ICBL Intervention on the Action
Plan ? Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World
Delivered by Steve Goose. Head of ICBL Delegation and
Chair, ICBL Treaty Working Group.
Mr. President,
This is a very good action plan, one the ICBL supports. A
great deal of our input has been included and we are very appreciative of that.
It is a good plan, but it could be made better. The unwillingness of many
States Parties to even consider any changes to improve the document is
surprising. This is not treaty text, it is an action plan. Despite what several
delegations have been saying, this is not a highly negotiated document, though
certainly much work has been put into it. But in the mere three days of formal
preparatory work, relatively little time was devoted to discussions of the
action plan, and the document distributed here is changed considerably?for the
better?from September’s informal discussion. It seems natural that some changes
would be sought at this final stage.
I believe that Amb. Petritsch stressed in September that
there would be ample opportunity to have further input into the documents here
in Nairobi. Now it appears that turns out not to be the case. Such a
development seems very unlike the much praised Ottawa Process and very much more
like the consensus-driven Conference on Disarmament or the Convention on
Conventional Weapons (CCW).
We are not asking or expecting that all of the ICBL’s
comments should be included in the action plan. But we have suggested a small
number of what we consider non-controversial changes. We suggested virtually
all of these changes during the drafting process and wonder if some or all were
left out simply through oversight.
Our mine action working group has suggested adding to
Action #26 that any new mine action technology should be locally appropriate,
affordable, and sustainable. This has been emphasized by many States Parties in
recent years.
Our victim assistance working group has expressed support
for the ICRC proposal on Action #37, making a specific reference to voluntary
Form J, which reflects State practice. The group has also suggested suggested
language for Action #33 expressing support for the process of the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Our Mine Risk Education sub-group has suggested a change
in Action #21 to ensure that a new layer of bureaucracy for MRE operators is
not created. This is important to those in the field.
Our Non-State Actors working group has suggested language
“encouraging Non-State Actors to commit to a mine ban and mine action,” and for
States to “facilitate the work of organizations engaging armed Non-State Actors
to ban antipersonnel mines.” This language is fully consistent with past action
plans and declarations and is reflected in the Five-Year Review document.
Finally, we have expressed our strong support for the
ICRC’s proposed changes related to Articles 1, 2 and 3 (Action #54 and #55).
Regarding Articles 1 and 2, the ICBL has already made clear that it considers
the inability of States Parties to come to a common understanding on what mines
are banned under Article 2 and what acts are prohibited under Article 1 as a
major failing of the past five years. It seems inconceivable that in the midst
of all the cooperative success stories of this treaty, we cannot answer this
question: Are mines with tripwires, breakwires and tilt rods banned?
The vast majority of States Parties appear to answer a
resounding yes, but a small number say no, and the majority seem content with
that situation. As a result, the CzechRepublic has offered mines with tripwires
for sale on several occasions. We were not terribly surprised when Sweden spoke
in opposition yesterday to the proposed language on reaching a convergence of
views as a matter of priority, since Sweden is one of just four States Parties
known to be holding no to mines with tilt rods.
We were surprised when Sweden criticized and called into
question the role of the ICRC and NGOs in this process, especially since we
have worked very closely and cooperatively with Sweden for many years. The
statement was completely at odds with the remarks about the importance of the
ICBL and ICRC made by so many States Parties, as well as the President of Kenya
during Sunday’s opening ceremony and Ambassador Petritsch throughout the Review
process. I wondered if I was sitting in a CCW session in 1994 and not in a Mine
Ban Treaty session in 2004.
Mr. President, it remains crucial that States Parties
continue to discuss Article 1 and 2 with the objective of reaching a common view.
While States Parties did not fulfill the Bangkok Fifth Meeting of States
Parties call to reach an understanding by this Review Conference, they should
now strive to do so by the next Meeting of States Parties in Croatia in
November 2005.
Regarding Article 3, it seems that it may be only
misunderstandings that keep States Parties from reaching a common understanding
on the language proposed for Action #54. The notion that the treaty requirement
to retain only the minimum number of mines absolutely necessary for training or
development means a state should at most keep hundreds or thousands, or less,
and not tens of thousands is not a license to keep 19,999 mines. The
ICBL, as well as most States Parties, clearly believe the minimum number should
be zero, or as close to zero as possible. This proposal is not an effort
to determine a precise minimum number for all states?clearly different states
have different needs. This proposal is needed to guard against the worst case
scenario, to avoid in the future the situations we have already had where one
state wanted to keep almost 30,000 mines, another almost 70,000 mines, and
another 130,000 mines.
We support the proposal of Argentina and Chile on Article
3, the proposal for much greater transparency and reporting on how retained
mines are used. We agree that how the mines are used, and not some magical
number, is the key. But we view the Argentina-Chile proposal as a very useful
complementary measure to the ICRC proposal, not a substitute.
In closing, we would like to remind States Parties that
there is a long history to the understanding regarding “hundreds or thousands,
not tens of thousands.” At the close of the Oslo negotiations in 1997, Germany
read out this language as its understanding, and it was followed by many other
governments. Not one state spoke up in disagreement. This understanding has
been discussed extensively in the intersessional meetings and Meetings of
States Parties and has been endorsed by each co-chair of the Standing Committee
on General Status and Operation of the Convention for the past five years. We
see no reason why this language should not be included in this Action Plan and
urge States Parties to act on it now.
Thank you.