PRESS CONFERENCE ON LANDMINES

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE ON LANDMINES

Jody Williams, Coordinator of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, told a Headquarters press conference this morning that the treaty agreed to in Oslo following the Ottawa process [the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction] was the result of a broad-based coalition effort that reflected a new way to bring about rapid change. The Permanent Representative of Norway, Hans Jacob Bjorn Lian; the Permanent Representative of Canada, Robert R. Fowler; and a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Ariane Sand-Trigo, also made statements and answered questions at the press conference, which was sponsored by Norway.

"This is about non-governmental organizations, the ICRC and governments working together", Ms. Williams said. Well over 100 countries were expected to sign the treaty in Ottawa in early December, and Canada was expected to introduce a resolution on the treaty with 90 co-sponsors. The treaty would become binding international law when 40 countries ratified it and, while cynics had called the document a "country club, feel-good treaty", the Campaign remained committed to making it a reality, she added.

Mr. Fowler said that the Nobel Committee described the Ottawa process as a "model for similar processes in the future". The growing role of civil society in international relations was an exciting development. Canada had challenged the world community to come to Ottawa and sign the treaty almost a year ago and expected many countries to heed the call. The Nobel Peace Prize had given a new impetus to the movement and stepped up moral pressure that might convince wavering countries to commit themselves.

The treaty was more than merely a matter of numbers, he continued. It was also a question of victims. Tens of millions of anti-personnel landmines were still in the ground threatening future generations. After Ottawa, the next step was removal, and Norway had made a startling gesture in that direction. Landmines were an ongoing issue that would not end with Ottawa or even when 40 countries signed the treaty.

Mr. Bjorn Lian said the International Campaign to Ban Landmines was the first example of cooperation between volunteer organizations and governments, and it should set a precedent for the future. The treaty concluded one part of the process. Now, non-governmental organizations and governments must turn their attention towards demining and raising awareness of the plight of victims. The Nobel Peace Prize, and the upcoming ceremony in Oslo, could "send a message to governments that have not yet made up their mind" and further raise public awareness of the problem. A bill before the Norwegian Parliament called on Norway to spend $100 million over a five-year period to

help clear landmines, in addition to the $50 million it had already spent since 1994.

Ms. Sand-Trigo said the adoption of the treaty was a historic event, because it was the first time the development, production, use, trade and stockpiling of a widely used weapon would be banned in a single bold move, because of its appalling humanitarian effects. The treaty was elaborated just one year after countries in favour of a total ban met in Canada for the first time. Speed was possible because "the issue was taken out of the context of negotiations by consensus", she said. The treaty was the result of a tremendous joint effort by States, civil society and international institutions.

A correspondent asked why the Campaign accomplished so much in Ottawa and Oslo, while so little was achieved at the United Nations. Ms. Williams answered that individual States took the lead on the issue. Belgium had been the first country to ban landmines, followed by Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, South Africa and Mozambique. Then, public pressure led some governments to compete for leadership on the issue, which was seen as a humanitarian crisis. Also, the review process of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had failed. Finally, the United Nations operates by consensus. For example, China, the Russian Federation and the United States were opposed to a ban.

Mr. Fowler added that action outside the United Nations was possible because of a broad civil awareness of the damage mines did to individuals. That understanding played a much smaller role in the movements to ban chemical and even nuclear weapons. Non-governmental organizations were almost alone in conveying the message that landmines were damaging children and families, as well as forests and huge tracts of land and, consequently, development. The Ottawa process was not against the Conference on Disarmament, which was a negotiating forum. "But the idea that 25,000 people a year have bits blown off them, while diplomats negotiated, was unacceptable."

Mr. Bjorn Lian added that governments regarded the Campaign and the ICRC as very serious players that could have an impact, especially because they looked at the issue from the point of view of governments and the military establishment.

What was the political significance of Japan coming out in favour of the treaty? a correspondent asked. Could the Ottawa process be a model for addressing other issues in the future? Mr. Fowler responded, "the more the merrier". It was not the first time non-governmental organizations and governments had discussed matters of common concern. Recent United Nations- sponsored world summits, such as the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, were examples. The treaty to ban landmines was simply the most dramatic example so far of what could be achieved when States and non- governmental organizations cooperated with each other.

Landmines Press Conference - 3 - 21 October 1997

Ms. Williams added that the treaty marked the first time non- governmental organizations had such an impact on disarmament. For now, the focus would remain on landmines, but the idea of using the Ottawa process as a model for other issues must not be ruled out.

When asked whether she viewed herself as a woman "doing what women have always done, picking up trash and toys left by boys", Ms. Williams said war was a very complicated issue that could not be reduced to "boys and their toys". Such simplifications would make it impossible to address the root causes of armed conflict.

A correspondent asked why the United States did not seem to be affected by the stigma of not signing the treaty. Ms. Williams said that recent statements and decisions by the United States Government demonstrated it was feeling pressure and that it would be difficult to "stand outside the tide of history", especially if Japan and Russia joined, which appeared likely. Responding to a question on whether a compromise was possible, Ms. Williams replied "no". The negotiations could not be reopened. The treaty must be signed as it stands.

What about the claim of the United States that the situation on the Korean peninsula was exceptional? a correspondent asked. Ms. Williams said that, although the peninsula was a unique geo-political situation, the United States could not prove it was using landmines there any differently from how they were used elsewhere. The United States Government used Korea "to justify what it really wants, which is to keep its smart mines". Moreover, the treaty did not require the United States to give up mines in the demilitarized zone until 2006, which lies outside the time-frame cited by President Clinton in his arguments against removing the devices. The Campaign was planning to hold a conference in the Republic of Korea in early 1998.

When asked how effective the Princess of Wales was in her work to ban landmines, Ms. Williams said the Campaign was a broad cooperative effort, rather than the work of any single individual, and that Bishop Desmond Tutu, President Nelson Mandela and Pope John Paul II were also well-known participants. The Princess "gave a face to the victims" and helped the world see that poor people must live with landmines everyday.

Asked if a ban might lead States to sell off their landmine stockpiles on the black market, Mr. Fowler said that the enormous moral authority the issue had accumulated would make it very difficult for governments to dump the weapons on any significant scale.

* *** *