Statement of the ICBL to the FMSP to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty

Delivered by Stephen Goose, Human Rights Watch
Head of Delegation, ICBL
Maputo, Mozambique, 4 May 1999

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

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines joins the many others in thanking you for hosting this important meeting. We are pleased to be here in Mozambique, where just over two years ago the ICBL hosted its Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines, a key step in the Ottawa Process. It was at this meeting that the government of Mozambique announced that it was banning the use of antipersonnel mines, effective immediately. Just prior to the meeting, South Africa announced its domestic mine ban, and several other regional governments for the first time stated their support for a global ban. So we have very positive feelings about the prospect of a successful meeting here in Maputo this week.

It is only fitting that the First Meeting of States Parties be held in a mine-affected nation in Africa, the continent that played such a key role in promoting a global ban and in protecting the integrity of the treaty when it was under attack during the Oslo negotiations, so skillfully chaired by Amb. Selebi whom we heard speak yesterday. The ICBL would like to echo the appreciation expressed yesterday by President Chissano for the tremendous assistance provided by the government of Canada and others in the organizing and carrying out of this First Meeting of States Parties.

We would also like to thank so many delegates for their kind words about the importance of the ICBL and the NGO community in driving the ban movement. We want to assure you that we will continue our work until the job is done. We want to assure you that we will continue to work cooperatively with like-minded governments and to build on the government-civil society partnership that has been the hallmark of the ban movement. We want to assure you that we will continue to push every government -- non-signatory, signatory, and state party -- to achieve the most comprehensive and watertight ban possible, and the most extensive and effective mine action programs possible.

The ICBL believes that for states the treaty provides the framework for solving the mine crisis, not just a political ban, but also demining and survivor assistance. Global cooperation and coordination in all these areas could best be carried out under the umbrella of the treaty. A key task for this First Meeting is to establish some practical means of facilitating full implementation of the treaty, including removal of mines in the ground within ten years, destruction of mine stockpiles within four years, expanded mine survivor assistance programs, as well as compliance issues. In this regard, we are very supportive of the intention to undertake the work ahead through an intersessional process, and we are prepared to participate in a constructive way in intersessional work to achieve our mutual objectives.

We also hope that this meeting will reach agreement on the reporting format for Article 7, and on the principles that such reporting must be complete and transparent in order to best insure effective mine action. Very detailed and publicly available reports would undoubtedly help the many NGOs carrying out demining and survivor assistance programs around the world. Ideally, the reports should be put on the Internet. The ICBL’s Landmine Monitor Executive Summary is already on the web, and the entire 1,100 page report will be posted soon. We intend for future Monitor reports to utilize and analyze the Article 7 reports.

Most importantly, though, we expect this week will enhance the emerging international norm against any possession or use of antipersonnel mines. It is vital that States Parties as well as NGOs react quickly and strongly to actions by all nations that are counter to the treaty and the international standard of behavior it has established. We must continue our joint efforts to universalize the treaty. The numbers of signatories and ratifiers, 135 and 79 respectively, is extraordinarily impressive in such a short period of time, but we cannot be satisfied until all signatories have ratified and those staying outside of the treaty are reduced to a repugnant few.

We were pleased to present a Landmine Monitor report to every delegation yesterday and hope that they will find it useful in assessing implementation of the treaty. This is the first in a series of annual reports to be produced by the ICBL's Landmine Monitor system and its global reporting network, currently active in more than 80 nations. Landmine Monitor represents the first time that non-governmental organizations and other elements of civil society are coming together in a coordinated, systematic and sustained way to monitor a humanitarian law or disarmament treaty, and to regularly document progress and problems.

Landmine Monitor is designed to complement the Article 7 reporting, and reflects a shared view that transparency and cooperation are essential elements to the successful elimination of antipersonnel mines. But it is also a recognition that there is a need for independent reporting and evaluation.

Landmine Monitor and its annual report aim to promote and facilitate discussion on mine-related issues. Landmine Monitor works in good faith to provide factual information about the issues it is monitoring. It seeks to be critical but constructive in its analysis. The report has its shortcomings and should be viewed as a work in progress, a system that will be continuously improved and updated through its online database. Landmine Monitor 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.

We would like to take this occasion to thank the governments, UN agencies, and the ICRC for their independent reports contained as appendices in the Landmine Monitor report. We would also like to thank those who have provided grants that made Landmine Monitor possible, including the governments of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom, as well as the Open Society Institute and ICBL Ambassador Jody Williams.

The Landmine Monitor report documents the very substantial progress that has been made in implementing this treaty and establishing the norm against the antipersonnel mine. We have seen a distinct decrease in global use, production, transfer and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines. The number of mine victims is decreasing in such high-risk places as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia, Mozambique and Somaliland. Landmine Monitor has identified 13 conflicts in which we believe it is likely mines have been used since the December 1997 treaty signing and there are frequent allegations in another five. While even one is too many, this number is surprisingly low -- mines are clearly no longer being used automatically and without consideration of the humanitarian consequences around the world. More than 12 million mines have been destroyed from the stockpiles of more than 30 nations--mines that will never claim a civilian victim. At least 38 nations have stopped production of antipersonnel mines, while just 16 producers remain. There is no evidence of significant exports of antipersonnel mines by any nation in recent years and Iraq is the only known past exporter that has not at least publicly declared a halt to mine shipments. Eight of the twelve biggest producers and exporters of the past 30 years are treaty signatories, counter to the oft-heard criticism that the Mine Ban Treaty does not include major producers and exporters.

Yet the news is by no means all good. The most disturbing finding of the report is that it appears three treaty signatories have used mines since December 1997. Angola's continued use has been properly noted and criticized by many yesterday and today. Guinea-Bissau also used mines in its internal conflict in 1998, and it is likely that the forces of Senegal used mines as well in that conflict in support of the Guinea-Bissau government. Yugoslavia has rightly been criticized for recent mine use, but non-signatories and non-state actors are still using mines on a near daily basis in places such as Burma and Sri Lanka, and on occasion in such rarely noticed places as Djibouti.

Moreover, Landmine Monitor research reveals that global stockpiles of antipersonnel mines likely total more than 250 million, which is more than double the previous common estimate. The ICBL believes that an increased emphasis needs to be placed on mine stockpile destruction, as a form of "preventive mine action." We encourage States Parties and others to consider the establishment of a special program and fund to facilitate stock destruction; this could possibly be done through the intersessional work. This effort should not be undertaken at the expense of other mine action programs. Such a program would not only keep mines out of the ground, but could encourage universalization as well.

While there has been a significant increase in global pledges to and spending on mine action since the treaty signing, and a number of important new initiatives are underway, the ICBL is concerned that too little money appears to be actually reaching the field in a way that would maximize rapid detection and destruction of mines. The ICBL is also concerned that too much funding is going to research and development programs for demining technologies and equipment at the expense of more funds for current, proven methods of mine clearance. The ICBL welcomes research that results in quicker, cheaper and safer methods for detection and destruction of landmines. We reemphasize the need for fully funding and conducting Level One General Surveys. There is a need for longer-term budget commitments to encourage better forward planning in the field. We also urge donors and recipients to do more to ensure that demined land is used by those who really need it, and not allow it to be part of political or military manuveurings.

The ICBL believes that under the treaty and other international law, states are required to provide assistance to mine survivors-- in one way or another ALL states are, in the treaty's words, "in a position to do so." The ICBL renews its call on governments to provide up to $3 billion over the next ten years to support effective survivor assistance programs in mine-affected countries. There is a need for long-term commitments now. Here in Maputo, the ICBL is introducing its new "Guidelines for the Care and Rehabilitation of Survivors." More resources are needed not just for medical care and physical rehabilitation, but also to promote peer support, psychological care, income-generating projects, literacy and vocational training, apprenticeships and job referrals. Survivor assistance programs must build local capacities so rehabilitation needs are met "in country" over the long term. Capacity building should emphasize training and employment of local workers and mine survivors to be responsible for all aspects of project design, implementation, and management.

There are several issues of special concern to the ICBL that we would like to highlight for delegates. First, we note that only a relatively small number of states parties have enacted domestic legislation implementing the treaty. Just as signature, then ratification were vital, so is implementation law. The ICBL calls on all states parties to enact such legislation quickly, including imposing penal sanctions for treaty violations.

Second, we are concerned about the issue of antivehicle mines with antihandling devices. States parties need to acknowledge more explicitly the diplomatic understanding reached during the Oslo negotiations that if such mines explode from an innocent, unintentional act, they are to be considered antipersonnel mines, and therefore banned. Indeed, the ICBL believes that all weapons that function as antipersonnel mines should be banned. States parties need to be more explicit about what types of mines and antihandling devices and delivery methods are permissible and prohibited under the treaty and the understanding. It seems clear that antivehicle mines using tilt rods, tripwires or breakwires should be considered banned, and that some, if not all, antivehicle mines with sensitive magnetic influence fuzes should be banned. States parties should address this issue urgently.

Third is the matter of treaty states parties and signatories potentially engaging in joint military operations with a non-signatory that may use antipersonnel mines. The conflict in Kosovo has turned this from a largely theoretical discussion to a very real and grave concern. While there is no evidence the United States has yet used antipersonnel mines in this NATO operation, the US has stated that it reserves the right to do so. The ICBL calls on treaty signatories to insist that any non-signatories do not use antipersonnel mines in joint operations. This should be a matter of great concern to all NATO nations, as well as Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others.

And fourth, the ICBL remains concerned about the related issues of US antipersonnel mines stockpiled in at least seven nations which have signed the treaty, and the permissibility of the US or other non-signatories transiting mines through the national territory of treaty signatories. The ICBL believes that all US mines must be removed from those nations, and that the transit of mines for the purpose of war fighting would constitute a treaty violation.

Mr. President, in closing let me emphasize that through the Landmine Monitor, the Global Survey Program, intersessional work, NGO humanitarian demining and victim assistance programs in the field and many other activities, the ICBL looks forward to further developing our partnership with governments, UN agencies, and the ICRC, aimed at our joint objectives of complete eradication of antipersonnel mines, zero new mine victims, and effective care and rehabilitation for survivors.

Thank you very much.

Related links

• Landmine Monitor - http://www.icbl.org/lm/
• Landmine Monitor Report 1999 - http://www.icbl.org/lm/1999/
• ICBL special section on the First Meeting of States Parties http://www.icbl.org/resources/fmsp/