I am very glad to be able meet with you today. This occasion gives me an opportunity to affirm once again on behalf of the Canadian government our strong commitment to work with you, especially at this critical moment on the road to Ottawa in December and beyond.

Our meeting also affords me the opportunity to thank you and all members of the anti-landmine movement around the world who have played such a defining role in engaging public opinion and creating political will. I would like to take a moment here to pay special tribute to the work of the late Princess of Wales, whose contribution in creating worldwide awareness of the landmines issue was incalculable. She will be sorely missed and fondly remembered.

Along with the efforts of the Princess, it has been your work, the untold efforts of countless numbers of individuals, along with officials and numerous political leaders, that have brought us to this point -- where a treaty incorporating over 100 governments from around the world is within reach.

We have come a long way in a short time, together. Late last year, when I called on governments to return to Ottawa in 1997, it is fair to say that there was more than a modicum of scepticism, and in many quarters downright opposition. Many said it could not be done.

But the sceptics and the critics could not sense what I did at last year's meeting -- that a coalition of civil society and committed governments was coalescing around the movement to ban anti-personnel landmines. A coalition that had the power to change the dynamics and direction of the international agenda. The Cree Nation of my country have a saying: when a traveller asks "Where is the road?", the answer is "We must build the road together."

And that is exactly what we have done. Together, non-governmental bodies such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines [ICBL] and the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC], an initial core group of countries -- Austria, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa and Switzerland -- and many others, have been building a new road.

Clearly, one can no longer relegate NGOs [non-governmental organizations] to simple advisory or advocacy roles in this process. They are now part of the way decisions have to be made. They have been the voice saying that governments belong to the people, and must respond to the people's hopes, demands and ideals.

Nor can one ignore the power and reach of new information technologies that allow the experience of Angola or Cambodia to be brought into people's living rooms. Technologies that give to the private citizen, the civil group and the expert the capacity for communication and exchange of information quickly, cheaply and across huge distances. Videos, posters, fax campaigns, e-mail, conference calls and the Internet have all helped in the rapid co-ordination and transmission of key messages of the campaign.

These trends -- the involvement of civil society and the information technology revolution -- are the foundations on which a profound democratization of international politics is being built. We often hear of "globalization" in terms of a growing global network of trade and commerce. But this is another kind of "globalization" -- the emergence of a global commons as a powerful force -- which we see the evidence for here in Oslo.

These are encouraging developments. But I don't discount the difficulties and the complexities that lie ahead. We should not assume that the critics and opponents of the ban treaty have gone into hiding. Thus the engagement of civil society will take on even greater urgency and importance in the days and weeks ahead. If ever there was a need for full partnership, for solidarity of purpose, for flexibility and skill at finding the right words, it is now. So much depends upon it.

To quote Robert F. Kennedy: "Each time a person stands up for an ideal, strikes out against injustice, they send forth a tiny ripple of hope -- and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy -- those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of resistance."

Our experience in the landmines campaign should give us hope as we continue the struggle to limit and restrain the horrendous impact of human conflict. The nature of war itself is changing. Traditional inter-state warfare is becoming increasingly limited, yet the carnage of intra-state conflict is everywhere to be seen. As a result, the utility of war as an instrument of national policy is increasingly being questioned, now that civilian casualties make up the vast majority of all victims of conflict.

A ban on anti-personnel landmines is a primary response to the immorality of war. It demonstrates our unwillingness to accept a growing humanitarian crisis as some sort of inevitable by-product of the requirements of military strategy. Our success in mobilizing against landmines, above all of mobilizing international public opinion, should give us encouragement as we move toward the new millennium that further progress can be made in limiting the scourge of war. To paraphrase Bernard Baruch, if we can learn the ABCs, then the rest of the alphabet will follow.

But, before reaching too far, we must concentrate on the business at hand. There is still much work to do between now and December. The negotiations towards the treaty itself must be successfully concluded in a way that results in a clear and unambiguous ban, early entry into force, the widest possible acceptance, and effective monitoring.

The humanitarian concern that motivated the Ottawa Process compels us to seek the earliest possible entry into force for the ban treaty. Thus the challenge is to mobilize governments not simply to sign the treaty, but also take the necessary steps to ratify it nationally as soon as possible.

We should also continue to encourage and applaud unilateral steps by those states willing to move faster -- every anti-personnel mine cleared or destroyed is a mine that will not take a victim nor find its way into the ground. In this regard, I am pleased to announce today that the Canadian Minister of National Defence has informed me that the Canadian Armed Forces will shortly begin the destruction of the final onen third of our national stockpiles of anti-personnel mines, to be completed no later than December this year.

The universalization of the new treaty will clearly present a number of special challenges. We must continue to find ways to engage hold-out states and non-state actors on this issue, building upon the valuable lessons we have learned over the past few years. The campaign to engage international opinion, be it public or governmental, cannot end when the treaty is signed.

On the third key aspect, monitoring of compliance with the treaty, I also see a broader role for NGOs. There are really two distinct but closely related challenges here.

On the one hand some signatories to the treaty, while politically committed to adherence, may lack the technical capacities to do so. Building the political will within other states to provide technical assistance, and taking concrete steps to deliver this assistance, is clearly a task that is well suited to the NGO community.

On the other hand there is the question of a "watch-dog" role for civil society in evaluating the compliance of states to the obligations they have signed. Canada, the ICBL, the ICRC and several of our core partners have consistently argued that a humanitarian treaty without traditional forms of arms control verification can be an effective response to the anti-personnel mine crisis. This implies that civil society can and will play an effective role in deterring and detecting willful non-compliance. I understand you have begun exploring here in Oslo how such a capacity can be developed. Canada is ready to work closely with you on this important issue.

Reaching an unambiguous, early, widely accepted and effective ban treaty will take much hard work on all our parts. And, as your are of course aware, banning landmines is only one part of the equation. De-mining to rid the world of its present danger is an equally high priority -- as is aiding the victims of landmines and restoring them to a productive life.

This is a key development issue -- the rebuilding of societies, and the rebuilding of lives. Official programs of aid and development need to recognize these priorities and develop an enhanced, co-ordinated approach to humanitarian de-mining, victim assistance and rehabilitation. We must increase our efforts to build de-mining capacity in affected countries, to prevent needless landmine deaths and injuries. And we must increase our help to the thousands of disabled survivors of landmines, for whom the de-miners come too late.

Canada is already involved in a range of projects in this area. I outlined some of these last January, at Canada's first national conference on humanitarian de-mining and victim assistance. We fund de-mining programs from Bosnia to Angola to Cambodia, as well as victim assistance work by a number of universities and NGOs. The Canadian government is currently looking at ways we might reinforce our international and domestic role in support of humanitarian de-mining and victim assistance. Indeed, I call on all those governments that will be represented in Ottawa in December to undertake a similar review of measures they could take to support an action plan that could be announced at the conference.

These are just some of the challenges before us as we begin looking beyond the signature of a ban treaty in Ottawa this December. There are most certainly others.

I believe it was Bismark who said: "World history with its great transformations does not come upon us with the even speed of a railway train. No, it moves forward in spurts, but then with irresistible force." We may well now be facing one of those moments when history spurts forward, propelling humanity along with it. Such a moment deserves a pause, however brief, for reflection, before we find ourselves swept away by the course of events.

We need to ask ourselves, can we maintain and build upon the close and constructive working relationship that has developed between governments and civil society through the Ottawa Process? Can we maintain and build upon the incredible sense of political momentum that this unique relationship helped to create -- offering hope to millions that an integrated and effective international response to the global landmines crisis is years and not decades away? Can we demonstrate that the Ottawa Process offers an effective, lasting model as a response to the changing nature of international conflict?

I believe that the answer to these questions must be a positive one. That is why the Ottawa Conference this December will be about more than signing a ban treaty. In parallel with the formal signature of the treaty, Canada will host a series of round-table meetings. Their purpose will be to create an Agenda for Action on anti-personnel mines similar to that developed during the first Ottawa landmines conference. An agenda that provides a clear vision of how, together, we can tackle the challenges ahead. I invite you to bring the many good ideas you have developed here in this forum to Ottawa in December.

Above all, I invite you to continue to work together with us to maintain the dynamism and spirit of innovation and co-operation that have become the trademark of the Ottawa Process. This spirit will, I believe, prove to be the harbinger of a new and positive approach, not only in our battle against anti-personnel landmines, but also in our broader efforts to reduce the toll of international conflicts in human suffering.

As the Cree saying would have it, there is no existing road before us -- we must build it together. We have made a good start, but we still have some distance to go before we reach our ultimate destination: a world completely free of the scourge of anti-personnel landmines.

Thank you.

2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips



Last Updated: 2006-10-30	Top of Page	Important Notices