|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Africa: Landmines Treaty Update
Africa: Landmines Treaty Update
Date distributed (ymd): 981211
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +security/peace+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains an update from Mines Action Canada on the Landmines
Ban Treaty. It also serves to introduce a new e-mail list service provided
by Partnership Africa Canada (PAC), a coalition of more than 100 Canadian
and African nongovernmental organizations. PAC's free service of occasional
documents is provided both in English and in French. One must subscribe
to the English and French versions separately (see instructions below).
Depending on availability of translations, documents may appear in either
French or English or in both. Some of PAC's postings may overlap with postings
by APIC, but others will not. For more information contact Partnership
Africa Canada (pac@web.net).
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Partnership Africa Canada
The Landmines Ban Treaty: Year Zero
December 10, 1998
The Landmines Ban Treaty was signed in Ottawa a year ago. Mines Action
Canada (MAC) is a key member organization of the International Campaign
to Ban Landmines. In this document, MAC analyses how far the campaign has
gone during the Treaty's first year.
Further information can be found at the following web sites:
Mines Action Canada:
http://www.minesactioncanada.com
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada:
http://www.mines.gc.ca
Africa Policy Information Center:
http://www.africapolicy.org/action/lmine.htm
The Landmines Ban Treaty: Year Zero
The "Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production
and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction" - the
Landmines Ban Treaty - was opened for signature on 3 December 1997. The
treaty will not become international law until 1 March 1999. Nevertheless,
the Landmines Ban Treaty has not been idle in its "year zero"
and its progress in this year can be assessed.
1 Monitoring and Evaluating Compliance
Currently no one has all the information necessary to measure, on a
global level, state compliance with the standards set by the treaty, let
alone the information to measure how successful we have been in using the
treaty to address the problems caused by mines. With the help of a lot
of people around the world, however, this information will become available.
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) has begun to establish
a civil-society based monitoring system called Landmine Monitor. Landmine
Monitor's job will be to provide people with the tools they need to put
'people's power' behind the treaty. In effect, organised civil society
will become the new superpower enforcing this "People's Treaty."
The first Landmine Monitor annual report is due out in the first half of
1999.
2 Universalising the Ban
133 states have signed the treaty by its first anniversary. At least
fifty-two states have gone one step further and officially ratified it.
This is remarkably fast considering that the ratification process requires
states to do a fair amount of 'house-keeping,' including making sure domestic
legislation complies with the treaty and taking stock of the resources
necessary to comply with its terms. Following standard practice in international
law, it was stipulated that the treaty would enter into force six months
after forty countries ratified it. The first forty ratifications were achieved
in a record-setting nine months.
Countries which have signed and ratified the treaty are geographically,
politically and economically diverse. In the Americas, only the US and
Cuba have not signed on. Forty-two of the 53 African states, 35 of the
44 European, and 9 of the 13 Ocean states have signed on. The ban has not
made great headway with states in Asia, however: in that region, only 14
of the 45 states have signed. All of NATO except the US and Turkey have
signed. Eleven of APEC's 18 members have signed.
Among countries which have already ratified can be found former major
producers and exporters of mines such as France, Germany, Hungary and the
UK, as well as countries affected by mines such as Bosnia, Mozambique,
Peru, and Jordan.
Not only states use and produce mines. Private companies use them around
their installations, individuals use them to protect their land, and armed
political movements (known as "non-state actors") use them in
many countries. Recently, a number of non-state actors have banned the
use of mines, including the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the National Democratic
Front of the Philippines.
3 Setting Standards
The treaty has four main provisions: a ban on the use, production, and
export of mines; destruction of stockpiles; mine clearance in areas under
domestic control; assistance for humanitarian mine clearance; and assistance
for care, rehabilitation and reintegration of mine victims. It is not too
early to assess how far international standards on each of these fronts
have been advanced by the treaty. And although the treaty has not yet become
international law, signatories in particular have expressed a commitment
to which they can be held accountable. The following examples give an indication
of the choices that are being made by different actors in Canada and around
the world in response to the ban treaty. They can guide efforts to realise
an effective ban on landmines.
3.1 Ban on use, production and export
Article 1
Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances: a) to use
anti-personnel mines; b) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile,
retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;
c) to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any
activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
- In the third quarter of 1998, the ICBL was deeply disturbed to hear
reports of renewed or continued use of mines in a number of signatory states,
including Angola, Cambodia, the Peru-Ecuador border region, Senegal and
Sudan. Mine use was also reported in Burma, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, India, Kosovo (Serbia), and Sri Lanka.
- It is disturbing that manufacturers in signatory states are developing
weapons that skirt the definition in the treaty. The press recently published
the news that Japan is developing a new remote controlled mine generation.
An obvious attempt to bypass the Ottawa Treaty, the mines are fitted with
sensors which detect the approach of a person and then send a secret radio
signal to headquarters where a soldier decides whether or not to detonate
the mine.
- Production of anti-personnel mines is now illegal in Canada. It is
not known, however, if parts produced in Canada are used in the production
of mines abroad. World wide, 20 states which have not signed the treaty
are known to still produce anti-personnel mines. Although the US has not
signed, American citizens have mobilised to stop production, organising
frequent protests outside Alliant Techsystems, one of the Pentagon's major
mine suppliers. Through their efforts, 19 manufacturers in the US have
agreed not to produce mines or parts; others, including General Electric,
continue to refuse.
- There are virtually no officially acknowledged exports of anti-personnel
mines in the world today. Most states which continue to produce mines,
such as Russia, China, Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey and the US, have moratoria
on their export, though practice is different from what is legally permitted.
Iran, Iraq, Serbia, and Vietnam are thought to be the only producers without
an export moratorium. Among signatories, it is unfortunate that some NATO
allies, including Canada, are yielding to American pressure and interpreting
the treaty's prohibition on transfer not to include 'transit' of American
mines through a country.
3.2 Destruction of Stockpiles
Article 4
... each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction
of all stockpiled anti-personnel mines it owns or possesses, or that are
under its jurisdiction or control, as soon as possible but not later than
four years after the entry into force of this Convention for that State
Party.
Although states are given four years to destroy stocks of anti-personnel
mines, destruction is already underway. Canada destroyed all its treaty-definition
mines in 1997. However, it continues to hold anti-vehicle mines, which
are not prohibited by the treaty. Germany reportedly destroyed 1.7 million
in January 1998; the UK destroyed a token number in June 1998, and promised
to finish destruction of its stocks by 2000.
3.3 Demining land under domestic control
Article 5
Each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of
all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control,
as soon as possible but not later than ten years after the entry into force
of this Convention for that State Party.
Although demining is underway in many countries in the world, the effect
of the treaty on these initiatives is not yet clear.
3.4 Assistance to demining and mine victims
Article 6
Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide assistance for
the care and rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration, of
mine victims and for mine awareness programs. ... Each State Party in a
position to do so shall provide assistance for mine clearance and related
activities.
Around the world, millions of dollars have been pledged over the past
year for this work. Canada, for example, pledged $100 million over five
years last December for treaty implementation, including assistance for
demining and mine victims. Globally, some of this money is being used to
clear mines and support people who have been affected by mines. However,
there are widespread concerns in the ICBL that the money pledged globally
pales in comparison to the size of the problem, and that only a small proportion
of what has been pledged is finding its way to community-based humanitarian
demining and victim assistance. Some non-profit agencies are reporting
that funding for community-based mine clearance is actually weaker than
it has been in previous years. Lack of transparency on the part of governments
makes it difficult to know where the money is going and to assess how usefully
it is being spent. It is thought that a high ratio around the world (17%
in Canada) is being channeled into research and development of new 'mine
action' technologies. Ideally, this spending would result in appropriate
and effective demining tools which would improve capacity to clear mines
at the local level. However, some of the research that is being funded
under the flag of 'mine action' may have more relevance to military operations
than humanitarian demining. In some cases, such spending amounts to little
more than a subsidy to the domestic military-industrial complex. In Canada,
there are indications that some of the money allocated for treaty implementation
is being considered for the promotion and development of military replacements
for anti-personnel mines. Mines Action Canada strongly opposes such a use
of the Canadian Landmines Fund.
4 Addressing the problem
It is difficult to formulate a clear picture of the impact of the treaty
on the problems caused by mines so far. Ultimately, its success will be
measured in terms of numbers of victims and of acres of safe land returned
to people's use. Already there are good news reports, such as a Red Cross
report that the number of mine casualties in Cambodia decreased by 13 percent
(to 973 people) between January and September this year compared to the
same period last year.
Cambodia is estimating that it will take around 30 years to make all
productive land safe for use; this is down from the 100 years estimated
a few years ago. Afghanistan is estimating that it will take about ten
or eleven years to clear all high priority areas in the country at current
levels of funding. Whether levels of funding increase or decrease, and
whether the land that is cleared ultimately ends up the hands of people
who need it remains a matter of political choice.
Certain parts of the problem, such as anti-vehicle mines and mine-like
bomblets ("cluster bombs"), have remained to some extent outside
the reach of the treaty, focussed as it is on anti-personnel mines. However,
the increased attention to cluster bomb infestation in Laos is no doubt
partly due to the landmine ban.
For more information, contact: Mines Action Canada, 1 Nicholas Street,
Suite 1210, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 7B7, Canada. Tel:(613) 241 3777 Fax:(613)
244 3410 E-mail: macinfo@web.net Web
site: http://www.minesactioncanada.com
PACNET is an e-mail list service managed by Partnership Africa Canada
(PAC). Its aim is to provide a forum for sharing ideas and information
related to African development. The documents published come from a variety
of African, Canadian and international sources. NGOs in particular are
encouraged to offer material for publication.
PACNET is free to subscribers. To subscribe to PACNET, send an e-mail
message to: majordomo@list.web.net.
Leave the Subject blank and write in the Message: subscribe pacnet-l. To
leave the distribution list, write in the Message: unsubscribe pacnet-l.
For instructions on the French version PACRES, see the next paragraph.
[L'abonnement à PACRES est gratuit. Pour s'abonner à PACRES, veuillez
envoyer un message par courriel à: majordomo@list.web.net.
Laissez vide la partie "Subject" et écrivez dans la partie "Message":
subscribe pacres-l. Pour quitter la liste d'envoi, écrivez dans la partie
"Message": unsubscribe pacres-l.]
PACNET documents already distributed can be found at the Partnership
Africa Canada web site: http://www.web.net/pac
Partnership Africa Canada gratefully acknowledges the support of its
members and of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).
For more information, contact: Partnership Africa Canada, 323 Chapel
Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 7Z2, Canada. Tel: (613) 2376768.
Fax: (613)2376530. E-mail: pac@web.net
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the Africa
Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's primary objective is to widen
the policy debate in the United States around African issues and the U.S.
role in Africa, by concentrating on providing accessible policy-relevant
information and analysis usable by a wide range of groups and individuals.
|
