Mr. President,
This is a very good action plan, one the ICBL supports. A great deal of our input has been included and we are very appreciative of that. It is a good plan, but it could be made better. The unwillingness of many States Parties to even consider any changes to improve the document is surprising. This is not treaty text, it is an action plan. Despite what several delegations have been saying, this is not a highly negotiated document, though certainly much work has been put into it. But in the mere three days of formal preparatory work, relatively little time was devoted to discussions of the action plan, and the document distributed here is changed considerably—for the better—from September’s informal discussion. It seems natural that some changes would be sought at this final stage.
I believe that Amb. Petritsch stressed in September that there would be ample opportunity to have further input into the documents here in Nairobi. Now it appears that turns out not to be the case. Such a development seems very unlike the much praised Ottawa Process and very much more like the consensus-driven Conference on Disarmament or the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW).
We are not asking or expecting that all of the ICBL’s comments should be included in the action plan. But we have suggested a small number of what we consider non-controversial changes. We suggested virtually all of these changes during the drafting process and wonder if some or all were left out simply through oversight.
Our mine action working group has suggested adding to Action #26 that any new mine action technology should be locally appropriate, affordable, and sustainable. This has been emphasized by many States Parties in recent years.
Our victim assistance working group has expressed support for the ICRC proposal on Action #37, making a specific reference to voluntary Form J, which reflects State practice. The group has also suggested suggested language for Action #33 expressing support for the process of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Our Mine Risk Education sub-group has suggested a change in Action #21 to ensure that a new layer of bureaucracy for MRE operators is not created. This is important to those in the field.
Our Non-State Actors working group has suggested language “encouraging Non-State Actors to commit to a mine ban and mine action,” and for States to “facilitate the work of organizations engaging armed Non-State Actors to ban antipersonnel mines.” This language is fully consistent with past action plans and declarations and is reflected in the Five-Year Review document.
Finally, we have expressed our strong support for the ICRC’s proposed changes related to Articles 1, 2 and 3 (Action #54 and #55). Regarding Articles 1 and 2, the ICBL has already made clear that it considers the inability of States Parties to come to a common understanding on what mines are banned under Article 2 and what acts are prohibited under Article 1 as a major failing of the past five years. It seems inconceivable that in the midst of all the cooperative success stories of this treaty, we cannot answer this question: Are mines with tripwires, breakwires and tilt rods banned?
The vast majority of States Parties appear to answer a resounding yes, but a small number say no, and the majority seem content with that situation. As a result, the Czech Republic has offered mines with tripwires for sale on several occasions. We were not terribly surprised when Sweden spoke in opposition yesterday to the proposed language on reaching a convergence of views as a matter of priority, since Sweden is one of just four States Parties known to be holding on to mines with tilt rods.
We were surprised when Sweden criticized and called into question the role of the ICRC and NGOs in this process, especially since we have worked very closely and cooperatively with Sweden for many years. The statement was completely at odds with the remarks about the importance of the ICBL and ICRC made by so many States Parties, as well as the President of Kenya during Sunday’s opening ceremony and Ambassador Petritsch throughout the Review process. I wondered if I was sitting in a CCW session in 1994 and not in a Mine Ban Treaty session in 2004.
Mr. President, it remains crucial that States Parties continue to discuss Article 1 and 2 with the objective of reaching a common view. While States Parties did not fulfill the Bangkok Fifth Meeting of States Parties call to reach an understanding by this Review Conference, they should now strive to do so by the next Meeting of States Parties in Croatia in November 2005.
Regarding Article 3, it seems that it may be only misunderstandings that keep States Parties from reaching a common understanding on the language proposed for Action #54. The notion that the treaty requirement to retain only the minimum number of mines absolutely necessary for training or development means a state should at most keep hundreds or thousands, or less, and not tens of thousands is not a license to keep 19,999 mines. The ICBL, as well as most States Parties, clearly believe the minimum number should be zero, or as close to zero as possible. This proposal is not an effort to determine a precise minimum number for all states—clearly different states have different needs. This proposal is needed to guard against the worst case scenario, to avoid in the future the situations we have already had where one state wanted to keep almost 30,000 mines, another almost 70,000 mines, and another 130,000 mines.
We support the proposal of Argentina and Chile on Article 3, the proposal for much greater transparency and reporting on how retained mines are used. We agree that how the mines are used, and not some magical number, is the key. But we view the Argentina-Chile proposal as a very useful complementary measure to the ICRC proposal, not a substitute.
In closing, we would like to remind States Parties that there is a long history to the understanding regarding “hundreds or thousands, not tens of thousands.” At the close of the Oslo negotiations in 1997, Germany read out this language as its understanding, and it was followed by many other governments. Not one state spoke up in disagreement. This understanding has been discussed extensively in the intersessional meetings and Meetings of States Parties and has been endorsed by each co-chair of the Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention for the past five years. We see no reason why this language should not be included in this Action Plan and urge States Parties to act on it now.
Thank you.
