PRESS BRIEFING ON TREATY TO BAN LANDMINES

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING ON TREATY TO BAN LANDMINES

At a Headquarters press conference this afternoon sponsored by the Permanent Mission of Canada, Robert Muller, President of the Viet Nam Veterans of America Foundation, said the refusal of the United States to sign the treaty banning anti-personnel mines was unacceptable. Although the United States had inspired the campaign against anti-personnel mines, he said, reality had caught up with the rhetoric, and it was morally and militarily wrong for the United States not to become a State party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti- Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.

Mr. Muller is a co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. He was joined at the press conference by Stephen Goose, another co-founder of the campaign and Programme Director of the Arms Project of Human Rights Watch.

Mr. Muller said the convention banning anti-personnel mines, which will be open for signature in Ottawa on 3 and 4 October, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York, had broken new ground diplomatically. It had abandoned the consensus-dominated process of the United Nations and brought like-minded nations together to establish a moral standard to which the rest of the world could be held accountable. That extraordinary diplomatic initiative by the Canadians had resulted in a treaty that would soon be signed by more than 100 countries.

The "bitter-sweet" aspect, he said, was that the United States would not be one of those countries present in Canada to sign the treaty. It was ironic, because the United States had helped to inspire the movement to ban landmines. In 1992, Senator Patrick Leahy had introduced legislation to prevent the United States from being able to traffic in anti-personnel landmines and the United States was the first country unilaterally to enact a law to limit its own ability to traffic in those weapons. The leading military power had taken a leadership position against anti-personnel mines. It was a position maintained as President Clinton called for the elimination of anti-personnel landmines before the United Nations General Assembly.

"The problem, of course, is that the world heeded the President's call", he continued. "And now, the reality of what's going on around the world has caught up to the rhetoric of the President." This was embarrassing and, further, it was unacceptable. It was wrong from a military and from a moral point of view. The United States should not be out of step with the majority of countries in the rest of the world, all of whom had a lesser capacity to protect their interests in a military way without landmines.

In terms of the military interests, he said, last year America's most respected retired general officers had joined the campaign in calling for a ban, not on the basis of its humanitarian consequences, but on the basis that it was the militarily appropriate thing to do. During the Viet Nam war, the leading cause of casualties to United States soldiers was landmines; in 90 per cent of the 64,000 cases that United States soldiers were wounded, it was with United States landmines. The leading threat to United States soldiers in peacekeeping operations around the world was landmines.

The United States military would argue that they had so-called "smart mines", he said, which were designed to neutralize themselves after a certain period of time. However, he continued, those mines were "just as stupid as what the Government considers to be the dumb mines". They could not differentiate between a civilian and a military person, or between an enemy and a friend. The United States clung to the use of landmines because the Pentagon was in control of the issue.

Mr. Muller said he had spoken repeatedly with President Clinton about landmines, and the President had told him that he could not afford a breach with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Pentagon told the anti-landmine campaigners that the stripping of anti-personnel landmines from their inventory because of the humanitarian cost would be a "slippery slope" they were not prepared to go down. That would leave the Pentagon vulnerable for other categories of indiscriminate weapons.

Throughout history, he said, it had been civilian leadership that controlled what the military did. At the end of the First World War, during the process under the Geneva Protocols to ban poison gas, it was the United States War Department that said poison gas was the most effective killing mechanism yet devised by man, and that its use would determine the outcome of future wars. It was the civilian leadership that pledged not to use it. Yet today, despite the President's call to eliminate anti-personnel landmines and the earlier posturing of the United States, it was the United States which was the holdout from the treaty.

Stephen Goose told correspondents about the "Ban Bus", which had started its journey in San Francisco, and was travelling across the United States on its way to Ottawa for the treaty signing. Its aim was to educate the American public about the issue of landmines. The treaty itself was a collaborative effort. It was the joint product of "pro-ban" governments, especially those of a core group headed by Canada, Norway, South Africa, Austria, Belgium and Mexico, together with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the International Committee of the Red Cross and various United Nations agencies. That cooperation had enabled the drafting and negotiation, in less than a year, of the comprehensive ban treaty.

Ban Landmines Briefing - 3 - 21 November 1997

He said that probably more than 120 nations would sign the treaty. In the General Assembly's First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) last week, a Canadian-sponsored draft resolution endorsing the treaty was passed 127 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, among whom was the United States. The treaty was remarkably free of loopholes and exceptions. It was a total prohibition on the production and stockpiling, trade and use of all anti-personnel landmines. It included provisions for the destruction of landmine stockpiles within four years of its entry into force, and for the removal and destruction of mines that were already in place within 10 years. It had a rigorous compliance provision and extensive reporting requirements. It also urged Governments to do more for assistance to landmine victims.

He said he was extremely satisfied with the treaty as it stood -- and "ecstatic" about the support it had received. Although there were other holdouts besides the United States, it was useful to look at who had signed it, and to bear in mind that no treaty was universal. After only one year, the support was "stupendous", especially considering that the treaty would, for the first time in history, ban a weapon that was already in widespread use. Most of the countries that had landmines in their arsenals had signalled a willingness to give them up.

He said a majority of the governments that had been the big producers and exporters of anti-personnel mines over the past two or three decades would sign the agreement. Of the dozen or so major producers and exporters who were responsible for the proliferation of mines -- the 100 million mines that were in the ground in some 60 countries -- the majority of those nations would sign the treaty. They would never again produce or export those weapons. The countries that had used mines the most, where civilians had suffered the most devastation, countries such as Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Bosnia, Croatia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, were going to sign the treaty. They would commit to destroying their stockpiles, so that in the event of later hostilities, there could be no temptation to use anti-personnel mines. That was the real value of the treaty.

However, the work was far from over, he said. The Nobel Peace Prize had been "a nice recognition". The real accomplishment of the campaign to date had been the treaty, but that was just the beginning. There was a detailed action plan for the future, which would be developed in cooperation with governments in Ottawa. The treaty needed ratification by 40 governments before it entered into force, and it was hoped that could be achieved within a year. The plan also included work to bring recalcitrant governments on board rapidly. Even with the support of 120 governments, there were many others, besides the United States, that remained outside. He cited Russia (which had said it would sign but without indicating when) and China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt, and Singapore. It was also necessary to expand mine clearance and victim assistance programmes, and to build cooperation in monitoring the verification and compliance aspects of the treaty.

Ban Landmines Briefing - 4 - 21 November 1997

A correspondent asked Mr. Muller whether he had the support of the recently retired Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili in advocating the ban on landmines. Mr. Muller said he did not expect him to change his position. His predecessor, General Colin Powell, had been high on the list of the campaign's targets for support. However, General Powell had said that out of respect for the position, he would not want to put pressure on his successor, but he had been very helpful to the campaign from behind the scenes.

Asked for more details about the action plan outlined by Mr. Goose, and what role the Conference on Disarmament would likely have in dealing with States not party to the new Convention. Mr. Muller said the action plan was broken down into the areas he had outlined.

It would address ways that the campaign could try to universalize the treaty; there were international meetings planned next year in Japan, South Korea, eastern Europe, Moscow and perhaps India. On monitoring, a system of cooperative compliance would be developed with the Canadians in Ottawa. On ratification, the Campaign would work very closely with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Many Governments were trying to arrange to sign and ratify the convention simultaneously in Ottawa, which would be a jump-start on that process. On mine clearance and victim assistance, an integrated approach would be developed, with community-based programmes to make sure mines were removed and that victims were taken care of.

On the Conference on Disarmament, Mr. Goose said he remained skeptical that the Conference would make progress, even though its landmine agenda had been much scaled down. It appeared the Conference would try to agree only on a ban on exports, having failed last year to agree on a comprehensive ban. He also doubted that the Conference was the appropriate venue, and was concerned about the proliferation of venues on the issue of landmines.

* *** *