
Français		Home		Contact Us		Help		Search		canada.gc.ca		Canada International

Home > Media Room

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

Canadian Offices Abroad

Services for Canadian Travellers

Services for Business

Canada in the World

About the Department

SPEECHES

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips

<html> <head> <meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8"> <title>MR. AXWORTHY - ADDRESS TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ONFOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE'AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO BAN ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES: THE CHALLENGE CONTINUES' - OTTAWA, ONTARIO</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 97/47 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE "AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO BAN ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES: THE CHALLENGE CONTINUES" OTTAWA, Ontario November 3, 1997 This document is also available on the Department's Internet site: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca Mr. Chairman, Committee Members: It is an honour to be able to appear before you with Jody Williams, who has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her extraordinary work in mobilizing global opinion and governments to ban anti-personnel mines. Jody personifies a new approach to foreign policy -- one that is, at its roots, democratic. One that is built on the partnership of civil society and government working together to achieve common goals. Jody Williams, and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines [ICBL] with 1000 organizations in more than 50 countries, represents the community of people who have turned words into action in getting a global ban on anti-personnel mines. The campaign to ban anti-personnel mines has generated tremendous momentum. We have countries from all regions of the world who have committed to signing the convention next month. Just two weeks ago at the Commonwealth meeting, we secured the support of another six countries. Even those that believe they cannot sign the treaty in December are being captured by this momentum and are moving, on a unilateral basis, to accept the new standards that will be set in the convention. During his recent trip to Russia, Prime Minister Chrétien held extensive discussions with President Yeltsin. The result was a joint statement that Russia will join the ban convention as soon as possible. In the interim, Russia will work with the global community to realize the objectives of the convention. Most importantly, President Yeltsin has stated, in writing, that Russia will extend its existing moratorium on the export of anti-personnel mines until Russia signs the convention. This is major progress in Russia's position, and shows their willingness to act in the spirit of the new convention even if they cannot yet sign. Add to this: the announcement made by Greece that it will sign the treaty in Ottawa; and clear indications of further positive movement in the Japanese and Australian positions. The critical global mass to ban anti-personnel mines is there. I believe there is real sustainable political will behind it. And the fact is, the global momentum continues to build. The Ottawa Process has demonstrated what can happen when global political will is married to passion and vision. It has shown that civil society can not only have a direct impact on policy -- but that it can also set policy. A movement of small and medium powers can, 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. This new approach to international diplomacy has not been without its critics. We in Canada 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. Regarding sound military thinking? We have, in fact, followed the guidance of many military experts -- including retired U.S. General Schwartzkopf -- 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, 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. 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 of the Ottawa Process also say that only the good guys, and the unimportant "nobodies," will sign this treaty, so it will be meaningless. The fact is that we expect dozens of countries from every region of the world to sign the treaty in December. We have set in train a movement that has converted most of the major landmine users and producers to the ban: major users such as Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, the countries of Central America, Bosnia and Croatia; major producers such as Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Most of Africa is committed to the ban; the Americas -- with the exception of Cuba -- supports a ban; many Asian countries are moving to join the ban. At the United Nations, we already have 115 co-sponsors on a resolution supporting the new convention and inviting people to come and sign it in December. Of course, the whole world will not sign the new convention in Ottawa. But the fact is that most international treaties do not start out with universal adherence. Universality is something that is achieved over time. China and France did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] 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. 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. I have already noted the encouraging signs coming from Russia. The United States and China have also taken positive steps. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote to me last week to outline a new initiative on de-mining by President Clinton. As part of an intensive campaign to rid the world of existing landmines by 2010, the U.S. is: appointing a special representative on Global Humanitarian De-mining and a distinguished panel, to work toward increasing the resources devoted to de-mining worldwide to about $1 billion a year; increasing its own financial commitment to global de-mining in 1998 to $77 million; and hosting a conference to develop specific strategies to achieve the 2010 goal. All this is in addition to U.S. plans to destroy three million "dumb mines" by 1999, and a commitment to stop using anti-personnel mines by 2003, with the exception of the Korean Peninsula and in mixed anti-personnel/anti-tank mine systems. 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, which 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. Here, NGOs [non-governmental organizations] have a key role. In Afghanistan, for example, the ban campaign has lobbied all 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. The question that many continue to ask is whether the Ottawa Process can actually deliver the goods on the ban. What has been achieved to date? In September, the Norwegian government 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. 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. A state party cannot walk away from this treaty if it finds itself in an armed conflict; the treaty applies in times of peace and war. 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. 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. 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. But the treaty will just be a paper document until it formally enters into force. This requires 40 ratifications. I appeal to all members of this Committee for their support, and the support of their parties, for rapid ratification of the treaty by Canada. Indeed, I would like Canada to be able to both sign and ratify the convention on the very same day, one month from now: December 3. Then I would like to use our leadership position to launch a precedent-setting global campaign on ratification that will get this treaty up and running in months, not years. Partnership with NGOs will be crucial to this campaign, and we intend to work with them to remobilize for ratification. Important though it is, the treaty signing in December is only the first step. The work really begins in December. We have to start now to generate the political will, public support and resources necessary for the longer haul: the total elimination of anti-personnel mines. 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 will only be successful if we reinforce the remarkable relationship that we have forged among governments and civil society. We need to help the smaller states meet their obligations under the treaty, whether to destroy their stockpiles, clear mine-fields or care for victims. We need to help to repair the many countries torn apart by these weapons. We need to apply serious resources -- financial and human -- to achieving our goal. Canada has been active in supporting international efforts to clear the mines in some of the most affected countries, and to assist landmine victims. You may have an opportunity to see some of the effects of this work when the Committee visits Bosnia later this month. Canada itself has been directly affected by mines in Bosnia, which have seriously injured several Canadian peacekeepers. Last year the UN selected a retired Canadian Lieutenant Colonel to set up its de-mining program in Bosnia. We seconded six Canadian Forces trainers to the Centre for six months this year, and expect to do the same next year. We have also contributed $0.5 million to the Mine Action Centre's operations, and $1 million to pay the full cost of the World Bank's mine awareness programs in Bosnia, a very important program to prevent further civilian casualties. Canada will host a series of round-table discussions in Ottawa, December 2-4, in parallel to the signing ceremony, to pursue similar long-term goals. NGOs, experts and officials will gather to establish a common Agenda for Action to guide our work in the coming months and years. We intend to address all the dimensions of the anti-personnel mine problem: from the political issues of entry-into-force and implementation, to new technologies in mine clearance and techniques for victim rehabilitation. We will examine the link between the anti-personnel mine scourge and development, and the whole question of peace-building and anti-personnel mines. The work coming out of the Action Forum will be the real achievement of the Ottawa meeting. We will need your support to ensure that the world can continue to look to Canada for sustained leadership as we enter this next, crucial phase. We need your support for Canada's ratification of the treaty by December 3, so that we can launch the global entry-into-force campaign. We need your support in fulfilling the Agenda for Action. We need your support in helping to repair mine-affected countries and mine-ravaged communities. In pursuing these goals, we will not be working alone, but with dozens of committed countries and NGOs around the world, including Jody Williams and the millions of others she represents. Together, we have already achieved the extraordinary. Let's do the same again. Thank you. </body> </html>

2007 - 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