PRESS CONFERENCE BY INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE BY INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines presented its first report monitoring implementation of the 1997 Ottawa Convention at a Headquarters press conference this morning. The 1,100-page Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Towards a Mine-Free World was launched at the first meeting of States parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, held in Maputo, Mozambique, from 3 to 7 May 1999.

Jodi Williams, who, with the International Campaign was a co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, introduced the report with Stephen Goose, Programme Director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. The missions of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom sponsored the press conference.

Ms. Williams drew attention to the fact that the United States was reserving the right to use anti-personnel landmines in joint operations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) -- despite the fact that 17 of NATO's 19 members had signed the Ottawa Convention, which did not allow its States parties to support violators. If the United States, as a non- signatory, were to use anti-personnel landmines in joint NATO operations, signatory countries would be put at risk if they failed to intervene.

She called for a NATO-wide policy of not using anti-personnel landmines in any joint operations, while also noting that, in Kosovo, Serb forces were using anti-personnel landmines, which affected refugees and would affect their return.

The concept of the Landmine Monitor had developed a year ago as a system whereby civil society would participate in monitoring the treaty, which contained limited verification measures, she said. Mr. Goose added that it was part of a global effort to hold governments accountable for their commitments to the treaty and their public statements. An initiative of the Campaign, the report had been coordinated by five groups. Human Rights Watch had served as chief editor and producer. The other four were: Handicap International, Norwegian People's Aid, Mines Action Canada, and the Kenya Coalition against Landmines. Funding had come mainly from the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Norway, Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and from the Open Society Institute.

On 1 March of this year, the treaty had become binding international law, more quickly than any other treaty in history, and the movement continued to have tremendous momentum, Ms. Williams said. Since the treaty had been signed in Canada in December 1997, there had been a significant decrease in the number of victims in countries with high levels of "mine contamination",

and the number of landmine producers had dropped dramatically, from about 54 at the start of the movement to 16 today. There had been essentially no major export of landmines for more than four years. In short, the norm of banning mines was becoming rooted in the international community, even among countries that were not part of the treaty, such as China and the United States.

China had participated in the Maputo Conference as an observer State, but the United States had attended in an unofficial capacity, she continued. After Maputo, the Campaign had decided to target the United States for several reasons. When that country signed a treaty, it put its full weight behind compliance, and that would help to ensure that the international norm became firmly rooted.

It was important that the first meeting of States parties had been held in Africa for several reasons, she said. Africa had been a leader on the issue and played an important role during the critical stages of negotiating the treaty in Oslo. It had been important to hold the Conference in a mine- contaminated country. At the same time, however, it must be recalled that two African signatories had used anti-personnel landmines in 1998 -- Senegal and Guinea-Bissau -- and Angola continued to do so. Obviously, such use by a signatory to the treaty undercut the norm.

The report chronicled compliance, as well as how much money was given to mine clearance and victim assistance, she continued. It was created in the framework of government/civil society cooperation and was offered in the spirit of partnership. The campaign and the treaty were not designed to embarrass States or persons, but rather to establish law and ensure compliance. But, part of the way that was done was by naming names, since people and governments "wanted to be part of the good guys"; they were uncomfortable about being singled out, which was part of the purpose of the report.

Mr. Goose stressed that the report was the first example of non- governmental organization and civil society coming together in a coordinated and ongoing fashion to monitor a humanitarian law or disarmament treaty. The landmine monitoring system had three major elements: a global network; a public database; and the report itself. The global reporting network included more than 80 researchers in more than 80 countries providing comprehensive information on the situation in every nation. The public database was housed in Mines Action Canada and would be updated regularly. The report would be provided to governments, the press and the public each year at the annual meeting of States parties. It contained: information on every country; chapters on global mine clearance, victim assistance programmes and the political elements of production, stockpiling, trade and use of anti-personnel mines; and included contributions from United Nations agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Landmine Campaign Press Conference - 3 - 20 May 1999

"We are winning the war against the anti-personnel landmine", he said. Millions of mines were being destroyed and increased funds were being directed towards mine clearance and mine-awareness programmes. A new international standard of behaviour was emerging rapidly, despite the fact that the United States, Russian Federation and China had not signed the treaty. Even among the non-signatories, there was movement towards eliminating the weapon.

Anti-personnel landmines had been used in 13 conflicts from December 1997 through March 1999, he said. While that number should be zero, it was surprisingly low. Not long ago, landmines were used in every conflict. Today, they were not used as standard weapons of war by governments and non- State actors, including rebel groups. Mines were not being laid by the tens of thousands per week, as they had been in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Afghanistan or Cambodia. While there were reports of mines being used extensively by Serb forces, even that was not on the scale of a few years ago.

Sixteen countries were currently producing anti-personnel landmines or reserved the right to do so, including the United States and Singapore, but 38 countries had ceased production altogether, he said. Globally, more than 12 million mines had been destroyed from the stockpiles of more than 30 nations. Still, the number of landmines in countries' stockpiles was frighteningly high. In the past year, the estimated number of mines in the ground had been revised from 100 million to 60 to 70 million, but more than 250 million were estimated to be in the stockpiles of 108 countries. China alone accounted for some 110 million mines. The Russian Federation had some 60 to 70 million mines, Belarus tens of millions, and the United States about 11 million.

Further research was needed, he said. For example, the decreased numbers of mine victims might be due to fewer conflicts, rather than mine- related actions. While funds for mine action were increasing -- 11 donors had provided $169 million in 1997 compared with $100 million a year earlier -- it was unclear where that money went. Many mine-clearance organizations were concerned that funds were not reaching the field. They worried that funds were going into research and development programmes for high-tech clearance methods, equipment and technology, which might not be the best way to remove the most mines in the least time.

A correspondent asked whether the United States had openly reserved the right to use landmines in Kosovo and which other NATO party had not signed the treaty.

Turkey was the other party, Ms. Williams said. Mr. Goose added that the United States had said landmines were an option for use in Yugoslavia, if needed. In the course of compiling the report, information had been uncovered which cast doubt on the United States sincerity about its intention to sign the treaty in 2006, if it found suitable alternatives to anti-personnel mines. First, that Government had recently upgraded its B-1 bombers to deliver anti-personnel mines. More disturbingly, the Pentagon planned to upgrade the Gator anti-personnel mine

Landmine Campaign Press Conference - 4 - 20 May 1999

in 2005, by providing it with a wind-corrected munitions dispenser which would make delivery more accurate. Why would a system be updated in 2005, if it was to be abolished in 2006? he asked.

There was no evidence that the United States had used anti-personnel landmines in the air war, he continued. In fact, it had explicitly stated that it had not done so. Since 17 of 19 NATO members had banned the weapon, the question was raised whether the United States position jeopardized them in a legal sense. Certainly, it would put them in an awkward position. The Campaign's goal of NATO not using mines was called laudable by many governments, but they said that since NATO operated on consensus, the United States would block that endeavour.

Similarly, any one NATO member should be able to block the United States use of anti-personnel landmines, Ms. Williams added. In Mozambique, it had been interesting to witness the different government responses to the situation. Some had not even contemplated the possibility of the United States using mines. The Campaign would be pursuing the issue vigorously.

A correspondent asked why Angola was receiving great amounts of mine- related funding when it was still using mines. Mr. Goose said the report's reference to funding covered the period 1993-1998. Ms. Williams said governments were responding to the use of mines in different ways. Some, such as Germany, would not provide money to any State that violated the treaty. Others indicated their preference to support governments that did not violate the treaty. She hoped that governments that did not want to support the Angolan Government would provide funds to non-governmental organizations to help civilians. It was horrifying to think that the Angolan people, who lived in one of the world's most mine-contaminated countries, might be further victimized because of their Government's policies.

Asked about the global reporting network, Mr. Goose said it did not receive millions of dollars annually from the United Nations, as did the Chemical Weapons Convention. Rather, it was an effort to hold governments accountable through civil society . Information did not come from classified materials. The network had many weaknesses. It often had to accept "on faith" what governments said. Still, it was an effective method of making governments pay attention and an effective advocacy tool for eliminating the weapon. The system could perhaps be transferred to other endeavours in the environmental and humanitarian law fields.

* *** *