Home > Resources > Documents

My suggestion is to start or renew discussions within ICBL on the relationship of mine action and peace building. It seems appropriate that ICBL as Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate give this more thought this year, the centennial/centenary of the 1899 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and at the advent of a new millenium or century which is hoped to be a "Pacific Century". It is also good that ICBL's co-laureate Jody is addressing the Citizens' Peace Conference in May, after the ICBL General Meeting in Maputo. Ideally, the meeting can firm up ICBL's orientation on peace that Jody can carry to the Hague Conference. For my part, I circulated an initial discussion paper/outline titled "Mine Action, Peace-Building and Conflict Resolution" at the ICBL Frankfurt Meeting in February 1998. Improving and expanding this paper was on my mind when Liz's Hague Appeal came in. Without waiting for a new, improved version, I offer it again now for circulation as one discussion paper. Let me know if you don't have it so I can get a copy to you. One idea in that paper leads to a suggestion for a slogan which ICBL can adopt and popularize, especially this year of appealing for peace: "No to Landmines, Yes to Peace" and alternatively or complementarily: "Ban Landmines! End War!" That's it for now as I have to get back to my paper chase. Fraternally,

Sol Santos Philippine Campaign & NSA Working Group

Discussion Paper/Outline (for Frankfurt Meetings)

Mine Action, Peace-Building and Conflict Resolution

by: Atty. Soliman M. Santos, Jr.

One way of strengthening the ICBL is not only organizationally but also orientationally. After the signing of the Ottawa Treaty and the winning of the Nobel Peace Prize towards the end of 1997, the campaign has reached a new level of deepening the theory and practice of mine action after 1997.
For one, the need seems clear to go beyond landmines, or more precisely to link mine action with the causes and root causes of landmine use. This means addressing war or armed conflict which occasions landmine use. This also means addressing the root causes of war or armed conflict, especially internal armed conflict with its non-state actors. Stated otherwise, this means linking mine action to peace-building and conflict resolution -- or doing mine action in a way which advances peace-building.

It is no longer enough to say “ban landmines” while the war, which gives rise to their use, goes on. We must also say “end the war”. To quote from some Landmine Abolition pamphlets of the Canadian Friends Service Committee (CFSC):

For Cambodians to have the safe future they deserve, for there to be an end to the laying of landmines, the war in Cambodia needs to end.. Demining efforts are crucial-- they save lives and reopen needed farmland. But they cure only the symptoms, not the disease. For the work of deminers to be effective, the laying of mines must stop. That means a ban on landmiens -- and an end to the war.

To end the war is to end the reason for using landmines. But to end the war, we must also resolve the conflict , especially its causes or root causes. This is where the deeper meaning of peace and peace-building comes in.

To quote Thomas Gebauer of Medico International:

“The question of how to eliminate landmines is indeed a strategic question. In order to give an answer, we need to focus on the context of mines, on war and social injustice... We are convinced that each and every mine has to be demined but at the same time we know that the mines will disappear only when the circumstances dominating the world are--after all--determined by social justice, when health, education, self -determination and liberty are more than only rhetorical phrases.”

In fine, it is no longer enough to say “No to Landmines”; we must also say “Yes to Peace”.

Peace has what may be called negative and positive dimensions. Negative refers to the absence of war or actual hostilities and other direct violence. Positive refers to the presence of social justice and the promotion of human rights.

Peace-building is not just peacekeeping or even peacemaking. it is the “creation of political, economic and social space, within which indigenous actors can identify, develop and employ the resources necessary to build a peaceful, prosperous and just society.” It involves “initiatives which foster and support sustainable structures and processes which strengthen the prospects for peaceful coexistence and decrease the likelihood of the outbreak, reoccurrence, or continuation of violent conflict.” (Kenneth D. Bush, Queen’s University, Canada, input for peace-building and reconstruction policy)

On one hand, there is a long term developmental agenda for peace-building. The closest we have to this now is mine action from a development-oriented point of view (the famous Bad Honnef Guidelines) initiated by Medico International. On the other hand, there is the aspect of conflict resolution which is more immediate or short term. This is one area of mine action that has yet to develop its own version of “Bad Honnef Guidelines”. Relevant to this area of work (mine action and conflict resolution) is the developing effort to address non-state actors in internal armed conflicts.

4. NGOs, like those in ICBL, have a role in peace-building in general and conflict resolution in particular. This may be outlined as follows:

bridge-building
humanitarian work
mediation (third party role)

Pre- and Post-War Situations

(preventive & curative interventions)

education for democracy & multi-culturalism
inter-ethnic community-building
advocacy & empowerment

(Anja Weiss, Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Germany)

There are indeed various forms of people’s participation in conflict resolution:

public pressure
people’s agenda
facilitation or catalyzing dialogue or negotiations
mediation of direct talks
witnessing or monitoring of agreements (& treaties)

(Ed Garcia, International Alert, London)

In various degrees, these forms of intervention can be said to apply to ICBL’s role. The point is to purposively integrate mine action and conflict resolution in their various forms. The most direct example of this is to include mine action in its various aspects (ban, clearance, victim assistance, awareness, etc.) in the agenda of peace negotiations, including for ceasefire and confidence-building measures. Peace, humanitarian, human rights, children’s, women’s, veterans, arms control/disarmament, religious, medical, and legal NGOs all have their respective roles to play here.

5. Finally, a few relevant orientational points for the complementary track to address non-state actors, i.e. rebel groups, particularly in the sensitive context of internal armed conflict. This track is best pursued with a peace-building (or peace and development) framework as presented above. In other words, it should not be pursued with a counter-insurgency framework. Neither should it be pursued for the belligerency status of the rebel groups.

This track indeed requires a certain degree of neutrality or impartiality vis-à-vis both (or more) sides of the internal armed conflict in order to gain their confidence and enhance the chances of this particular form of mine action. thus, we have reservations about such statements in the CFSC Landmine Abolition pamphlets as: “Calling on all countries to end support for the Khmer Rouge is a necessary step towards bringing peace.” This may be true but it could also reinforce KR resistance to landmine abolition as a counter-insurgency measure.

It must be clear to all, especially rebel groups, that it is humanitarian concern, not counter-insurgency, that is at the heart of the campaign. As far as landmine victims are concerned, however the campaign is not neutral but partisan. Neutrality in the conflict does not or should not preclude the campaign from denouncing any side for committing landmine atrocities.

While humanitarian concern is at the heart of the campaign, victim assistance is its immediate but not exclusive manifestation. True humanitarian concern goes beyond first aid for superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and into good health, i.e. “complete physical, mental, and social well-being” (World Health Organization). Which brings us back to peace-building (peace and development)--indeed the proper context or perspective of mine action.