SPEECHES

97/45 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY

THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY,

MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

TO THE UNITED KINGDOM WORKING GROUP ON LANDMINES

"THE RIGHT STUFF:

AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO BAN

ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES"

EDINBURGH, Scotland

October 25, 1997

This document is also available on the Department's Internet site: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca

It is a real pleasure to be able to meet with the community of people that have, indeed, turned words into action in getting a global ban on anti-personnel mines.

I know that here I am truly among friends -- those who are committed not just to the ban and getting the treaty signed in December, but to the longer haul: the total elimination of anti-personnel mines.

The Commonwealth setting is an appropriate one. The excellent backgrounder produced by Human Rights Watch for the CHOGM [Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting] reminds us that the Commonwealth is a mine-affected community. At least 14 Commonwealth countries -- ranging from Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe to Cyprus, India and Malaysia -- live with the scourge of anti-personnel mines.

Maybe this is why 34 countries of the Commonwealth support the ban -- among them, key partners in the ban campaign, such as our Caribbean friends and New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. However, there are still some who are deciding, or who are not supportive.

In discussions earlier this week between my prime minister and Prime Minister Howard, we were encouraged by the direction in which Australian thinking seems to be going. We believe Australia should be there in December to sign the ban treaty. We would like to see all the countries of the South Pacific join us in Ottawa. We also believe that countries such as Bangladesh, Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Singapore and Sri Lanka should be part of this global movement to ban anti-personnel mines. We will be raising this issue with every one of these delegations. I hope that we can look to you to help us in this effort.

Also in this past week, Canada's prime minister held extensive discussions with President Yeltsin in Russia. The result was a joint statement that is worth reading: it says that Russia will join the ban convention negotiated in Oslo as soon as possible. It says that in the interim, Russia will work with the global community to realize the objectives of the convention. Most importantly, in writing, President Yeltsin has stated that Russia will extend its existing moratorium on the export of anti-personnel mines until Russia signs the convention.

Add to this:

the announcement made by Greece that it will sign the treaty in Ottawa;

indications of further positive movement in the Japanese position;

even Bulgaria, a country that does not yet support the ban, has begun to clear anti-personnel mines on its southern border, saying that it is acting in the spirit of the convention negotiated in Oslo.

The fact is that the global momentum continues to build.

Last October, when we issued a challenge to the global community to make a global ban on anti-personnel mines a reality by the end of 1997, there were cheers and jeers in the crowd. Those who cheered knew that the moment was right for a ban on anti-personnel mines. Those who cheered believed that a ban could be achieved within less than a year. Those who jeered were frightened that those who cheered just might be right.

The Ottawa Process has demonstrated what can happen when global political will is married to passion and vision. It has shown that players other than the heavyweights can make a difference, when they have clear, shared goals, a real stake in the outcome and, above all, commitment. It has shown that civil society can not only have a direct impact on policy -- but that it can also set policy.

Small and medium powers can band together and, with the courage of their convictions and strength of their partnership, establish and lead a global campaign -- without the major powers in the driver's seat.

It was not magic that accounted for the impact and success of the Ottawa Process -- although some have suggested sorcery must have been at work to have delivered two such ban-friendly results in the British and French general elections. What made the process work was a remarkable combination of new-world realities:

First, the end of ideological allegiances and blocs that freed countries to act in their own best interests -- including the interests of their people -- and to join with non-traditional partners to pursue those interests.

The result? A state such as South Africa took a courageous national decision and then offered its leadership to the region and the world to promote a ban.

Second, the opening up of the once exclusive world of international relations, so that NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and other non-state actors could play a significant and even catalytic role.

The result? A grass-roots NGO grew from a handful of well-meaning activists, led by one determined woman, into a thousand-strong coalition that has succeeded in setting the global agenda -- and getting governments to follow it. The magnitude of the achievement was recognized by the Nobel Committee when, two weeks ago, they awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Jodi Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines [ICBL].

And third, the electronic revolution that allowed the Ottawa Process community to use the Internet to connect in the most direct and constant way possible.

The result?

Daily, even hourly, exchanges of information around the globe.

Exchanges that leap-frogged over traditional diplomatic and political practices.

Immediate deployment of arguments and resources in support of the ban.

A cell-phone campaign in Italy that drove politicians crazy and changed policy.

The "great" powers, ignoring the strength of these trends, denied the possibility that someone else might just be able to mobilize the world. The result? A constant scrambling by those who thought they set the agenda to catch up with those who were really setting it. Some have still not quite made it.

The question that most continue to ask is whether the Ottawa Process can actually deliver the goods on the ban. Let's take a look at what has been achieved.

Last month, the Norwegian government generously hosted the world for a three-week negotiation that concluded with the adoption of the text of a new Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

This negotiation succeeded because the community of nations, NGOs and international organizations that gathered in Oslo had arrived with a common goal in mind: to complete a treaty by September 19.

The negotiation succeeded because NGOs, governments and international organizations had been working for the past year to develop the treaty -- providing both the substance and the political will necessary to make it a reality -- through meetings in venues ranging from Maputo and Manila to Ashkabad, Brussels and Bonn.

The negotiation succeeded because the Austrian government had been refining a draft treaty for several months, and this document served as the working text for the Oslo meeting.

The negotiation succeeded because of the skill, determination, conviction and vision of the South African chair, Ambassador Jakkie Selebi.

And what of this treaty negotiated in Oslo? The treaty is the first in history to ban a weapon that has been widely used by military forces throughout the world. It bans the production, stockpiling, use and trade of all anti-personnel mines.

Any country that joins this treaty is out of the anti-personnel mine business, forever. There are no exceptions, reservations or loopholes in this treaty. It means what it says.

It obliges states to destroy all their stockpiles of anti-personnel mines within four years following entry into force of the treaty. It calls upon states to clear all existing minefields within 10 years, with provision for an extension if circumstances really warrant.

It provides a framework for international co-operation in mine clearance and victim assistance. It recognizes that assistance for victims must go far beyond simple medical help and focus on the long-term challenge of ensuring the full social and economic reintegration of these innocent victims into their societies.

This treaty is not based on blind trust. It has provisions for transparency measures and obligatory reporting requirements on anti-personnel mines, until stockpiles are destroyed and minefields removed. It has an innovative compliance mechanism that includes provision for fact finding.

A state party cannot walk away from this treaty if it finds itself in an armed conflict; the treaty applies in time of peace and war.

It is an impressive, readable document that reflects the clarity of thought and purpose of the drafters. In the space of 18 pages and 22 articles, the treaty establishes a clear, new international norm banning anti-personnel mines.

Even with all of this, the treaty and the process are not without their critics. The Ottawa Process community has been accused of being a club of angels. Canadians are used to being called do-gooders -- the boy scouts of the world community. But we have also, in the course of this campaign, been called other, rather different things: inflexible, radical, unethical and even "Stalinistic." Not our usual image -- but perhaps a sign that we have touched a nerve.

We have been criticized for leading a crusade. We have been accused of developing a "feel good" treaty that is not based on sound military thinking. Maybe here the critics are partly right. The treaty does feel good. It feels good because we have established a new global norm.

We have set in train a movement that has converted dozens of major landmine users and producers to the ban: users such as Angola, Cambodia and Mozambique; producers such as Brazil, Italy, South Africa and the United Kingdom. We have begun to dry up the trade in and market for anti-personnel mines.

But regarding sound military thinking? We have, in fact, followed the guidance of many military experts -- including retired U.S. General Schwartzkopf, the former commander of the allied coalition in the Gulf War -- who have concluded that the humanitarian cost of anti-personnel mines vastly outweighs any military utility and that a ban is militarily responsible.

We have been guided by the International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC) important March 1996 study. This study, authored by retired British Brigadier General Blagden and endorsed by dozens of retired and active senior military commanders from around the world, examined the military case for anti-personnel mines in light of their actual use in 26 conflicts since 1940. The study found that, regardless of the claims that "responsible nations will use these weapons responsibly," anti-personnel mines have rarely been used correctly.

Here, Canada is among those who are to blame. The ICRC report cites an incident in the Korean War when an Australian contingent, in the common chaos of battle, accidently deployed into a Canadian-laid minefield. The result: almost 50 Australian casualties.

The recent Human Rights Watch report In Its Own Words -- based on Pentagon archives -- and the Demilitarization for Democracy report Exploding the Landmines Myth in Korea argue convincingly about the marginal and often counter-productive effect of anti-personnel mines. In particular, they cite the fact that one of the biggest causes of U.S. casualties in Vietnam was U.S. landmines.

The critics say that only the good guys, and the unimportant "nobodies," will sign this treaty, so it will be meaningless. A pie-in-the-sky, nirvana treaty. The fact is that we expect dozens of countries from every region of the world to sign the treaty in December.

The company in Ottawa will include Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa and the United Kingdom -- in the not-so-distant past, the major producers and suppliers. It will include Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Nicaragua and other severely mine-affected countries -- in the not-so-distant past, the major users.

We are curtailing the supply. We are drying up the demand. Step by step, we are killing this insidious market. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: some "nobodies" -- some nirvana.

Of course, the whole world will not sign the new convention in Ottawa. Even we don't expect miracles. But the fact is that most international treaties do not start out with universal adherence. Universality is something that is achieved over time.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- a touchstone of international arms control and disarmament law -- started with less than 30 signatories. China and France did not sign this treaty until more than 20 years after it was negotiated. No one suggested that the NPT was worthless because two of the five states that the treaty was directed toward had chosen not to sign.

Similarly, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) opened for signature just last year and will likely not have key states within it for a long time. No one has suggested that the CTBT is not worth having because India and Pakistan have not signed at this time.

The fact is that these treaties establish an international norm. Within or without, countries are constrained by the political and moral pressure exerted by the mere existence of these treaties. That is what norm building is all about. That is the civilizing effect of international law on the behaviour of states -- sometimes even rogue states. Whether they sign up or not, they will be judged based on the new standard. They will have to take a calculated risk if they decide to violate it.

Of course, the ideal would be to have China, India, Pakistan Russia, the United States and others within the treaty from the beginning. We must continue to work on them.

The United States plans to destroy three million of its "dumb mines" by 1999. President Clinton recently announced that, except in the Korean Peninsula and in mixed anti-personnel/anti-tank mine systems, the United States will stop using anti-personnel mines by 2003. Indeed, President Clinton has told his generals to find alternatives for Korea by the year 2006.

China has also announced restrictions on exports. It says it has not exported any anti-personnel mines since 1994.

This shows that no one is immune to the global stigmatization of anti-personnel mines that has propelled the Ottawa Process and ban campaign this far. Even non-state actors -- particularly those with domestic or international political ambitions -- will feel the pressure of the new standard.

NGOs hold the key to engaging non-state actors in the process. In Afghanistan, for example, the ban campaign has lobbied all the factions in the conflict and convinced them to publicly renounce the use of anti-personnel mines.

In a highly wired, in-your-face-news world, there is little that goes unnoticed. The fact is that the world will judge -- harshly -- those who violate the new norm that will be established by the anti-personnel mine ban convention.

But the fact is also that the treaty signing on December 3 to 4 in Ottawa is only the first step in dealing with the global anti-personnel mine crisis. The hardest work begins in December.

Ottawa II, the follow-up to the ban campaign, must start immediately. This will be the real challenge -- sustaining global attention and resources for the long haul.

To make this treaty work -- to make mine-affected states livable again, to give mine victims dignity and hope for normal, productive lives -- we need a long-term commitment to co-operation. We need to get that commitment now. We can begin here by pledging to keep building on the remarkable relationship that we have forged among governments and civil society.

In Ottawa in December we will begin to test the strength of our coalition. From December 2 to 4, we will host NGOs, experts and officials in a series of round-table discussions designed to establish a common plan of action to guide our work in the coming months and years. We are asking delegates to come to Ottawa not simply to celebrate the signing of the convention, but to get down to real work -- immediately -- to ensure the effective implementation of the treaty and the rehabilitation of mine-affected lands and societies.

This will require a degree of co-ordination unusual for governments and NGOs that normally jealously guard their independence of action and sovereignty. It will require a subsuming of these narrow interests in the pursuit of a greater, common goal. It will require the forging of a common, collective conscience and commitment, and the application of serious resources -- financial and human -- to achieving our goal. And it will require the application of sustained political and public will and attention.

We will need to appeal to something new in people, in organizations, in governments. The same "something new" that the Nobel Committee recognized when it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the ICBL and Jodi Williams. The "something new" that produced the Ottawa Process and the ban treaty. The "something new" that is demanded of us, here on the cusp of the 21st century.

We all have to carry this spirit of conviction and determination home with us. We need to continue to catalyze and drive the process. We have to get this treaty up and running -- quickly. We have to universalize this new international humanitarian norm against anti-personnel mines. We must clear the mines. We must help the victims.

What you, the NGO community, have done has been extraordinary. You challenged governments to work with you on a common goal to promote the highest principles of humanity. You succeeded. Let's keep working together. We need your energy. We need your commitment. You have ours. It is a great combination.

I look forward to seeing you in Ottawa.