded the initiative. The Monitor reflects our shared view that transparency and cooperation are essential elements to the successful elimination of antipersonnel mines, but also the recognition that there is a need for independent reporting and evaluation. I would like to reiterate that Landmine Monitor aims to promote and facilitate discussion on mine-related issues, that it is an ever-evolving system that is to be continuously improved and updated. We welcome comments, clarifications, and corrections from governments and others, in the spirit of dialogue and in the search for accurate and reliable information necessary to reach the goal of a mine-free world. It is worth mentioning that it is our practice to post any official responses to the Landmine Monitor from governments in their entirety on our web site.

Mr. President, the Landmine Monitor is not the only important documentation we have for delegates. We have a brief paper that outlines the ICBL’s views on victim assistance. We urge governments to consider carefully its main points. First: landmine victims and the larger population of all persons with disability share many commonalities, including the need for very targeted measures to meet their clear and obvious rehabilitation needs. The treaty-related processes are an opportunity to improve the situation of landmine victims, war victims, and all persons with disability. We ask governments and international organizations to act on the language of the treaty, clearly stated, "to provide assistance for the care and rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration of mine victims...."

Second: In the past three years, governments and NGOs together have worked hard to define and encourage quality victim assistance. We know where the needs are. We know what constitutes good planning and programming. There are no reasons left to NOT provide good victim assistance. And every state is in a position to do so. Mine-affected states, if you do not have a disability coordination body already, the ICBL would urge you to consider setting one up. At a minimum, each mine-affected country should identify a focal point for victim assistance as recommended by the SCE. Select a method of long-term planning and follow through with it. Make sure it has representatives from the community of landmine victims and disabled persons. Inclusion of the voices of landmine victims is very important—to prevent mistakes, to contribute to effective programming, and to empower the very individuals and groups we seek to help to be able to help themselves.

Donors, we ask that you sponsor a wide range of programs and a wide range of implementers in a wide range of countries. Don’t be fooled into thinking that studies and expert missions constitute victim assistance. They don’t. Support programs that follow the various sets of guidelines for victim assistance. Support programs that have a track record of good work in mine-affected countries. Support programs that work closely with governments that have a good track record on disability issues. Support programs that simultaneously fit with national priorities AND promote the rights of the victims of landmines. Remember that the ban on landmines is just the beginning of a long journey.

Mr. President, the ICBL welcomes the fact that more funds are being made available for mine action. In the Landmine Monitor we have identified a steady increase in global funding for mine action programs in the field over the last few years. More mine action programs are being started in mine affected areas all over the world. However, we are concerned about the manner in which these resources are being prioritized and allocated. To reach our common goal of a mine free world within the timeframe set by the treaty, we need to ensure that the resources are being put to use where they are needed most, and in an efficient manner. We are especially concerned that in spite of the overall increase in funding for mine action, continuously successful programs are facing acute funding problems. Right now, the Afghan mine action program is planning to send all its 5,000 demining staff on two months leave without pay because of this.

Humanitarian mine action is an investment, and cannot be seen as a mere expense. It is an investment with potential to yield high returns, not only in saved lives and limbs, but also in economic terms. To improve the results of this investment, more focus should be placed on the impact of landmines on communities rather than clearing mines purely for the sake of mine clearance. Refining the measurement of the impact of landmines and better prioritization of areas for action based on reliable data will certainly make mine action more effective. The NGOs are breaking new ground in coordinating their efforts to achieve higher and relevant return on investment. Initiatives such as Landmine Monitor and the Global Impact Survey are unique in establishing credible factual data that forms a basis for informed decision-making. We are now challenging governments and international organizations to follow this trend, to coordinate their efforts and work together, within existing and established mechanisms to ensure the best possible outcome of this investment.

The international community is committed to a mine free world by the end of this decade. If this is to happen, then governments and international organizations need to significantly increase their inputs and modify their approach to mine action. New thinking, behavior, and action, compatible with rhetoric is required . Instead of ad hoc arrangements, sustainable indigenous mine action capacities have to be established and made operational as a matter of priority. We are looking forward to working with you on this.

Just as increased funding is needed for mine clearance, mine awareness and victim assistance programs, it is essential that donors provide assistance for stockpile destruction. The Stockpile Destruction SCE has helped to raise the profile and emphasize the importance of this plank of mine action, but too few governments have expressed a willingness to assist in this area. Yet it is more than obvious that it is easier and cheaper to destroy a mine from a warehouse than one planted in the ground.

Mr. President, it is clear that a truly universal ban on antipersonnel mines will be difficult to achieve if non-state actors are not engaged in the ban process. Approaches to this may include education on the landmine issue and relevant legal instruments; facilitation of unilateral declarations of renunciation of antipersonnel mines by non-state actors; agreements between governments and non-state actors on landmine bans; and encouragement of undertakings among non-state actors on the non-use of landmines.

The ICBL is encouraged by the recent ratification by the government of Colombia. Despite ongoing use of mines by armed non-state actors, the government has committed to implement the Mine Ban Treaty to the best of its ability. The Colombian Constitutional Court has suggested that special agreements with guerrilla groups should be tried in a manner contemplated by international humanitarian law. This approach and similar initiatives of governments dealing with armed conflict may offer possibilities that can further enhance the landmine ban and facilitate mine action.

Mr. President, there are several issues of special concern to the ICBL that we would like to highlight for delegates. We have raised these issues for a number of years, including during the meetings of the SCE on General Status of the Convention. First, we continue to be concerned about antivehicle mines with antihandling devices. At the January SCE meeting, there was a lengthy discussion on this topic. Nine States Parties reiterated that antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes or sensitive antihandling devices that can explode from an unintentional act of a person are banned by the treaty. No delegation disputed that fact. Yet a proposal by Ireland for the SCE to form an informal technical experts group to look at this issue and help determine which mines and antihandling devices might fall within the scope of the treaty was subsequently shelved. The need for clarity on this issue has been underlined by Landmine Monitor research that shows that some States Parties are destroying certain types of mines classified as antivehicle mines because the State Party has determined they will function as antipersonnel mines, while other States Parties are electing to keep the same types of mines. This inconsistency and ambiguity without doubt undermines the integrity of the treaty. The ICRC has now offered to host technical discussions on this issue at a seminar in early 2001. The ICBL strongly encourages States Parties to participate in that meeting, and, very importantly, to prepare and circulate technical papers on this issue prior to that.

Next is the matter of States Parties possibly participating in joint military operations with a non-signatory that may use antipersonnel mines. The conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Kosovo have greatly heightened our concerns, as has the acknowledgement of the United Kingdom that it has engaged in 15 joint military operations involving use of antipersonnel mines over the last three years. The ICBL believes that participation in joint operations with an armed force that uses antipersonnel mines is clearly against the spirit of the Mine Ban Treaty, and possibly a violation of Article 1 obligations. The ICBL calls on State Parties to insist than non-signatories do not use antipersonnel mines in joint operations, and to refuse to take part in any joint operations that involve use of antipersonnel mines. It is notable that several States Parties have made strong statements rejecting use of antipersonnel mines in NATO operations.

On a related matter, the ICBL has expressed concerns about varying interpretations by States Parties of the term "assist" in Article 1 of the treaty. The ICBL has emphasized the need for States Parties to reach a common understanding of the term "assist," especially as it applies to joint military operations, foreign stockpiling of antipersonnel on the territory of States Parties, and foreign transit of mines across the territory of States Parties. Full and effective implementation of the treaty will be enhanced if States Parties are clear and consistent with regard to what acts are permitted and what acts are prohibited. The ICBL believes that all foreign mines must be removed, and that assistance in the transit of mines would constitute a treaty violation.

We note that only some fifty reports have been submitted to the United Nations as required by Article 7. More than thirty countries are late in submitting their first Article 7 report. These governments have thus far failed to meet a treaty obligation; Article 7 reporting is not optional and due dates are legal deadlines, not targets. While the ICBL is overall pleased with the content of Article 7 reporting, there is a lack of consistency in the submissions of various governments. The ICBL has recommended that States Parties develop a reporting handbook to assist states with the preparation of the best Article 7 submissions possible, and the ICBL will work with interested governments to develop such a reporting guide.

We also note with concern that only some twenty States Parties have enacted domestic implementation legislation. We urge all States Parties to pass legislation or adopt other legally binding measures that would impose penal sanctions for any potential future violations of the treaty, and would provide for full implementation of all aspects of the treaty.

Mr. President, in closing, let me state that the ICBL pledges for its part to continue and to expand its efforts to reach the goals of complete eradication of antipersonnel mines from stockpiles and from the ground, zero new mine victims, and effective care, rehabilitation and reintegration of survivors. We can assure you that the ICBL will continue to push every government – State Parties, signatories and non-signatories – as well as non-state actors, to achieve the most comprehensive ban possible, and the most extensive and effective mine action programs possible. Collectively we have made history. Collectively we must ensure that place in history by universalizing and effectively implementing the Mine Ban Treaty, thereby saving lives in dozens of countries worldwide. Thank you.