FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

Author/Origin: media mediaSPAMFLTER@SPATMFLTERicbl.org

(Thursday 06 March 2003 )

• What is the ICBL?
• What is the Mine Ban Treaty?
• Has the treaty made a difference to the global landmine crisis?
• Will mines be used if war breaks out in Iraq?
• What about mine use by India and Pakistan and elsewhere?
• What are the implications of mine clearance in North and South Korea?
• How is the mine situation in Afghanistan being tackled?

What is the ICBL?

In 1992, six organisations 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 some 1,400 non-governmental organisations in over 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: the signing, ratification, implementation and monitoring of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty; increased resources for humanitarian demining and mine awareness programmes; and increased resources for landmine victim rehabilitation and assistance.

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 disarmament and peace.

Since the adoption of the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL has remained committed to capitalising 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 six staff members and a coordinating committee made up of representatives from 13 organisations. ICBL members include human rights, humanitarian, children, peace, disability, veterans, medical, humanitarian, mine action, development, arms control, religious, environmental and women's groups.

• Brief history of the campaign;
• About Jody Williams, ICL Ambassador.

What is the Mine Ban Treaty?

The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty is the international agreement that bans antipersonnel landmines. Sometimes 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, in March 1999 the treaty became binding under international law, and did so quicker than any treaty of its kind in history.

Today, ratification of the treaty by signatories and accession by non-signatories continues apace. The latest ratification was by Cyprus (on 17 January 2003) and the most recent accession by the Central African Republic (on 8 November 2002). Of the 146 states that have joined the treaty, a total of 131 have also acceded or ratified at the time of writing. A total of 49 countries remain outside of the treaty entirely and these include China, Egypt, Finland, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States (U.S).

• Treaty update: for the text of the agreement and information on its universalisation and implementation.

Has the treaty made a difference to the global landmine crisis?

Yes, on the whole we are encouraged. A great deal of headway has been made since the treaty came into force in March 1999:

• production of antipersonnel mines has dropped considerably and trade has almost come to a halt;
• there has been widespread and extensive destruction of stockpiled mines: at least 43 States Parties to the treaty have already completed destruction of their landmine arsenals, destroying a combined total of some 30 million antipersonnel mines;
• vast tracts of land have been cleared and put back into productive use; and
• most importantly, there are now new fewer mine victims each year.

We especially welcome the news that mine use has halted in several countries where it has been widespread in recent years, including Angola (since the April 2002 peace agreement) and Sri Lanka (since a cease-fire in December 2001). Similarly, rebel use stopped in 2002 in Angola and Sri Lanka and we have received no new allegations of use by rebels in FYR Macedonia, Senegal, and Uganda.

The new international norm – where use anywhere by anyone – is gathering strength. More and more states are joining the treaty and working hard to implement it fully. We have congratulated states for successfully completing the treaty's first major compliance deadline: destruction of stockpiles of mines within a four-year period (by 1 March 2003). An increasing number of non-signatory states are responding to international pressure and abiding by the spirit of the agreement.

However, not all the news is good. The possibility of war in Iraq threatens these accomplishments. Furthermore, continued mine use by states and non-state actors in several conflicts is of grave concern, as is continued mine production in about a dozen countries. While the annual rate of injuries and deaths caused by antipersonnel mines diminishes, the absolute number of mine survivors keeps growing each year. Until there are no more mines in stockpiles and in the ground, civilians will keep paying the price for landmine use. And they will continue to need our help in order to lead dignified lives as contributing members of their families and communities.

• Campaign Lauds Stockpile Destruction but Warns of Iraq Mine Threat (28 February 2003);
• Landmine Monitor Report 2002: Major Findings;
• ICBL statement to Fourth Meeting of States Parties (17 September 2002).

Will mines be used if war breaks out in Iraq?

This is of enormous concern for the ICBL because any new mine use would exacerbate an already devastating mine problem in this severely mine- and unexploded ordnance-affected country. The ICBL is opposed to any mine use whether by Iraq, the USA or other parties to the potential conflict.

To date, the U.S.A. has not ruled out the possibility of mine use in this possible conflict and indeed the last time it deployed antipersonnel mines was in the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq too has not rejected mine use.

The ICBL is urging the United States and other parties to give a firm commitment now that it will not use antipersonnel mines in any future conflict in Iraq or elsewhere.

The campaign also cautions governments not to stray from their obligations under the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. We believe that participation in joint operations with an armed force that uses antipersonnel mines is against the spirit of the treaty, and possibly a violation of the treaty obligation not to assist in any way with the use of antipersonnel mines by anyone else.

The ICBL is also concerned about U.S stockpiles of antipersonnel mines in five States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty (Germany, Japan, Norway, Qatar, and the United Kingdom at Diego Garcia), and the possibility of the U.S. transiting mines across the territory of States Parties for possible use in Iraq. Qatar has been identified in media reports as a likely headquarters for future U.S. military action in Iraq.

Mine use by the U.S.A "would reverse nearly a decade of U.S. commitment to completely eliminate antipersonnel mines, and… fly in the face of widespread international rejection of the weapon, including by the U.S.'s closest military allies,” said Jody Williams, co-laureate with the ICBL of the 1997 Nobel peace prize.

• More on Iraq and Landmines (includes recent statements and other information).

What about mine use by India and Pakistan and elsewhere?

The ICBL is disturbed by the massive new mine-laying operations by India and Pakistan along their shared border. We have repeatedly condemned these operations, which have caused numerous civilian casualties, and we have called on India and Pakistan to stop laying mines.

Since December 2001, both Indian and Pakistani Government forces were involved in what appears to be the largest mine-laying operation in years and possibly decades. Recent reports indicate that mine-laying by both India and Pakistan has stopped, and India has started clearance – as part of a wider reduction of tensions on the border.

Our message to New Delhi and Islamabad has been clear: any use of antipersonnel mines is unacceptable. These weapons violate customary international law on two counts: they are indiscriminate and they are disproportionate in that the harm to civilians outweighs any military benefits. We have also pointed out that mines have had little impact on the outcome of previous Indo-Pakistani wars, according to the 1996 study carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The ICBL has also called upon States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty to condemn loudly and consistently those who choose to stay outside of the norm, particularly those who continue to use antipersonnel mines.

In addition to mine-laying in India and Pakistan, Landmine Monitor 2002 reports on extensive ongoing use of antipersonnel mines by the governments of Myanmar and Russia (in Chechnya), and lesser-scale ongoing use by Nepal and Somalia since May 2001. At the same time, despite a declared use moratorium in place since 1996, Georgian forces apparently laid antipersonnel mines since May 2001. There is also solid evidence of use of antipersonnel mines by non-state actors based in fourteen countries in the last year.

• More on India and Landmines and Pakistan and Landmines (includes recent statements and other information).

What are the implications of mine clearance in North and South Korea?

We are encouraged by the news that North and South Korea started demining the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in September last year. It is a positive move since both countries are mine-affected and amongst the few remaining producers of antipersonnel landmines in the world.

The clearance also has implications for the U.S.A., which has cited its minefields in the DMZ as a reason for not banning antipersonnel mines.

Both North and South Korea have substantial stockpiles of antipersonnel mines. Neither Seoul nor Pyongyang has joined the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.

• More on North and South Korea and Landmines (includes recent statements and other information).

How is the mine situation in Afghanistan being tackled?

Afghanistan - one of the most mine-infested places on the planet - joined the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty in September 2002. Use, production, stockpiling and trade of antipersonnel landmines are now prohibited. Mine action operations in the country have resumed with vigour and it is hoped that other activities to implement the convention will soon begin.

Kabul's accession to the treaty followed on from a conference on the landmine issue there in July 2002, which the government hosted and the ICBL and United Nations helped to organise.

Banning landmines is a significant step for a country almost synonymous with landmines:

• Each month between 150 and 300 people are killed or injured by mines and other unexploded ordnance;
• an estimated 50 percent of mine victims die before reaching a medical facility;
• all but two provinces are mine-affected;
• some 344 million square metres of mined land is classified as high priority for clearance.

Most of Afghanistan's neighbours have not yet joined the treaty, including India and Pakistan which are currently involved in massive mine laying operations along their shared border.

• More on Afghanistan and Landmines (includes recent statements and other information).