New Zealand Campaign Against Landmines (CALM)
|
NEWSLETTER September 1997 [No.6 1997] It is easy to understand and join in with the excitement of this sign-off
to the final e-mail message from Oslo. In less than three weeks
representatives from nearly 100 nations, together with the International
Campaign to Ban Landmines, have achieved a diplomatic marvel - a treaty
that bans landmines. But stay with us! As the inspirational Jody Williams said
in her closing statement, "the really hard work lies ahead."
What has been achieved so far by New Zealand and CALM has rested on
your continuing support and activity. There is so much more still to
be done, around the world - as you can see from the ICBL Plan of Action
in this newsletter - before the scourge of landmines
is conquered. It will be a pleasure to welcome CALM convenor John Head back from
Oslo next Wednesday, 24 September, and to hear from him personally what
went on there. Undoubtedly John will be able to explain how CALM can
contribute to the ongoing international action. Oslo is only "the end of the beginning."
Please maintain your commitment to CALM and the international campaign,
and together we can reach the result that the world so badly needs.
Statement to the Closing Plenary of the Oslo Diplomatic Conference
on a Treaty to Ban Antipersonnel Landmines, by Jody Williams,
Campaign Co-ordinator on behalf of the International Campaign to Ban
Landmines (18 September 1997) Mr President, As you probably surmised when the International Campaign led the standing
ovation upon the adoption of the convention yesterday, we strongly support
this treaty. Indeed, we believe it is a gift to the world. Governments
have responded to the demands of civil society and have come together
with unprecedented speed and produced a treaty that unambiguously bans
all antipersonnel landmines. We want to express our appreciation to you, Mr President, for your
extremely skilful and effective leadership in bringing this conference
to a successful conclusion. Many said that this treaty could not be
negotiated in just three weeks, but you have done it with time to spare,
Mr. President, and guided us toward a treaty of which we can all be
proud. I cannot help but think of the contrast with another set of landmine
negotiations that began almost exactly two years ago in Vienna, that
self-destructed after three weeks, reconvened twice more for another
three weeks and ultimately resulted in the fatally-flawed CCW [Conference
on Conventional Weapons] Landmines Protocol. We have come an incredible
distance in an incredibly short time since then. We thank you and we
thank all the governments that support this treaty. We also want to express our appreciation to you and the many governments
that have been willing to work closely with the International Campaign
over these three weeks and during the past two years. This government-Campaign
partnership is a key element of the Ottawa Process, and it is a partnership
we must sustain if we are ultimately to be successful in dealing with
the global landmine crisis. The success of this conference has validated the Ottawa Process. Together,
we have shown that there can be a new way of conducting international
diplomacy in the post-Cold War period. This accomplishment is perhaps
as important as the treaty itself and should embolden us to co-operatively
attack other problems on the international scene. Mr President, I would like to make just two comments on provisions
in the treaty. First, the International Campaign thinks it is important
to stress that in both the working group on definitions and in the Committee
of the Whole, delegates made it clear for the diplomatic record that
antivehicle mines equipped with antihandling devices that explode from
an innocent, unintentional act are to be considered as antipersonnel
mines and therefore banned by this treaty. Second, that a number of
governments also indicated for the diplomatic record that in Article
3, the "minimum number absolutely necessary" for training
mines should be hundreds or thousands, not tens of thousands or more. Mr President, this treaty is not perfect, as perhaps no document can
be that has tried to accommodate the interests of nearly 100 governments.
We will work with governments to improve it at the annual meetings and
the review conference. But it is a treaty that every government of the
world should sign in Ottawa in December, and ratify as rapidly as possible. The International Campaign has drafted an action plan that I would like to present to you and the delegates, Mr President. It lays out an agenda for concerted action by the more than 1,000 non-governmental organisations in approximately 60 countries that make up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines in getting the maximum number of signatories in December and in getting this treaty entered into force before the year 2000 -- I repeat
entered into force before the year 2000 -- in promoting universalization
of the treaty, and in monitoring the implementation of the treaty --
its prohibitions and its requirements for destruction of stockpiles
and emplaced mines and for assistance to victims. The action plan makes it clear that we cannot treat this conference as the end game. We have produced a very good treaty that will provide the baseline for eradicating the weapon and aiding those whose lives have forever been changed by this insidious, indiscriminate weapon. But the really hard work lies ahead. If we work together, if we not only maintain
but increase our commitment, we will be successful in the future, as
we have been successful here, in truly banning antipersonnel landmines. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ENTRY INTO FORCE BEFORE THE YEAR 2000 International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) PLAN OF ACTION for
the ratification, implementation, monitoring and universalization of
the International Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Landmines and for the
eradication of the weapon, and assistance to mine victims Presented to the Oslo Diplomatic Conference, 18 September 1997 The ICBL reaffirmed its commitment to the total eradication of antipersonnel
(AP) mines and assistance to mine victims. The ban treaty negotiated
here in Oslo is the first concrete step toward this goal. At its NGO Forum, held in Oslo, Norway, from 7-10 September 1997,
the International Campaign elaborated the following PLAN OF ACTION:
Oslo to Ottawa -- Focus on signatures to treaty [1] National Campaigns whose governments participated in the treaty
negotiations will request meetings with their governments post-Oslo
to discuss plans for signature of the treaty and national implementation
measures. [2] The ICBL will target those governments that
endorsed the Brussels Declaration but did not attend the Oslo negotiations
to sign in Ottawa, including: Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Burundi, Congo
(Brazzaville), Fiji, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Malawi, Moldova, Rwanda,
Solomon Islands, St.Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadine,
Togo, and Trinidad and Tobago. [3] National Campaigns whose governments did not participate in the
treaty negotiations will request meetings with their governments to
press for their campaigns' signing the treaty in December. [4] If a country does not have a national campaign, neighbouring country
campaigns will take the lead in advocacy. Also, the neighbouring country
campaigns and/or the regional campaign network can establish a national
campaign in that country that does not currently have one. [5] Representatives of the ICBL will meet with government delegations
at the United Nations in New York to discuss signature and implementation
of the treaty. [6] In all meetings with governments regarding the treaty, national
campaigns will stress governments' responsibility to increase funding
for mine clearance and victim assistance programs. Ottawa and beyond: Entry into Force, Implementation, Monitoring,
Universalization Ratification [1] Post-Ottawa, the ICBL will work closely with core group governments
to insure the most rapid entry into force of the treaty. In the ratification
process, the ICBL will target 1) those governments with political will
to ratify early, 2) those states with relatively quick national legislative
processes for treaty ratification, and 3) those states whose ratification
will spur other states to do the same. [2] The ICBL will launch a public campaign "Entry into Force
before the Year 2000," focusing on "The First Forty,"
the critical number of countries for the treaty to take effect. Which
will be the first? Which will be the 40th to make it happen? (During
the Ratification Campaign, it will be stressed (with media, during meetings
with government officials, in publications, brochures, press release,
etc.) that according to international law (Art. 18, Vienna Convention),
states should consider themselves bound to the spirit and intent of
a treaty as soon as they sign it. [3] The ICBL will press the United Nations to proclaim the Year 2000
as International Year of the Eradication of Landmines. [4] The ICBL will support the ICRC's efforts to
encourage ratification through its information kits and other measures. Implementation/Monitoring [1] The ICBL will provide a simple "Implementation Guide"
which will clearly point out to its national campaigns the obligations
that a government assumes with the treaty. [2] National Campaigns will meet with their governments to determine
what steps the country will take to implement the Ban Treaty, as outlined
in the "Implementation Guide." [3] The ICBL will put a high priority on rapid passage of domestic
laws establishing penal sanctions for violations of the treaty. [4] National Campaigns will seek transparency in the destruction of
stocks by their government, with campaign and media presence during
such destruction. [5] National Campaigns will seek transparency in the dismantling or
conversion of production facilities. [6] National Campaigns will seek transparency in compliance with mine
clearance obligations, stressing that the clearance should occur "as
soon as possible" within the ten year time frame provided under
the treaty. [7] National Campaigns will press governments to elaborate plans to
provide assistance for the care and rehabilitation of mine victims,
including social and economic reintegration. In these discussions with
governments, campaigns will stress the Bad Honnef guidelines which elaborate
mine action programmes in the context of long-term development. As a
focal point, campaigns will push for the establishment of an international
day for mine victims. [8] The ICBL will work with its national campaigns in AP mines-affected
countries to develop concrete tools to monitor and report trade and
new use of mines. [9] The ICBL will work with key government allies to create a database
which will allow civil society to establish a baseline of mine- related
information against which to measure the accuracy of data provided by
states upon entry into force. Universalization
[1] The ICBL will build new or strengthen existing campaigns in those
countries that have not participated in the Ottawa Process to build
public awareness to bring them on board. [2] ICBL conferences and seminars will be held in countries not part
of the Process to increase pressure on those states to join the ban
treaty. [3] The ICBL will work with countries already in the Process to help
them bring other countries in their regions into "mine free zones." [4] Colombia, Philippine, and South African Campaigns will take the
lead in holding a workshop to explore ways to involve non-state actors
in the banning of AP mines; the workshop will be a precursor to a larger
conference on the issue. [5] Immediate target countries and regions for the ICBL include: Eastern
and Central European States, Russia, India, Pakistan, and the United
States. The Campaign will also work to expand its activities into the
Middle East and Asia.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Notes from John Head in Oslo, Wednesday 17 September 1997 The following news release was sent on the first Thursday of the
Conference. It is significant because it records the opposition of NZ
to one of the early US proposals. The tragic death of Princess Diana has made a major impact on us all.
Our conference opened with a minute's silence in her memory and several
of our key ICBL figures have been invited to her funeral on Saturday. Here are a few personal comments: The President: Ambassador Selebi, from South Africa has proved to be an excellent choice. I am amazed how we have made so much progress. It is not like some UN Conferences. We did not begin with statements from each country and we were able to move into finalising Articles of the Austrian Draft of the proposed Treaty in the first session. Consensus does not rule and if the President sees that a proposal does not have support he then seeks the approval of the sponsor to move on to the next item. We have not had a vote on any topic but if a vote is insisted on then a majority of 66% will be required to confirm decisions. This is a majority the Americans are never likely to achieve. The role of the USA: Yes, the ICBL was concerned that the USA would seek changes "that would gut the Treaty". The USA has produced a shaft of proposed amendments but they have had little support. Today they asked that countries signing the Treaty should be able to declare reservations. This had no support at all and was dropped. Earlier they had asked for a nine year period of grace from the time of each country's date of ratification before they were required to fully comply with the provisions. This was supported by Australia, Japan, Ecuador and Poland and strongly opposed by the ICBL and 18 other countries. France, Germany and Slovenia suggested that approval of this clause could be a means of enabling the USA to sign the Treaty but the President finally said that because the proposal had so little support he asked for the approval of the meeting to move on to the next item. No objections. The Korean Exception has yet to be resolved. The US amendment was worded to allow United Nations troops to use landmines "where a military armistice agreement had been concluded by a United Nations Command". NZ delegation leader Clive Pearson was one of many who opposed the principle. He noted that the situation in Korea is complex, but those who had been with the Ottawa Process from its inception had worked on the basis of achieving a comprehensive ban. The way the US was proposing an exception, with the suggestion it could be permanent, would be difficult for the Ottawa Process and the Oslo meeting to consider. Clive Pearson also made the point that there would be difficulties should the US be suggesting that the UN Mandate justified the continued use of mines. As depository for the Ottawa Treaty, the UN would have to live up to its expectations and obligations with respect to a ban. There was strong
opposition to this US proposal but it was supported by Turkey, Japan,
Venezuela, Indonesia and Australia. The American response was that "this
was a fundamental security issue and that we are not able to put our
names to the Treaty if we lose the right to defend Korea." A final decision has yet to be made on this issue but I am sure that
our campaign aim of No reservations, no exceptions and no loopholes
is holding.
These last few days have been dramatic and exhausting! On Thursday 11 September the conference ended with delegates having the proposed draft treaty to send to their Governments for agreement. There were no American proposals included-----Joy We met Tuesday with no objections from any Government but then the American delegation asked for an adjournment for 24 hours so that they would have time to influence Heads of Delegations to support their proposals for an Annex to the Treaty which would in reality "gut " the Treaty Draft. We were aware that President Clinton had gained the support of some very influential Heads of Government to the postponement.-----Despair Then this morning the American delegation made a very diplomatic statement
admitting that they did not have the numbers and they would not be making
any further proposals. The draft was adopted. -----Exhilaration
!!!!!!!
Thanks to PADET CALM warmly thanks the Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and
Arms Control for agreeing to fund (through the Peace and Disarmament
Education Trust (PADET)) the attendance of John Head, CALM Convenor,
at the Oslo Diplomatic Conference on a Treaty to Ban Antipersonnel Landmines
in September. John was a member of the official NZ delegation. New Internationalist Landmines are the theme of the September issue of New Internationalist.
The keynote article "Landmines -Trail of terror" is supported
by others on: Cambodian women deminers; arms companies moving into mine
clearance; mines in Chechnya and Afghanistan; surgery for mine
injuries; and an Italian mine manufacturer. Excellent (including horrifying)
photos and graphics. You can buy a copy for $5 from the NI office,
PO Box 4499, Christchurch; phone and fax (03) 365-6153. New Internationalist
kindly agreed to include a flyer for CALM in each copy of the September
issue sent to their subscribers - many thanks for this support. In
return, we encourage CALM members to get a copy of this issue. AND:The cover article of the September/October issue of New
Zealand International Review is: "Anti-personnel landmines:
a modern day scourge" by Frank Faulkner. The Review is available
for $5.50 from the NZ Institute of International Affairs, PO Box 600,
Wellington. David Zwartz Acting convenor
|
CALM is the New Zealand Campaign Against Landmines.
CALM is a member of ICBL, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
which was co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in December 1997.
