Statement to the Nairobi Summit
on a Mine-Free World
The First Review Conference of the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel
Mines and on their Destruction
Delivered by Stephen Goose (Human Rights Watch), Head of
Delegation
Nairobi, 3 December 2004
Mr. President,
It is with great pleasure that I take the floor on this,
the final day of the First Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty and also
the seventh anniversary of the signing of the treaty in Ottawa. I remember
vividly that December 3rd 1997 was a day of great promise and hope, fueled
further by the presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize to the ICBL and Jody
Williams just one week later, and it spawned a wave of commitment and
determination that led to the Mine Ban Treaty entering into force in record
time on March 1st 1999.
Now, five years later, we have gathered in record
numbers, with the highest level government participation in any mine ban
meeting since that December 3rd signing ceremony. True to form for the Ottawa
Process, even though this is called a “review” conference, we have focused much
more on what needs to be done in the next five years, and how to accomplish it,
than on the past.
Together we have produced an excellent five-year review
document, one that to our knowledge is unmatched in scope and detail. Together
we have produced a very good five-year Action Plan, easily the best Action Plan
for States Parties developed to date. It provides a solid framework for
ensuring ongoing progress in implementing the Mine Ban Treaty and in tackling
all aspects of the global mine problem.
But, the Action Plan could have been strengthened, and
several States Parties, as well as the ICBL and ICRC, made proposals to improve
it. The unwillingness of the majority of States Parties to consider any changes
in the Action Plan was a surprising disappointment, and a stark contrast to the
determination of the majority of the negotiators in Oslo in 1997 who worked
hard to improve the draft text and who faced down challenges from a number of
prominent countries.
Mr. President, the ICBL began this week with a
presentation detailing the tremendous progress that has been made in
eradicating antipersonnel mines. We drew from this year’s special edition of
the Landmine Monitor Report with its five-year review. We have been pleased
that so many speakers throughout this week have utilized the Landmine Monitor’s
findings as the basis for assessing progress and problems, and we are grateful
for the praise bestowed upon the Monitor and the ICBL more generally. Today, we
will not repeat all the details of the achievements of the past five years, but
rather look to the future, and reflect on why the Mine Ban Treaty must continue
to succeed, and what must be accomplished in order for it to continue to
succeed.
The Mine Ban Treaty must continue to
succeed because every year
more than 15,000 civilians are still killed or maimed by landmines; because
most of the 300,000 to 400,000 landmine survivors worldwide are still
desperately in need of better assistance; because millions of people still have
their lives disrupted, and often devastated, on a daily basis due to the
presence of landmines in 83 countries.
But the treaty must also continue to succeed for reasons
beyond its humanitarian impact. The treaty and the ban movement have served as
a model for a new diplomacy, one that features a partnership between civil
society and governments, one in which small and medium countries have shown the
ability to set an international agenda and provide the leadership to resolve a
global crisis. This model is under assault in today’s world and some would like
to see it fail. The Mine Ban Treaty is clearly one of the few multilateral
processes working today and we must keep it in working order. When the Mine Ban
Treaty succeeds, an enlightened multilateralism succeeds, and international
humanitarian law and disarmament law are both strengthened.
The Mine Ban Treaty will not succeed if governments slip
into an old way of doing business, and if achieving consensus becomes the
primary objective rather than fully achieving the humanitarian aims of the
Convention. The treaty will not succeed if governments, NGOs and international
organizations do not continue to work together and if we do not all re-commit
ourselves and maintain landmines as a high priority issue.
The Mine Ban Treaty will not succeed if the decline in
funding for victim assistance programs is not dramatically reversed, if the
needs of survivors are not better met and their rights are not fulfilled.
The Mine Ban Treaty will not succeed if resources for
mine action are not increased, and even more importantly reallocated to better
support activities making an immediate change in mine-affected communities, so
that mine-affected States Parties can meet their 10-year clearance deadlines as
required by Article 5. It is not a success if many States Parties require
extensions, or if the goal of a mine-free world is abandoned in favor of a
lesser standard, such as mine-safe or impact-free.
The Mine Ban Treaty will not succeed if States Parties
cannot agree on fundamental issues of interpretation and implementation of the
treaty, including what landmines are banned under Article 2 and what acts are
banned under the prohibition on assistance in Article 1. The treaty and a
global ban will not succeed if armed Non-State Actors are not better educated
about the mine ban and convinced to halt the use of antipersonnel mines and to
support mine action. And, finally, States Parties must condemn any use of
antipersonnel mines by anyone under any circumstance.
Mr. President,
The Mine Ban Treaty will succeed
because a strong
international norm rejecting the antipersonnel mine is taking firm hold around
the world. Almost every country outside of the treaty has endorsed the goal of
the elimination of antipersonnel mines, and many have taken significant steps
consistent with the treaty. Virtually all nations not party to the treaty have
stopped export of the weapon, some have stopped production, some have destroyed
stockpiled mines, and many are contributing to global mine action programs. The
antipersonnel mine has been stigmatized to the point that even those not party
to the treaty are reluctant to use the weapon. Landmine Monitor reports that
only four governments have conducted new mine-laying operations since early
2003. But that is still four governments too many?the offenders are Russia,
Myanmar, Nepal and Georgia.
In closing, let me emphasize that the Mine Ban Treaty will
succeed because civil society will not allow it to fail. There are 350 NGOs
from 83 countries here this week to demonstrate our ongoing resolve and
determination. This includes more than 50 landmine survivors. The landmine ban
movement largely grew out of the voices of the deminers, human rights workers
and doctors in the field; the ban movement will be carried forward most
powerfully in the future with the voices of the landmine survivors and others
living in mine-affected communities. Moreover, we have had almost 40 youth from
24 countries here, training to be the next generation of mine ban advocates.
ICBL
members will be meeting tomorrow to further develop our own concrete, detailed
action plan for 2005-2009. We are in the fight against landmines for the long
haul, and we are convinced that, working together in partnership with
governments, UN agencies, and the ICRC, we will succeed, and antipersonnel
landmines will no longer be a deadly legacy, but rather a relic of the past.
Thank you