CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF MINE-BAN CONVENTION

CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF MINE-BAN CONVENTION

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 26 February (UN Information Service) –- The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard a series of statements marking the fifth anniversary of the Mine-Ban Convention on 1 March and expressing aspirations for the First Review Conference of the Convention which, will be held in Kenya at the end of the year.

Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch of Austria, speaking as the President-designate of the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World which would be taking place from 29 November to 3 December 2004 in the capital of Kenya, said the biggest challenge for the Nairobi Summit would be to secure the necessary political and financial commitment to continue to eliminate the humanitarian impact of anti-personnel mines.

Mr. Petritsch said that after officials from India and Pakistan had announced that their countries had established a “basic road map” for a constructive dialogue to promote progress towards peace, security and economic developments, the time might be ripe for the two countries to also take a fresh look at the global ban of anti-personnel mines.  As President-designate of the Nairobi Summit, he wished to encourage India and Pakistan, as well as other States not party to the Convention, to accede to the treaty.

Norway said that the Mine-Ban Convention proved that multilateralism worked.  However, notwithstanding the success, considerable work still remained to be done to fulfil the objective of the Convention:  a world free of mines.

Canada said the fifth anniversary of the Ottawa Convention would be celebrated in Canada during the Canadian awareness week for anti-personnel mines.  The representative noted that the goal remained the universality of the Convention.  The central message of the First Review Conference would be that progress had been made, but that more needed to be done. 

The Netherlands joined the speakers in calling on the countries which had so far not been in a position to join the treaty to do so, adding that the terrible humanitarian suffering caused by anti-personnel landmines far outweighed any military gains, and that was very important to realize. 

The United Kingdom said his country continued to fully support the Convention and looked forward to participating in the Nairobi Summit.  He also drew the attention of the Conference to a statement on counter-proliferation made by the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to the House of Commons yesterday morning.

Japan said that major challenges still confronted the Convention, first and foremost, the need for the norms established by the treaty to be further universalized.  Another challenge was to mobilize resources necessary for mine actions.  Regardless of whether a State was a party to the Convention or not, it was imperative for all to behave responsibly and act with a view to achieving the common goal which was to eliminate human suffering from anti-personnel mines.

France said the Ottawa Convention was a milestone in the history of disarmament, mainly because what had prompted this undertaking was the humanitarian considerations.  Nothing justified the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of these weapons when one considered the terrible suffering that they caused to civilian populations during and after conflicts.  The world must continue with its efforts to strengthen the regime for a total ban on mines.

Belgium said that it had made as a major pillar of its foreign policy the fight for a world free of mines.  It would continue until this fight was brought to fruition.  He called on all States present, particularly those who were not yet party to the Convention, to come to the Nairobi Summit and to participate in the most active way.

Croatia invited all States which had not yet done so to join in the effort to make the Convention a real success and to free the world of these horrible weapons.  The representative noted that financial contributions for the victims of mines had been in stagnation over the last two years, this while the total number of mine victims was increasing.  He thanked all the donors for their tireless efforts, and called on new forces to join in the attempt to make the lives of victims of mines easier.

The United States reflected on President George Bush’s call to action on 11 February to address what he considered as the “greatest threat before humanity today”, that was the possibility of a secret and sudden attack with chemical or biological or radiological or nuclear weapons.  Among other things, the representative said the United States was hopeful that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would make the strategic choice to give up its nuclear programmes.

In response, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that calling on his country to give up its nuclear programme without taking any action could not solve this issue at an early stage.  It was most important for the United States to make a switch over in its policies towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  This was essential in order to resolve the issues in the KoreanPeninsula.

Ambassador Pablo Macedo of Mexico, who was replacing the Ambassador of Malaysia as President of the Conference for this week’s plenary, noted the heavy loss of life and the extensive damage following the earthquake in northern Morocco, and said that, on behalf of the Conference, he expressed his profound sorrow and sympathy, as well as his condolences to the Government of Morocco and the families of the victims.  A minute of silence was observed to pay tribute to the victims of the earthquake.

Ambassador Omar Hilale of Morocco said that, on behalf of the Kingdom of Morocco and the families of the victims who were killed and injured in the earthquake, he extended his warm thanks to the Conference for the condolences and the observed minute of silence.  It comforted Morocco to know that it was not alone in its mourning.  He also thanked all countries which had extended help to the victims of the earthquake.

The next plenary of the Conference will take place at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 4 March.

Statements

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria) said that 1 March marked the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.  This anniversary marked the countdown to the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World, which would take place from 29 November to 3 December 2004 in the capital of Kenya.  As President-designate of this important event, he wished to note that more than 60 countries continued to be affected by landmines.  In the past five years, the use of this weapon had been markedly reduced, globally, and trade had practically ceased.  While the global community had rallied as never before to rid the world of anti-personnel mines, much more needed to be done.  Renewed dedication would be required to ensure that mines were removed from the ground.  And a long-term commitment was necessary to address the life-long care and rehabilitation needs of landmine survivors.  Hence, the biggest challenge for the Nairobi Summit would be to secure the necessary political and financial commitment to continue to eliminate the humanitarian impact of anti-personnel mines.

Mr. Petritsch said that in the few years since 1999, 141 States had joined the Convention.  Yet significant countries still remained outside of the treaty.  On the eve of a major anniversary in the life of the Convention, he wished to mention the encouraging and positive developments witnessed in the past few weeks on the Indian subcontinent.  After officials from India and Pakistan had announced that their countries had established a “basic road map” for a constructive dialogue to promote progress towards peace, security and economic developments, the time might be ripe for the two countries to also take a fresh look at the global ban of anti-personnel mines.  Cooperation in solving the humanitarian problems caused by anti-personnel mines could indeed strengthen confidence between States that embarked on the road to peace.  As President-designate of the Nairobi Summit, he wished to encourage India and Pakistan, as well as other States not party to the Convention, to accede to the Convention.  He expected the Nairobi Summit would result in a renewed commitment for the full implementation of the Convention.

SVERRE BERGH JOHANSEN (Norway) said he took the floor to mark that the Mine Ban Convention had entered into force five years ago.  This Convention was both a humanitarian and a disarmament treaty.  It proved that multilateralism worked.  States parties were committed to the Convention, and there was a strong political will among them to ensure its success.  He wished to take this opportunity to underline the importance of universalising this crucial instrument, and he urged the States that had not yet done so to join the Convention.  Norway was among the initiators in establishing the Mine-Ban Convention.  To date, it had been highly successful.  Notwithstanding the success, considerable work still remained to be done to fulfil the objective of the Convention:  a world free of mines.

Ambassador Bergh Johansen said that anti-personnel landmines remained a serious threat to lives, health and development.  Much more needed to be done with respect to mine clearance.  A lower number of mine victims did not mean that the job was done, it meant that the world was on the right way.  The world also had an obligation to help the victims.  As mines continued to claim victims, the total need for assistance continued to grow.  The First Review Conference of the Convention would take place in Nairobi in December.  It would provide an opportunity to address the remaining challenges.  Norway hoped that the Review Conference would produce a strong and clear commitment to continue implementing the Mine Ban Convention, and to achieve its important objectives.

ANN POLLACK (Canada) said that 1 March would mark the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Ottawa Convention.   The fifth anniversary would be celebrated in Canada during the Canadian awareness week for anti-personnel mines.  A number of events were planned.  The Convention had had a lot of success over the past five years.  The number of its States parties was increasing.  However, the goal remained the universality of the Convention.  Canada was proud to chair the Universalization Contact Group, working towards this objective.  Active universalization efforts were underway.  In the interim, those States that considered that they were unable to join the Convention should take steps, individually or collectively, such as a stating commitment to its humanitarian goals, undertaking moratoria to not produce or transfer anti-personnel landmines, beginning stockpile destruction, funding mine actions, submitting voluntary article 7 reports, and attending the Review Conference as observers.

Ms. Pollack said she did not need to repeat that the Ottawa Convention was making a real difference.  The Convention’s First Review Conference would be taking place in Kenya from 29 November to 3 December to celebrate its successes and recognize the remaining challenges.  Its central message would be that progress had been made, but that more needed to be done.  At a time when the Conference on Disarmament continued to be unable to agree upon a programme of work to address pressing issues affecting collective and national security, it was reassuring that so many members of the international community were moving ahead to address a vital issue of human security, which was making a real difference in the lives of so many people, communities and nations.  It was her hope that this positive spirit might infect the Conference.

CHRIS SANDERS (Netherlands) said he had asked for the floor to briefly add the voice of the Netherlands to the statements made by Austria, Norway and Canada marking the fifth anniversary of the Mine Ban Convention.  He did not need to repeat what they had said, however, he would make some essential comments.  He joined the others in calling on the countries which had so far not been in a position to join the treaty to do so.  The terrible humanitarian suffering caused by anti-personnel landmines far outweighed any military gains, that was very important to realize.  The world was firmly on the road to a mine-free world, but it was not yet there.  It must continue to be a success in the future.

DAVID BROUCHER (United Kingdom) said he wished to add his voice to the previous speakers who had eloquently spoken about the importance of the fifth anniversary of the Mine Ban Convention.  The United Kingdom continued to fully support the Convention and looked forward to participating in the Nairobi Summit.

Ambassador Broucher said he would like to draw the attention of the Conference to a statement on counter-proliferation made by the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to the House of Commons yesterday morning.  Mr. Straw said that over the past year, there had been some significant breakthroughs in countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  The United Kingdom had, among other steps, worked effectively with the United States in the case of Libya’s programmes and in countering AQ Khan’s network.  The United Kingdom had played a leading role, with France and Germany, on the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme.  It had enforced UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq.  It had also supported the six party talks.  All of these steps demonstrated effective multilateralism in action.  He said he would like to set out for the House other steps the Government was taking and further proposals it would be discussing to deter, check and roll back programmes of weapons of mass destruction in countries of concern, and to prevent weapons of mass destruction equipment and expertise from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Speaking at length about a proliferation security initiative, global partnerships, the United Nations and counter proliferation, the European Union security strategy, the non proliferation treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the biological and toxins weapons convention, Mr. Straw concluded by noting that countering proliferation remained as important today as it ever was.  The part that the United Kingdom’s intelligence services played in it was vital.  The United Kingdom was proud of what it had achieved over the past year, but it could not let up.  There was much work still to do.  The proposals that he had outlined were designed to assist that.

JACKIE SANDERS (United States) said that everyone was aware that the Conference on Disarmament had in recent years fallen on hard times.  She regretted to say that she did not have ideas or proposals to lead the Conference out of the current impasse, but that was because the solution did not lie in the hands of the United States alone.  Breaking the logjam was a collective effort.  When solutions were not easy to come by, it was particularly important for States to continue a dialogue on the serious challenges that were faced.  On 11 February, President Bush had issued a call to action to address what he considered as the “greatest threat before humanity today”, that was the possibility of a secret and sudden attack with chemical or biological or radiological or nuclear weapons.  Today, the materials and expertise necessary to produce weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery were more widely available than ever before.  No government could be sure that terrorists would not some day use weapons of mass destruction against its citizens.  At the same time, the ongoing pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by a handful of States in violation of treaty commitments and international obligations posed multiple risks.  It had also encouraged an international black market willing and able to put the most dangerous technologies in the hands of the world’s most irresponsible regimes and individuals including terrorists.  These realities required a change in both thinking and tactics.  The world must first recognize a compelling common interest in halting proliferation and then strengthen the tools to advance that common interest.

Ms. Sanders said President Bush had identified a number of practical steps comprising efforts that would be both profoundly multilateral and effective.  They included the expansion of the work of the Proliferation Security Initiative; enacting and enforcing effective domestic laws and controls that supported non-proliferation; expanding the Cooperative Threat Reduction and other assistance efforts to deal with dangerous weapons and materials; preventing governments from developing nuclear weapons under false pretences; adding impetus to the Additional Protocol; strengthening the IAEA; and finally countries under IAEA investigation should not be allowed to exercise the privileges of Board membership.

Ms. Sanders said the overwhelming majority of States responsibly complied with their treaty obligations.  Those that had not may be having second thoughts, the United States hoped, with a view to following the good examples set by those countries which had renounced nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons programmes, including South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and most recently, Libya.  Six party talks on North Korea resumed yesterday in Beijing, and the United States was hopeful that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would make the strategic choice to give up its nuclear programmes. 

KUNIKO INOGUCHI (Japan) said she had asked for the floor to underline the importance of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, which was marking its fifth anniversary since entry into force in March 1999.  She wanted to present the view of Japan on the status of the Convention and to reaffirm its firm commitment to its implementation.  Japan believed that the Convention held opportunities for mine-affected countries to alleviate and resolve their mine problems.  The Convention also established the overall norm of the eradication of anti-personnel mines, including the destruction of stockpiles within the five-year deadline.  And it provided a legal architecture to promote partnership among mine-affected countries, donor countries, international organizations and civil society for carrying out various mine actions.

Ambassador Inoguchi said that major challenges still confronted the Convention, first and foremost the need for the norms established by the treaty to be further universalized.  Another challenge was to mobilize resources necessary for mine actions.  It was said that more than $1.6 billion had been mobilized since the Convention was negotiated.  However, the vast mine fields remaining throughout the world and the continued humanitarian suffering caused by mines warranted sustained financial commitment to mine actions by the international community.  Japan was firmly committed to the implementation of the Convention.  In conclusion, consideration should be given to those who were friends, relatives and children of war-torn villagers and whose dignity was at stake where armed conflict had recently ended, but real peace had yet to come.  Regardless of whether a party to the Convention or not, it was imperative for all to behave responsibly and act with a view to achieving the common goal which was to eliminate human suffering from anti-personnel mines.

FRANÇOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said that five years ago on 1 March, the Ottawa Convention had come into force.  It was a milestone in the history of disarmament, mainly because what had prompted this undertaking was the humanitarian considerations.  Nothing justified the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of these weapons when one considering the terrible suffering that they caused to civilian populations during and after conflicts.  States had also agreed to assist the victims of landmines.  The willingness to make good the effects of weapons was a novelty in itself.  The States parties had made long-term and collective commitments.

Ambassador Rivasseau said that the first Review Conference of the Convention would be held in Nairobi, Kenya, in a continent which continued to be seriously affected by this scourge.  Wishing to make some general comments on this young treaty, he said that the Ottawa Convention was an unprecedented humanitarian achievement which had opened the way to a permanent solution.  France had done its part.  France felt that treaties of this kind needed to have universal membership.  Today, 141 countries were States parties.  However, major States, for varying reasons, were still not parties, some of them with major military resources.  Out of 65 member States of the Conference, some 24 were not members of the Convention.  That translated into half of humanity still being out of the scope of the Convention.  While as many as 30 million anti-personnel mines had been destroyed, world stockpiles were around 205 million and they were held mostly by non-States parties to the Convention.  The world must continue with its efforts to strengthen the regime for a total ban on mines, and everything should be attempted.  He hoped that the fifth anniversary could trigger the reaction that was needed. 

DAMIEN ANGELET (Belgium) said he would be very brief as the position of Belgium was known to everyone.  Next Monday, the world would be celebrating the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the mine-ban treaty.  From the beginning, Belgium had made as a major pillar of its foreign policy the fight for a world free of mines.  It would continue until this fight was brought to fruition.  He joined his voice to the previous speakers and welcomed the superb preparatory work carried out by Austria and Kenya in preparation of the Nairobi Summit.  He called on all States parties present, particularly those who were not yet parties to the Convention, to come to the Nairobi Summit and to participate in the most active way.

GORDAN MARKOTIC (Croatia) said he was taking the floor for the same reason as some of his predecessors had, namely, to congratulate the States that had signed the Ottawa Convention on the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of this unique international instrument.  From the beginning, the Convention had set up a very ambitious programme: a total ban on production, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines, comprehensive assistance to mine victims and their reintegration into the society, demining of all national territories contaminated with mines and the total elimination of all mines stored in stockpiles.  Croatia invited all States which had not yet done so to join in the effort to make the

Convention a real success and to free the world of these horrible weapons.  Croatia urged the highest possible participation in the first Review Conference of the Convention.

Mr. Markotic said that as the current co-chair of the Committee on Victim Assistance and their Socio-economic Reintegration, he wished to remind the Conference that financial contributions for the victims of mines had been in stagnation over the last two years, this while the total number of mine victims was increasing.  He thanked all the donors for their tireless efforts, and called on new forces to join in the attempt to make the lives of victims of mines easier.

JANG CHUN SIK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said he wished to give a brief reaction to what the distinguished Representative of the United States had said in relation to the six way talks which were now under way.  He was glad that the United States remained hopeful for the talks.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also hoped that the resumption of the second round of talks could result in a breakthrough in resolving the long-standing situation in the KoreanPeninsula.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, from this point of view, had advanced very productive proposals for a peaceful solution.  However, calling on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to give up its nuclear programme without taking any action could not solve this issue at an early stage.  The results of the six way talks were not yet known.  It was most important for the United States to make a switch over in its policies towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  This was essential in order to resolve the issues in the KoreanPeninsula.

* *** *