Many of you came to Ottawa last October for our previous landmines conference. Since then, it has been a year of frantic activity and full court press diplomacy. From Maputo to Tokyo, Vienna to Ashkabad, Kempton Park to Bonn, Manila to New Delhi, Saan'a to Brussels and Sydney to Oslo -- the world's governments and peoples have been engaged in an extraordinary global effort to ban anti-personnel mines. And we have succeeded.

When I issued the challenge, in this room, just over a year ago to return to Ottawa to sign a treaty banning landmines, I confess to being unsure of the results, but thought that it was a risk worth taking. I thought there was a real desire and real possibility that a treaty could be negotiated, but frankly I did not dare hope for such an overwhelming response. But the risk was worth taking -- the results are here for all to see. Over 100 states will sign the treaty tomorrow -- more opening signatures than almost any other treaty ever negotiated. And they will be signing a strong treaty, with no exceptions or loopholes. This treaty is a testament to the political will and determination that has inspired this process from the very beginning.

I know that many of you have been working toward this goal for a long time. Your energy, commitment and courage are behind this unprecedented success: that of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, led by Jody Williams, and the dozens of national campaigns; that of the group of committed countries that drove the process, and drafted and negotiated the treaty; that of the humanitarian agencies and of landmine survivors around the world, who live daily with the tragedy of anti-personnel mines.

Throughout this week, we will have opportunity to celebrate and applaud but also to mourn and remember the grief, pain and suffering of so many. Before we plunge into the next three days of activity, though, I would like to take a few steps back, and reflect briefly on the wider context and implications of our work together.

The treaty is a great achievement in and of itself. But it also has a broader significance. To understand this we should ask ourselves: Why did it work? How can we harness the new forces and tools of diplomacy, which brought us this far, to ensure that the words of the treaty become a reality? What broader lessons can be drawn from our experience over the past year and applied to building human security in the next century?

I see the landmines campaign as a defining moment in three respects:

first, international public opinion has determined that there are limits to human behaviour, even on the battlefield;

second, we can work in new ways -- inside and outside existing international bodies -- and make unprecedented progress; and

third, a full partnership between states and non-governmental organizations can produce results that neither side can achieve alone.

None of this would have been possible 10 or even 5 years ago. Until recently, there was little space for individuals or non-governmental groups in international diplomacy, particularly in the realm of traditional security interests. As a result, the human cost of landmines and of other threats to individual security were largely invisible to the international community.

But in the past few years, international organizations and meetings have opened up to a range of non-state actors. State sovereignty has become more diffuse and no longer the sole domain of governments. Civil society has demanded and earned a place at the table. Democracies are in the ascendancy. Globalization and a revolution in information technology have resulted in a "global commons," in which ideas move across borders at unprecedented rates. People power has moved onto the international stage.

And as these new voices were increasingly heard, they sent one very clear message: that there is no public tolerance for weapons of war that, by their very nature, cause massive civilian casualties. They told us that humanitarian values must take precedence over military interests. Only two weeks ago, I met with Canadian schoolchildren who, as part of UNICEF's [United Nations Children's Fund] mine awareness work, drafted a children's treaty. This bill of rights for children in mine-affected countries stated in the clearest possible terms: children have the right to play and not get hurt.

The implications of these changes for our understanding of international security, and of war itself, are deeply significant. International conflict is not about to disappear -- not yet. But with the end of the Cold War, the threat of major conflicts between states has lessened. Military spending in some states has dropped radically, as have global military sales. Increasingly, danger lies in internal conflicts within states. Threats to human security -- human rights abuses, inter-ethnic tension, poverty, environmental degradation and terrorism -- have grown, fuelling recurring cycles of violence. Civilians are their primary victims.

In these circumstances, to safeguard individual citizens, it is no longer enough to ensure the security of the nation. Security is found in the conditions of daily life -- in food, shelter, arable land, health, employment, political franchise and safety of the person -- rather than primarily in the military strength of the state. This requires us to shift our focus:

from ensuring peace across state borders to building peace within states;

from foreign policy decisions driven by military security interests to ones driven by human values; and

from geo-politics to geo-governance.

The global nature of threats to human security requires a global response. Neither states acting alone nor even the combined efforts of a few large powers are sufficient. New alliances are needed, bringing together states, large and small, from all regions of the world, working in partnership with individuals and organizations from all sectors of society.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating such partnerships as some sort of "feel good" diplomacy. I am advocating them because they work. It is "good" diplomacy. The landmines campaign worked because it brought together not only mine-producing and mine-affected states, but also humanitarian and non-governmental organizations [NGOs] active in the field and landmine survivors. It worked because new synergies were created. This was not simply a question of consulting NGOs or seeking their views. We have moved well beyond that. What I am talking about is a full working partnership between governments and civil groups, both of which bring their comparative advantages and particular capacities to the process.

Since last October, the two have worked in tandem: NGOs mobilizing public opinion, and governments mobilizing political will. I speak for my own government, and others as well, to tell you that for our part we have used all the tools of international diplomacy -- bilateral and multilateral meetings and negotiations, démarche by ambassadors, phone calls by the Prime Minister to his counterparts -- to produce the text of the convention and to build support for it within the community of nations. I want to salute the tremendous effort undertaken by all those in this room, and by our own officials and diplomats, in bringing so many of us together in Ottawa.

For all these reasons, what has become known as the Ottawa Process is, I believe, symbolic of a profound and lasting change in the conduct of international relations. But of course it also has an immediate, very concrete effect: the signing of a convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their destruction.

We deserve to take a moment to celebrate our shared success. The signing of this historic treaty, at the very end of the century, is this generation's pledge to the future -- a bridge across the millennial divide.

But our celebration must be tinged with some sadness, and our rejoicing accompanied by a renewed sense of responsibility. We must remember the victims, including those brave individuals who lost their lives clearing mines. We must remember, too, that there are still millions of anti-personnel mines in the ground, taking limbs and lives and land as we speak.

The fact is, the ban convention will be meaningless unless we implement it -- unless we use it as a point of departure and commit ourselves once again to work together to eliminate all anti-personnel mines. That is what this forum -- the Mine Action Forum -- is all about: implementing the convention; eliminating anti-personnel mines; and helping victims reclaim their lives.

The challenges are clear: the universalization and entry into force of the treaty; the destruction of stockpiles; the clearing of mined areas; and the care, rehabilitation and reintegration of mine victims -- redeveloping countries paralyzed by the silent killers in the ground.

Over the next two days more than 100 countries from all regions of the world will sign the convention. This is an extraordinary start. But we still have to work to make the convention truly universal.

While we will continue to encourage non-signatories to accede to the convention, they are not outsiders. Many non-signatories have national prohibitions in place on the export or use of landmines, and are committed to working on de-mining and victim assistance. In recent weeks, we have been encouraging non-signatories to come to Ottawa as observers. We hope that, by attending the round tables, they will be drawn into the process. This is yet another example of the open, transparent spirit that has characterized this process from the start.

Forty countries must ratify the convention for it to enter into force and for its words to become reality. Canada's Prime Minister will present Canada's instrument of ratification to the Secretary-General of the UN [United Nations] tomorrow. I understand that several other countries are also in a position to ratify now. Our goal should be to get the full 40 ratifications as soon as possible.

How about a year from now? Does that sound familiar?

After the convention enters into force, we have four years to destroy stockpiles. This can be done. But it will require sharing of information, expertise and technology.

We have 10 years after entry into force to clear mined areas. Until then, they must be surveyed, marked, monitored, mapped and fenced off. Some of the worst-affected countries are the least able to cope with the slow and costly task of mine clearance. At the same time, some mine-affected countries have invaluable experience to offer, based on their own extraordinary efforts to clear their lands. To meet the 10-year deadline, we will have to co-operate and co-ordinate our efforts in global mine awareness and de-mining.

Once we have signed the convention, the true humanitarian challenge is to ensure that mine victims get not only immediate medical assistance, but also help in reintegrating into their societies. Ensuring that victims can lead meaningful, productive lives within their communities, in spite of their suffering and loss -- this was the human aspect of the landmines crisis that the late Princess Diana brought to the attention of the world. It is the challenge that the International Committee of the Red Cross, Handicap International, the Landmines Survivors Network and others have taken up, and which we all must support.

As you can see, the challenges we face are great. To tackle them effectively requires significant financial resources. We welcome the commitments already made. We look for more. We will be working with other countries, foundations and the private sector to secure these additional resources, in the knowledge that money spent remedying the effects of anti-personnel mines represents an investment in sustainable development -- a boost to human improvement. In addition to resources, we will need a comprehensive program of action, to ensure that global efforts are co-ordinated, cohesive and complementary.

The Mine Action Forum is designed so that you can discuss the issues, raise the questions that need to be asked, and perhaps answer some of them. But our aim is not to resolve all these issues here. It is to expose ourselves to the full range of questions; to identify areas that require further work; and to put in place an initial calendar of activities to help us work through the problems and find practical solutions.

Among the questions I would put to you for consideration are:

How can we best assist and encourage other countries to sign and, once they have signed, to ratify the convention? What role can regional organizations play?

What is the best way to collect and collate data in the field, to better understand the magnitude of the tasks before us?

What are the most effective ways of surveying, marking, mapping and clearing mines, and how can we share best practices?

How can we best ensure that survivors receive the assistance that they require to reintegrate into their societies?

How can we work in new, co-operative ways to ensure compliance with the convention?

Finally, how do we spread the message and help us keep the agenda moving?

We have designed this Forum, and its outcomes, to recreate one of the greatest strengths of the process to date: rapid sharing of information and experience by the most efficient and open means. As the Forum unfolds, we will try to capture its essence in a series of documents, which will be ready for you to take home with you on December 4.

These will not be negotiated documents of the sort that consume so much effort at many multilateral meetings. They will be working tools based on our discussions over the next three days: a summary report of round table discussions; a resource list of participants and organizations, designed as a detailed tool for networking; and, most importantly, an Agenda for Mine Action.

By this spring, our own Centre on Foreign Policy Development will be preparing a publication on the "Landmine Campaign -- Lessons Learned."

The Agenda is designed as a road map, gathering together the initiatives and specific action items that participants intend to undertake in the coming months. It will act as a comprehensive reference guide to international efforts in all aspects of the anti-personnel mine issue. We welcome your contributions to the Agenda.

The convention that will be opened for signature tomorrow gives us a framework and a catalyst for future action. But the work we do here in Ottawa is just the first step. The Agenda for Mine Action will provide the international community with a sense of direction and a means to co-ordinate our ongoing efforts.

In setting the Agenda for Mine Action, we must combine creativity, practicality and commitment. We must maintain the same sense of purpose and coherence in the next phase of our work that informed the first. I commit Canada to working in this open, determined spirit in the implementation of the convention. I call on all who are present to make their contribution, whatever their particular strengths -- expertise, funding or skills in networking and mobilization -- as we work together to end the scourge of landmines.

Under the convention, we have taken on a weighty responsibility: "to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines" throughout the world. We have taken on a commitment through the treaty: a solemn, binding obligation to deal definitively with the anti-personnel mine crisis. We have given our word. We must now work together to meet our new obligations.

As if that were not enough, by completing this urgent humanitarian task, we are also, I believe, breaking a new path for the conduct of international relations. What is true for anti-personnel mines must hold true for all weapons of war: our citizens will no longer accept weapons that target civilians and wreak havoc in the daily lives of individuals.

In my home province of Manitoba, the Cree Indians have a saying: when a traveller asks, "Where is the road?", the answer is, "We must build the road together." We here in Ottawa are breaking new paths. You have already come a long way. Over the next three days, we must take the first steps in the next stage of our voyage together.

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