|
|
|
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
|  | Liaison Newsletter > LIAISON-Canada Electronic Newsletter #5
Is a Land-Mine Treaty Imminent? The standing ovation was slow in coming: Did we hear him right? Lloyd Axworthy’s promise to deliver a land mine treaty by December 1997 was probably more shocking to the Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) who have been calling for a ban by the year 2000, than it is to the dissenters in the Department of National Defence (DND) who consider land mines worthy weapons. But the Non Governmental Organizations aren’t complaining. "I am convinced that the real possibility of a treaty by a fixed date, will exploit the unprecedented momentum which we now enjoy, and will make it easier for countries to take the necessary national decisions which will make our group larger", said Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, at the closing plenary of the International Strategy Conference Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines, held in Ottawa in early October. While the statement was encouraging, it is not clear how large a group of states is supporting Axworthy at this time. One reason is that while Canada’s challenge was a much stronger political statement than the forward-looking conference Chair’s own Action Plan, it was a quantum leap from the actual consensus Declaration of the Ottawa Conference. The consensus achieved by the group of 50 states who participated was to commit to work together to ensure "the earliest possible conclusion of a legally-binding international agreement to ban anti-personnel mines". No agreed deadline for a ban was made however.. The response of the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN), Boutros Boutros-Ghali to Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister’s challenge was positive, as should be expected. Boutros-Ghali has been among the key proponents of a ban, especially since a speech he gave in mid-1995 in Geneva. Although member states of the UN in general have slowed the ban momentum, UN agencies such as UNICEF, DHA (Department of Humanitarian Affairs) and UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) have been in the forefront. Stephen Lewis, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN and Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, suggested that the UN was among the forces driving this nearly unprecedented movement. Furthermore, he said that the Landmines campaign would be successful because it was being driven by international NGOs who enjoyed the most experience of anyone, often because they were up close to the action. The better-organized NGOs are also being assisted in their efforts by a very vocal, (although usually apolitical), International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Much of the key documentation, such as Landmines: Friend or Foe?, and some of the medical literature, bears their logo. NGOs, said Ernie Regehr of Project Ploughshares, have the capacity to sustain the movement because, unlike governments, they are not susceptible to pressure from elections every few years. But he cautioned that civil organizations must still prepare for the long haul. Much time and energy will be required if the land mine coalitions are to see the ban and mine removal process right through to the end. Nevertheless, the campaign’s momentum will likely remain strong because its advocates continue to question the military utility of a weapon whose principle cost is a highly moral one - innocent human suffering. Senator Patrick Leahy made recent history in the US Senate when his proposal for a moratorium on land mines passed a Senate vote 100 to 0. But no army will give up weapons on its own, he told the conference. For this reason, a ban can not just come from the will of the NGO community, but it must come from political ranks as well. There will always be military arguments for retaining a supply of mines. Canada, in fact, continues to stockpile thousands for "training purposes", although we will be destroying two-thirds of our supply to fulfil a promise announced to the Ottawa conference. Still it has not been clear what is really meant by land mine "training". Soldiers have stated that they do not train with live mines. A letter to Mines Action Canada, the Canadian coalition opposed to land mines, was more candid. Issued by the former Minister of Defense, David Collenette, it suggested that mines were being kept just in case the present moratorium is reversed. That is the kind of thinking that has kept countries such as South Korea in the pro-mine camp. The statement read out by the Korean speaker from the conference "observer" seats noted that while her country was considering the CCW protocols, they could not subscribe to a total and unconditional ban. Without land mines, there would not be sufficient time to respond to a North Korea attack, she said. Hundreds of thousands of losses would be possible, and therefore land mines are the "least costly" defensive weapon in human and material terms. There have been few incidents in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) since land mines were laid, say the Koreans. There are strict rules for use and no high civilian cost is being paid because the mine fields are marked and monitored. Such arguments as these, admits Bob Lawson of the land mines desk at Foreign Affairs and International Trade, are the most difficult ones to counter. But Lawson also believes that mines do not fulfil a strategic military role, and their tactical utility is "dubious". If a land mine ban is to be written into a treaty, it will have to be consistently applied. The objections of dissenting states such as South Korea need to be resolved with enlightened defense strategies that do not have the effects that land mines do. Mines that are self-destructing, marked or fenced off may not cause a great hazard to civilians in the Korean DMZ, but anti-mine activists worry about leaving holes in the legislation that allow for continued production and deployment. If self-destruct mines are legal, they will be used in larger numbers, resulting in increased civilian casualties. Existing legislation requires that civilians not be targeted and that mine fields be marked, but there is no guarantee that either event takes place, and the rising number of mine-related injuries seems to confirm this. Consequently, coalitions such as Mines Action Canada and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines continue to press for an inclusion of Land mines in the international law ban books, alongside Poison gas and biological weapons, dum-dum bullets, exploding bullets and blinding lasers. While some critics suggest that the momentum for the ban is actually greater than the number of states ready to sign in December 1997, there are few precedents in recent memory that compare with the tremendous excitement being generated by activists and organizations working alongside governments committed to such a cause as this one. Traditional suspicion has subsided in order to allow for what seems to be an unexpected mutual respect. The shift has been difficult, but governments and citizens alike should prepare to make room for the prospect that banning mines might only be the beginning of a trend. Robin Collins
UNA-Canada has also prepared a Briefing Paper on Landmines, available on request. |
