Mr. President,
We appreciate the wealth of information States Parties have presented in the discussion of the review document. It has reinforced the undeniable fact that the Mine Ban Treaty has already had many successes. But we have also appreciated that so many States Parties have stressed that the job is by no means done and that there are many challenges ahead requiring even greater commitment by State Parties and NGOs and International Organizations alike.
I would like to highlight some of the challenges remaining after five years, including the challenges of universalization, of rapid and more efficient mine clearance, of expanded and improved assistance to landmine survivors, and of better and more consistent application of certain Articles.
Regarding universalization, the ICBL would first like to join others in congratulating Ethiopia on its ratification, to welcome it to the unique mine ban community, and to pledge our cooperation in helping Ethiopia fulfill its obligations under the treaty.
A total of 144 State Parties is highly impressive in the short life of the treaty and compares favorably to most any other international agreement at a similar stage. While there is near universal adherence in Africa, the Americas, and Europe, we have made comparatively little progress in the Middle East and North Africa, in the Commonwealth of Independent States, and in parts of Asia. Some of the biggest stockpilers and producers of antipersonnel mines remain outside the treaty.
After an encouraging reversal of the decreased pace of ratifications and accessions in 2003, we have endured the least fruitful period since Entry Into Force. Over the past 13 months, only three new states have joined, including Ethiopia, despite expanded universalization efforts by governments and NGOs in the lead up to Nairobi. We have seen two countries, the United States and Finland, defy the global trend and move away from the Mine Ban Treaty, with the US completely abandoning its long held objection of a comprehensive ban on all antipersonnel mines and Finland deciding to delay its target date for accession until 2012. Clearly universalization remains a major challenge.
Turning to mine clearance, the ICBL identifies 83 countries still affected by mines and unexploded ordnance. There are still countries where little is known about the scope and extent of the problem. In 2003 and 2004, there were no mine clearance or mine risk education activities in 18 countries including thirteen state parties. Without increased and sustained resources, and without increased prioritization of mine action by both affected states and donors, there is a risk that many states will not be able to meet their ten-year deadlines for clearance of all mined areas. Global mine action funding is increasing, but it is benefiting too few countries while other programs suffer from cutbacks. Too little money is going to the actual physical clearance of mines. We must face the challenges of making clearance more efficient and of spending mine action funds more effectively so that the positive impact for affected communities is maximized.
There are also challenges in the area of Mine Risk Education, where we have identified 14 countries with high needs, including 5 State Parties. More generally, there is a need for better integration of mine risk education with other mine action activities.
The plight of mine survivors has already been a central theme of this summit, as well as last year's Meeting of States Parties in Bangkok. Yet the stark reality is that there is an ever-growing number of mine survivors in the world and in the vast majority of mine-affected countries, neither the national governments nor international donors are doing nearly enough to provide for their needs.
Landmine survivors and other persons with disabilities are often among the most impoverished group in every society. Many landmine survivors do not have access to some of their most basic needs. In many mine-affected countries the assistance available to rehabilitate and reintegrate landmine survivors back into society remains desperately inadequate. Of the 40 States Parties reporting new casualties in 2003, Landmine Monitor identified 34 where at least one aspect of victim assistance was inadequate to meet the needs of survivors.
As I noted yesterday, while global mine action funding has increased greatly since 1999, identifiable resources for mine victim assistance have actually declined, from about $30 million to about $28 million, and from nearly 15 percent of total mine action funding in 1999 to just over 8 percent in 2003.
Progress has been made in survivor assistance, but challenges remain to ensure that assistance programs are adequate, appropriate, accessible and sustainable, and that limited resources are used to most effectively match services with needs.
Universalization and expanded clearance and victim assistance are not the only crucial challenges facing States Parties. Yesterday, Italy did an excellent job of laying out the challenges for stockpile destruction. We have cited compliance with the Article 7 reporting requirement as a key challenge in the past and while Belgium detailed the great progress in this regard yesterday, we must be vigilant, especially with new states joining the treaty.
Looking at the Article 9 requirement, only 40 States Parties have passed new domestic laws to implement the Mine Ban Treaty, and while efforts are underway in a number of countries we are unaware of any progress in 42 States Parties to enact appropriate domestic measures. The ICBL believes that all states should pass legislation that includes penal sanctions for any potential future violations of the treaty and provides for full implementation of the all aspects of the Mine Ban Treaty.
The ICBL remains concerned that States Parties have done little to nothing to operationalize Article 8 and to prepare themselves adequately to deal with any serious future compliance issues. Clearly, violation of a core obligation such as the use of antipersonnel mines by a State Party would be a monumental challenge to the Mine Ban Treaty and states should not be caught unprepared. In a similar vein, the ICBL believes that States Parties have failed during the past five years to establish an effective informal mechanism to deal with compliance and implementation concerns short of invoking Article 8. The ad hoc manner used to deal with compliance and implementation concerns regarding, for example, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uganda in past years cannot be relied upon to be effective in the future.
Finally, last but by no means the least of our concerns or the least of the challenges ahead are matters of interpretation and implementation regarding Articles 1, 2 and 3. During the past five years, we have seen inconsistent and contradictory implementation of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Mine Ban Treaty. If this situation persists, the credibility of the treaty will be threatened and ultimately its humanitarian impact could be undercut.
Disagreements among State Parties about fundamental matters such as what landmines are banned and what acts are banned under the prohibition on assistance should not be dismissed as distractions from other treaty obligations such as mine clearance, stockpile destruction or victim assistance. A convergence of views, a common understanding, or a conclusion on these matters should be seen as essential to the integrity of the treaty.
We believe that the vast majority of States Parties have similar interpretations of Article 1, 2 and 3 and have implemented them in a similar fashion. But clearly some States Parties have diverged from the predominant legal interpretations and predominant state practice on these matters. Is it acceptable that three or four states are still using or stockpiling or even offering for sale mines with tripwires or tilt rods, when many other States Parties have destroyed such mines as a treaty obligation? Is it acceptable that one State Party asserts the right to provide security and even cover fire for foreign forces in the act of laying antipersonnel mines?
Despite explicit reference in the convention to “conclusions” at the Review Conference, and despite State Party agreement in Bangkok at the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to try to reach understandings on Article 1, 2 and 3, States Parties have little concrete or official to show here in Nairobi for five years of discussions. We are dismayed that formal conclusions have not been developed, as envisioned by the treaty drafters. We are dismayed that States Parties have been unable to reach understandings, as agreed in Bangkok.
Five years of discussion have in fact brought much greater clarity, but a small number of states have blocked common understandings and the majority of States Parties have not had the political will to push the issues.
We intend to return to these issues related to Articles 1, 2 and 3 during the discussion of the Action Plan. But we would like to note now that the ICBL strongly supports the official conference document circulated by the ICRC with proposed language for Action Point 54 on Article 3 and Action Point 55 in Articles 1 and 2. This language appears to us to be the bare minimum that States Parties can do on these crucial issues at the heart of the treaty. To do less will be failure.
Thank you.
