Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights

RIGHTS: Activists Celebrate Landmines’ Decline

Miriam Kagan

WASHINGTON, Sep 9 2003 (IPS) - Global use of antipersonnel mines fell dramatically in 2002, sharply reducing the number of people killed by the devices, according to a report released Tuesday by a global anti-landmine consortium.

”We are thrilled to say that progress on landmine issues remains firm and forward-moving,” Jodie Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace Prize co-winner for her work to ban landmines and founder of the International Coalition to Ban Landmines (ICBL), told a press conference here.

The good news included a drop in the number of countries using the arms, signing of the anti-landmine treaty by 12 countries and ratification (approval by a nation’s legislature) by another 10 countries.

One dark spot was the record of the United States, according to Stephen Goose, executive director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch. HRW acts as the coordinating agency for the ICBL, an international coalition of over 1,400 NGOs committed to banning landmines, and is one of the main editors of the annual report.

Although the United States did not produce or deploy landmines in 2002, it cut funding for mining action and has still not committed to explicitly ban landmines, added Goose.

Since 1997, 136 countries have ratified the Mine Ban Treaty.

The U.S. Congress, which must ratify any treaty the government proposes to join, has not ratified the agreement. Washington’s landmine policy is currently under a ”governmental review” started in 2001 and is due to be completed later this year.

Belarus and Afghanistan were two of this year’s signatories. The latter, one of the most heavily mined nations in the world, was also one of the largest recipients of aid for ”mine action”, which includes de-mining, destroying and other activities to end the use of mines.

Belarus was the most recent nation to sign the treaty (Sep.3). Its accession is important not only because it has the world’s sixth largest stockpile of landmines (that it will now have to destroy), but also because it is in a ”region of former Soviet Republics that has been a weak spot” for mine action, according to Goose.

The report, ‘The Landmine Monitor report 2003: Toward A Mine-Free World’, identified significant decreases in landmine use by both governments and non-government actors.

It will be presented at the annual states parties meeting (of treaty signatories) Sep. 15 in Bangkok.

”The number of governments and rebel groups using anti-personnel mines has continued to decrease,” said HRW’s Mary Wareham. ”There are currently only two governments – Myanmar and Russia – planting anti personnel mines on a regular basis.”

The only country to start using mines in 2002 was Iraq, leading up to and during the recent conflict with the U.S.-led coalition that attacked the country in March.

The coalition also ”identified a decrease in use by non-state actors”, such as guerrilla and rebel groups, Goose added. The only increases were noted in Colombia and Nepal, where growing use by anti-government movements has led to increased casualties.

Global production of landmines fell off tremendously, to only 15 producers in 2002. Many of the 15 nations that retain producer status are not currently manufacturing landmines, but retain the capacity to do so.

Encouragingly, the number of global landmine victims also decreased, from 26,000 in 2001, to 15,000-20,000 for 2002.

Another positive development was the boost in funding for mine action worldwide to 309 million dollars, a 30 percent increase from the previous year.

”The increase is quite welcome but not adequate,” according to Goose. ”Of the increase, two-thirds went to Afghanistan and of that increase, one-half came from Japan.”

More money will be needed to help signatories meet their Treaty obligations, which include destroying stockpiles within four years and removing mines on their territory within a decade, according to Sara Sekkens of Norwegian People’s Aid.

”Unfortunately, current progress reports show that even greater increases in mine action funding, as well as higher cost-efficiency, will be needed to enable states parties to meet their mine clearance deadlines and cope fully with the global landmine problem,” he told media.

So far, reported Goose, ”compliance with the deadline to destroy all stockpiles has been excellent”, but progress might become stalled if funding is not increased.

Although over-all funding was up for 2002, the report reveals that funding by several major donors, including Washington, decreased.

”Although the United States is still the biggest contributor of mine action funds,” said Goose, it ”has decreased funding over the last two years by a significant amount”.

The report also decries the United States’ continued refusal to ratify the treaty.

Goose told reporters that while Washington is in essence complying with the treaty (by not using mines in either Iraq or Afghanistan), it is stalling ratification despite ”very extensive activities on the part of NGOs and pro-ban governments to try to get the U.S. to come on board”.

Washington ”has been doing a lot of the right things, but can’t seem to make the final leap,” he said, adding the ICBL is ”confident that at some point the U.S. will eliminate landmines; it’s a question of how quickly it will move”.

ICBL predicts that the United States will ratify the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006.

Williams speculated that one reason for the U.S.’ reluctance to ratify is resistance in the Pentagon. The military, she suggested, is reluctant to give up a weapons system in response to ”humanitarian concerns by civil society”, because giving in may have a ”snowball effect” on other weapons systems.

The United States remains one of the world’s largest landmine stockpilers, and, along with Russian, China, India and Pakistan, one of the last non-signatories of the treaty.

The U.S. signature could influence other non-signatories, including China and Russia (who sit with Washington as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council), to ratify.

”While it is still a mixed story for the U.S.,” said Goose, ”the 2003 report is an indicator that there is an international standard taking place, a new international standard taking hold not just among those who have signed the treaty, but among non-signatories and non-government groups.”