ICBL Statement

Author/Origin: ICBL media@icbl.org

(Wednesday 19 September 2001 Managua - Nicaragua) To the Third Meeting of States Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty
Delivered by Stephen Goose (Human Rights Watch), Head of ICBL Delegation

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

Like others, ICBL members come to this meeting with heavy hearts in the wake of last week’s tragic events. Many more campaigners were not able to be with us as planned. But we believe that it is important that we all -- NGOs, governments and international organizations -- collectively demonstrate our resolve to continue our fight against what we have long called a weapon of terror, the antipersonnel landmine.

We offer our thanks to the government and people of Nicaragua for hosting this important gathering, and for the great lengths they have gone to in trying circumstances to ensure its success. We also thank the government of Nicaragua for the key role it has played in promoting implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, especially through its very active participation in the intersessional work program and the coordinating committee. We believe it is appropriate that this year the annual meeting of States Parties is returning to a mine-affected country, helping us all to stay grounded in the reality of the ongoing impact of landmines. It is also appropriate that the meeting is being held in a region that has almost universally embraced the Mine Ban Treaty, with the regrettable exceptions of the United States and Cuba.

We would also like to take the opportunity to thank the outgoing co-chairs of the Standing Committees for the excellent work they have done over the course of the past two years, and particularly to thank Ambassador Kongstad for the invaluable role he has played as President. His contributions to the creation and success of the Mine Ban Treaty cannot be overstated.

Intersessional Work Program and Third Meeting of States Parties

The ICBL believes that second year of the intersessional work program has been very successful. We appreciate the prominent role given to the ICBL in the intersessional work, and the close cooperation between Standing Committee co-chairs and co-rapporteurs and the ICBL. We strongly urge States Parties to endorse the Standing Committee 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. The ICBL notes the important role played by the Coordinating Committee since its establishment at the Second Meeting of States Parties, and believes that its activities and responsibilities in facilitating effective implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty could be expanded. The ICBL supports the proposed establishment of an Implementation Support Unit, and the proposal to shift mine awareness to the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance and Related Technologies. The ICBL also notes the success of and urges the expansion of the Sponsorship Program, particular to facilitate participation by mine-affected countries.

Taking Stock

The Meetings of States Parties are designed largely to take stock of where we are and to plan for the future. There should be no doubt that overall, the Mine Ban Treaty is strong and that our collective efforts are having a major impact. We achieved our objective of 120 ratifications and accessions by the time of this meeting, and congratulate Chile and Eritrea as the most recent nations to formally deposit their instruments with the United Nations. The decisions by these particular nations to join the ban treaty are especially encouraging, with Chile as a former producer and exporter of antipersonnel mines, and Eritrea as a nation still using mines in combat as recently as last year. A new international norm is indeed taking hold. We are also encouraged by the commitments of nations such as Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia to ratify or accede to the Mine Ban Treaty in the near future.

In its third annual report, presented to delegates yesterday, Landmine Monitor finds that the positive trends continue. In recent years, there has been a dramatic drop in the number of mine producers, an almost complete halt to trade, widespread and extensive destruction of stockpiled mines, increased funding for humanitarian mine action, more land demined, and fewer new mine victims.

But the news is not all good by any means. Landmines continue to take an appalling number of innocent lives. Landmines continue to pose a crippling humanitarian and socio-economic problem in too many countries. Too many governments and rebel groups continue to use antipersonnel mines, with too little outcry from the rest of the world.

State Party Compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty

With respect to compliance by States Parties with their legal obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL finds it necessary to highlight the following concerns:

First, and most disturbingly, Landmine Monitor has received reports that indicate a strong possibility of use of antipersonnel mines by Uganda, a Mine Ban Treaty State Party, in the Democratic Republic of Congo in June 2000. Uganda became a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty in August 1999. While we have not received any eyewitness accounts or direct admissions of mine use, the testimony of a significant number and range of knowledgeable sources, including those in the DRC and Uganda, coupled with practical physical evidence such as the location of mines around what were defensive Ugandan positions, indicates a strong possibility of use of antipersonnel mines by Ugandan troops. However, due to the difficulties and dangers of gathering and reporting information in the DRC, Landmine Monitor cannot make a definitive determination regarding use.

The Ugandan government has denied that it used antipersonnel mines in the DRC. The ICBL has engaged in a dialogue with Uganda on this matter over the course of the past five months and has requested the Ugandan government to launch an investigation.

Landmine Monitor believes that these serious and credible allegations demand the urgent attention of States Parties, who should consult with the Ugandan government and other relevant actors in order to seek clarification, establish the facts, and resolve these questions regarding compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty. This should be done in the “spirit of cooperation” called for in the treaty’s Article 8, under which States Parties have agreed to “consult and cooperate with each other” to facilitate compliance with obligations.

The manner in which States Parties deal with this matter is crucial to the credibility of the Mine Ban Treaty. Through the Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention, there have already been wide ranging discussions on how to deal with compliance issues, including a paper circulated by Canada which stressed the many steps short of Article 8 available to States Parties. Now is the time to act on those recommendations. This matter also demonstrates the necessity and urgency of the work underway to operationalize Article 8. There should be no higher priority for States Parties than dealing in a meaningful fashion with compliance issues.

A second matter of great concern regarding compliance involves Tajikistan, a State Party since April 2000. The Russian government has admitted to Landmine Monitor that Russian forces based in Tajikistan have laid antipersonnel mines inside Tajikistan since April 2000, along Tajikistan’s border with Afghanistan. If Tajikistan requested or acquiesced to Russia’s use of mines, this would seemingly constitute a violation of Tajikistan’s obligation under Article 1 not to “assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party.” The government of Tajikistan has not responded to Landmine Monitor inquiries about this matter, and Landmine Monitor is unaware of any public reaction by the government to Russia’s use of antipersonnel mines inside Tajikistan, either in protest or approval. In contrast, Tajikistan has publicly and formally protested on several occasions use of mines by Uzbekistan on the Tajik-Uzbek border.

A third compliance concern is Article 7 reporting. As of 1 August, a total of 37 States Parties were late submitting their initial Article 7 transparency measures reports. Some of these reports are more than two years late. More than one-third of States Parties have failed to meet this treaty obligation. Article 7 reports are not optional and 180 days after entry into force is a legal deadline, not a target date.

Global Compliance with the Emerging International Norm

Mr. President, the ICBL noted last year that the annual Meetings of State Parties should serve the purpose of reinforcing the emerging international norm against any use or possession of antipersonnel mines by anyone. We called upon States Parties to loudly and consistently condemn those who choose to stay outside of the norm, particularly those who continue to use antipersonnel mines. We have been disappointed with the response to our call. Mine Ban Treaty States Parties have not condemned instances of use regularly or forcefully enough, and have taken very few concrete steps to penalize mine users, diplomatically or otherwise. This meeting, and the meetings related to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, are the prime opportunities for speaking out to stigmatize the use of this barbaric weapon. More importantly, a mechanism needs to be established that will ensure a consistent and strong response to instances of use of antipersonnel mines by non-States Parties and by rebel groups and other non-state actors. This is a role that could fall to the Coordinating Committee, or an informal contact group such as the Universalization and Article 7 contact groups, or through some other means.

With respect to the broader effort to eliminate the use of and to eradicate antipersonnel mines, beyond Mine Ban Treaty obligations for States Parties, the ICBL has a number of very serious concerns to bring to the attention of this meeting:

In its latest reporting period, Landmine Monitor identified confirmed use of antipersonnel mines, or credible allegations of use of antipersonnel mines, in 23 conflicts by as many as 15 governments and more than 30 rebel groups. These are increased numbers from the previous reporting period. In addition to ongoing use in many existing conflicts, new instances of use were identified in Tajikistan, as already noted, by Russian forces, in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan by government forces, and in FYR Macedonia by rebels. There are also strong indicators that government forces in Nepal are using antipersonnel mines against Maoist rebels, who extensively use improvised explosive devices.

The ICBL is especially concerned about use by a number of signatories to the Mine Ban Treaty. While signatories are not fully bound by the Mine Ban Treaty in the way States Parties are bound, under the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, signatories to a treaty are obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of that treaty. Thus, signatories that continue to use antipersonnel mines are not only making a mockery of their supposed commitment to eradicate mines, but are also in violation of their legal obligations under international humanitarian law.

Mine Ban Treaty signatory Angola has admitted to continued use. Landmine Monitor believes that there is compelling evidence that signatories Ethiopia and Sudan used antipersonnel mines in this reporting period (since May 2000). There have also been serious allegations about use by Rwanda in the DR Congo in June 2000 when Rwanda was still a signatory. There has been continued use of antipersonnel mines in Burundi, with allegations against both government and rebel forces, but Landmine Monitor has been unable to establish responsibility for the mine use. The governments of Ethiopia, Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi all deny use of antipersonnel mines.

In another disturbing development, a number of established mine action programs suffered through severe funding problems in the past year, including in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Cambodia. In some instances, operations were suspended and mine clearance teams were laid off. This occurred despite the fact that globally, funding for mine action has continued to increase.

Finally, there should be concern that universalization is not proceeding as quickly as demanded by the nature and scope of the landmine problem. Since the last meeting of States Parties, 11 signatory countries have ratified, and two non-signatories have acceded, Congo-Brazzaville in May and Eritrea in August. While the 120 States Parties, and an additional 21 signatories, are impressive numbers, comprising nearly three-quarters of the world’s nations, universalization is proving to be a daunting challenge that requires expanded efforts on the part of States Parties, the ICBL, ICRC and other partners in the ban movement.

In this hemisphere, there are three governments that have signed, but not yet ratified the Mine Ban Treaty (Guyana, Haiti, and Suriname), and two governments that have not signed or acceded (Cuba and the United States). It has been an added sadness and pain for the US citizens in the ICBL, such as myself, to recognize that the same terms used to describe the barbaric actions of September 11th – such as act of terror, cowardly attack, indiscriminate attack, wanton disregard for innocent civilians – are terms that we have long used to describe use of antipersonnel landmines. Others have drawn this parallel, calling use of mines an “act of terror less visible.”

Landmine Monitor Findings

Mr. President, I would now like to report to delegates some of the other major findings of this year’s Landmine Monitor report:

• Fewer new mine victims. Landmine Monitor estimates that there were some 15,000 to 20,000 new casualties from landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) in 2000, an encouraging decrease from the long-standing and commonly cited figure of 26,000 new victims per year. This represents not a sudden decline from the previous year, but rather a decrease over the course of recent years, due to successful mine action programs, decreasing use of antipersonnel mines and other factors. Important reductions in the number of new casualties were recorded in some heavily mined areas in 2000, including Afghanistan, Cambodia, Croatia, and Kosovo.

• Decreasing use. As of mid-2001, it would not appear that antipersonnel mines are being used on a massive scale in any conflict. The most regular use is likely occurring in Russia (Chechnya), Sri Lanka, and Burma. In all three instances, both government and rebel forces are using antipersonnel mines. The kind of widespread use of antipersonnel mines that was witnessed in FR Yugoslavia/Kosovo in 1999 and in Russia/Chechnya at the height of that conflict in 1999 and early 2000 was not evident in this reporting period in any location. It would appear, however, that use of antipersonnel mines increased in some countries, notably in Sri Lanka by government and rebel forces, in Colombia by guerrillas, and in Namibia by Angolan UNITA rebels and Angolan government troops.

• A dramatic drop in production. The number of producers has dropped from 55 to 14 in recent years; in this year’s report, Landmine Monitor removed Turkey and Yugoslavia, both non-signatories to the Mine Ban Treaty, from the list of producers.

• An almost complete halt in trade. Not a single significant shipment of antipersonnel mines (including by Mine Ban Treaty non-signatories) was identified in this reporting period, or indeed since 1998 when Landmine Monitor was launched.

• Increased destruction of stockpiled antipersonnel mines. More than 27 million antipersonnel mines have been destroyed by over 50 nations, including some 5 million in this reporting period. Thirty Mine Ban Treaty nations have completely destroyed their antipersonnel mine stockpiles, including ten since the last Landmine Monitor report; we must congratulate Peru and Ecuador for completing destruction earlier this month, thereby meeting the Managua Challenge. Another 17 States Parties are in the process of destruction. However, seventeen States Parties have yet to begin destruction, which must be completed within four years of entry into force for each nation. The deadline for many nations is in 2003.

• Increased funding for humanitarian mine action. Major donor nations provided more than $224 million in 2000 alone, an increase of about $19 million over 1999. Donors have now contributed more than $1 billion to mine action since 1993.

• More land demined. In 2000, eight of the largest humanitarian mine/UXO clearance programs cleared a combined total of more than 185 million square meters of land, including in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Kosovo, Laos, and Mozambique.

• Landmine Monitor research identifies 90 countries that are affected to some degree by landmines and/or unexploded ordnance. Bulgaria has completed mine clearance and is now considered mine-free. New mine laying in FYR Macedonia and Uzbekistan has added them to the list of mine-affected nations. A new survey in El Salvador, which previously declared itself mine-free, has identified 53 mine and UXO affected sites.

• Landmine Monitor research indicates that there were new mine/UXO victims in 73 countries in 2000 and 2001 (through May). A majority (45) of these countries were at peace, not war. The greatest number of new victims in this time period appear to be found in Afghanistan, India, Angola, Cambodia, Northern Iraq, and, likely, Burma. Significant numbers of new victims are also found in Chechnya, Iran, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and, likely, Vietnam.

• The first, groundbreaking national Landmine Impact Survey was completed in Yemen in July 2000; additional national Landmine Impact Surveys have been completed in Thailand, Chad and Mozambique. In total, 30 countries as well as Abkhazia and Kosovo have undergone some type of landmine survey or assessment since 1997.

• Five non-signatory governments acknowledge use of antipersonnel mines in this time period: Eritrea, Myanmar/Burma, Russia, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Eritrea states that it has not used mines since the end of its border conflict with Ethiopia in June 2000. Use is ongoing for the other governments.

• Landmine Monitor also believes that it is likely the following non-signatories used antipersonnel mines: DR Congo, Israel, Nepal, and Kyrgyzstan. Officials from DR Congo and Nepal have denied use. Israel acknowledged use of antipersonnel mines in South Lebanon prior to its withdrawal in May 2000, and appears to have continued to use mines in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, allegedly in one instance without proper fencing and marking as required by CCW Amended Protocol II.

• In addition to the instances of use noted above, there was ongoing use of mines in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance opposition forces, in Kashmir by militant groups, in the Philippines by three rebel groups, in Senegal by rebel forces, in Uganda by rebel forces, in Somalia by various factions, in Georgia/Abkhazia by non-state actors, and in Yugoslavia by non-state actors.

Mr. President, a total of 122 Landmine Monitor researchers in 95 countries systematically collected and analyzed information from a wide variety of sources for this comprehensive report. We would like to thank the dozen governments as well as the European Commission and the Open Society Institute for funding the Landmine Monitor initiative this year. 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. 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 our practice to post any official responses to the Landmine Monitor from governments in their entirety on our web site.