Frequently Asked Questions
|
States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty will meet at the KingHusseinBinTalalConvention Center, by the shores of the Dead Sea, Jordan, from 18 to 22 November 2007. This is the first time a Meeting of States Parties takes place in the Middle East, traditionally the world’s region with the lowest rates of adherence to the treaty. 1) DOES THE TREATY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE GLOBAL LANDMINE CRISIS? 2) WHAT WILL THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE MINE BAN TREATY BE ABOUT? 3) WHAT ARE THE ICBL’S EXPECTATIONS FOR THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES? 4) IS THE TREATY WORTHWHILE WITHOUT CHINA, RUSSIA, THE USA AND OTHERS ON BOARD? 5) WHAT IS THE ICBL DOING ABOUT OTHER INDISCRIMINATE WEAPONS SUCH AS CLUSTER MUNITIONS? 7) WHAT IS THE MINE BAN TREATY AND HOW DOES A COUNTRY JOIN? _____________________________________ 1) DOES THE TREATY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE GLOBAL LANDMINE CRISIS Yes, in the 10th year after its signature (in Ottawa, Canada, on 3 December 1997) the treaty has 156 States Parties – 80% of the world’s states – and its disarmament and humanitarian achievements are unique. They include:
However, this is still a “success in progress” and much remains to be done. Continued mine use by two states (Myanmar/Burma and Russia) and non-state actors in several conflicts is of grave concern, together with the mine production in thirteen countries, namely Myanmar/Burma, China, Cuba, India, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, United States and Vietnam. Not all of these are actively producing landmines, but reserve the right to do so. Although the annual rate of injuries and deaths caused by antipersonnel mines diminishes, the absolute number of mine survivors keeps growing each year (in 2007 it is estimated at over 470,000 people worldwide) and many of their needs are not being met. Less than a half of the 24 countreis that have been identified as having the biggest survivors assistance needs and challenges, seem to be making an adequate progress to meet those needs. At the same time, funding for victim assistance comprises only 1% of the global mine action funding. Twenty-nine States Parties are requested under article 5 of the treaty to clear mined areas between 2009 and 2010 and almost half of these (14) are not on course to make it. More: consult the 2007 Landmine Monitor Report 2) WHAT WILL THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES (8MSP) TO THE MINE BAN TREATY BE ABOUT? The 8MSP will be the first Meeting of the States Parties held in the Middle East since the Treaty’s entry into force, thus representing an exclusive opportunity for the mine action community to interact with this key region. The Meeting will focus on the preparation of the “Dead Sea Progress Report” as a practical means to measure progress in the application of the Nairobi Action Plan [LINK] - the ambitious 70-commitment plan agreed to by States Parties at the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World (2004) - since the 7MSP and to identify priority areas of work for the period between the 8MSP and the 9MSP. The Nairobi Action Plan charts the road ahead for mine action and the universalization of the mine ban until 2009. It includes provisions on:
Another main issue of the meeting willl be the negotiations on an “Article 5 voluntary template” to address requests for extensions to the deadlines for destruction of anti-personnel mines in mined areas. This follows the declaration made at the 7MSP “to work further on a voluntary template proposed as the basis to facilitate preparation and assessment of extension requests, with a view to its finalization by the conclusion of the 2007 intersessional meetings, so as to enable its voluntary implementation until its formal adoption at the Eighth Meeting of the States Parties.” Furthermore, discussion on the transparency measures (Article 7) and the identification, by the Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, of a list of nominees to serve as Co-Rapporteurs between the end of the 8MSP and the end of the Ninth Meeting of the States Parties will be undertaken during the Dead Sea meeting. Finally, a number of side events will also be organized by civil society organization to raise awareness on this serious threat to human security. The Meeting involves everyone engaged in the fight against antipersonnel landmines: government representatives, civil society players including mine action operators, and representatives of UN agencies and other international organizations. As in previous meetings of this kind, a number of States not Parties are expected to send observers. The ICBL is a full participant in the Meeting, with official non-delegate status. Our delegation will consist of over 200 people including campaigners, landmine survivors, deminers and experts from across the world. 3) WHAT ARE THE ICBL’S EXPECTATIONS FOR THE EIGHT MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES? At the tenth anniversary of the Mine Ban Convention, we have all the right tools for the success: the treaty, which set the goal of “ending the suffering caused by landmines” and charted the road to reach that goal; the Nairobi Action Plan, which put forward detailed recommendations for implementation and universalization of the treaty; and the ongoing commitment of many States Parties to the goals and obligations of the treaty. Still, the reality on the ground clearly shows that this is a success in progress and much needs to be done:
We will be working closely with governments to ensure continuing progress and an ultimate success of the Mine Ban Treaty, by:
4) IS THE TREATY WORTHWHILE WITHOUT CHINA, RUSSIA, THE USA AND OTHERS ON BOARD? It is regrettable that these countries, and a few others, remain outside of the treaty. However, this does not take away from the importance of the treaty, nor weaken its achievements as one of the few current success stories in International Humanitarian Law and multilateral diplomacy. Over 80% of the world’s states have joined the treaty, and even without the support of China, Russia and the USA, great progress is being made in implementing and promoting its provisions. (See above: Does the treaty make a difference to the global landmine crisis.) In sum, the ban and the treaty are working, even without these holdout countries. It is significant that some States not Parties to the treaty are responding to international pressure on this issue. Many are in de facto compliance with the treaty even though they are not legally bound by it. The USA, despite its disappointing policy reversal in March 2004, is basically abiding by the treaty in practice: it has not used mines since 1991 nor exported since 1992. It has destroyed part of its antipersonnel mines stockpile and is one of the biggest contributors to clearance efforts. However, without an official commitment, these trends could be reversed: the USA has been developing new weapons systems that appear to be incompatible with the Mine Ban Treaty. A full-rate production decision has been delayed by the Congress, but the issue will come up again once a study on the indiscriminate consequences of the weapon is completed. The production of these new victim-activated mines would be a dramatic step away from previous US practice and the Mine Ban Treaty. It is worth noting too that these holdout countries are a shrinking minority. The vast majority of countries are committed to the treaty, including all the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa but Somalia, all of NATO but the USA and Poland, all of the Americas but Cuba and the USA, all of the EU except Finland and Poland (a signatory). Nevertheless, we urge those countries that have not yet joined to embrace a ban on antipersonnel landmines and take a step towards the Mine Ban Treaty. Especially, we urge the two remaining users of this indiscriminate weapon – Burma/Myanmar and Russia – to cease use and those that still manufacture mines to halt production. More: States Parties, States Not Parties 5) WHAT IS THE ICBL DOING ABOUT OTHER INDISCRIMINATE WEAPONS SUCH AS CLUSTER MUNITIONS? The ICBL member organizations working in the field all around the world have expereinced the humanitarian impact of other explosive remnants of war. Of particular concern are cluster munitions - prone to inaccurate and indiscriminate attacks, leaving behind large numbers of unexploded landmine-like ‘duds’, that pose serious threat to civilians and hinder reconstruction and development decades after the conflict. In 2007 the ICBL joined international efforts to prohibit cluster munitions and became a member of the Cluster Munition Coalition, an alliance of some 200 NGOs working towards a global ban on these weapons. Working in partnership with like-mined states and the UN, the CMC and ICBL are a driving force behind the so called Oslo Process aimed at concluding an international treaty prohibiting cluster munitions by 2008. They call on all states to join the Oslo Process and to adopt national moratorium on the use, production, and transfer of cluster munitions. More: Cluster Munition Coalition 6) ISN’T THE MINE PROBLEM BEING SOLVED BY NEW TECHNOLOGY AND CLEARANCE TECHNIQUES (E.G. RATS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS)? Unfortunately no new developments to date provide a magic solution. Clearance continues to rely on a 'toolbox approach', which includes manual and mechanical demining and the use of mine detection dogs. Related areas of surveys, fencing or marking and mine risk education also play an important role in preventing or minimizing casualties. Research and development is welcomed particularly where it improves the speed, safety and efficiency of existing clearance methods. But R&D needs to be well-coordinated and focused on operational needs. For example, there is no point spending lots of money on developing a hi-tech solution if this won’t ultimately work in the mine-infested rice paddies of Cambodia or dusty plains of Afghanistan. More: Mine Action Working Group 7) WHAT IS THE MINE BAN TREATY AND HOW DOES A COUNTRY JOIN? The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty is the international agreement that bans antipersonnel landmines. Also 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, on 1 March 1999 the treaty became binding under international law, and did so quicker than any treaty of its kind in history. A government needs to ratify or accede to the treaty in order to become formally bound by its provisions. Accession is the procedure open to governments that did not sign the treaty when it was open to signature (between December 1997 and March 1999). Ratification is open to signatory countries who signed before March 1999. As of 18 November 2007, there are a total of 156 States Parties and two signatories. The most recent accessions have been Indonesia, Montenegro, Kuwait, Iraq and Palau. A total of 39 countries remain outside of the treaty entirely. The remaining holdouts include China, Egypt, Finland, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States. More: States Parties, States not Parties, the Treaty Text In 1992, six organizations 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 over 1,000 non-governmental organizations in more than 70 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: ratification of and accession to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty; implementation and monitoring treaty; increased resources for humanitarian demining and mine risk education programs; and increased resources for landmine survivors rehabilitation and socio-economic reintegration. 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 other processes in the field of disarmament and peace. Since the adoption of the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL has remained committed to capitalizing 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, a management committee of five people and an advisory board made up of 21 member organizations. ICBL members include human rights, humanitarian, children, peace, disability, veterans, medical, humanitarian, mine action, development, arms control, religious, environmental and women's groups. |
|
