Landmine abolition: a small step forward at Geneva.

May 3, 1996 witnessed the conclusion of the First Review Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious and Indiscriminate, Protocol II on landmines, booby traps, and other devices.

Is the new version of the agreement, known as the CCW, stronger than its 1980 predecessor? Yes, the new agreement strengthens the general restrictions on landmines, contains new provisions governing transfers and detectability, makes mandatory the previously voluntary provision to remove mines at the end of hostilities, and introduces an innovation in international law by applying its provisions to situations of internal armed conflict.

Will these improvements stop or even reduce the number of new victims who fall prey to the scourge of landmines in the foreseeable future? Regrettably, no. The agreement effectively excludes mines and other weapons that are not designed "primarily" as anti-personnel mines (but which function in this manner) and allows for nine-year deferral periods before the new technical requirements come into effect. Experience suggests that few of the Protocol's strengthened provisions will have a positive impact on how mines are used.

People around the world are angry that the clear humanitarian crisis caused by anti-personnel landmines did not result in an immediate and outright global prohibition of these weapons. Particularly frustrating to those representing the views of landmine victims throughout the CCW process is that these diplomatically polite negotiations were far removed from the humanitarian crisis to which a solution was purportedly sought. Scarce mention was made of the humanitarian and socio-economic costs inflicted by these weapons as delegates haggled over seemingly insignificant nuances in wording.

Nevertheless, important advances were made, and the cause of a global ban on landmines was advanced as a result of the CCW process and its outcome. While in places the legal strength of the agreement is tenuous and its provisions weakly stated, incremental but important political and in-spirit advances were accomplished. If global awareness and abhorrence of landmines continue to gain momentum, many of the now vague requirements of the agreement will come into sharper focus and will command a stronger imperative. Already, there are undeniable indications that breaches to the spirit of this agreement will trigger widespread stigmatization of the offenders.

Much of the potential for the stigmatization of obstructionist states is owed to the rapidly growing public outcry against these inhumane weapons. And much of the public outcry is the result of international efforts to raise public and political awareness of all aspects of the landmines issue. During the last two weeks of CCW negotiations in Geneva, the efforts of, in particular, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) enhanced delegates' understanding of the humanitarian arguments and demonstrated how compelling these arguments are to the global public.

In one illustrative instance, a number of delegates watched several European teenagers try their luck in the ICBL's simulated minefield - a strip of sand and brush equipped with randomly placed sensors triggering the sound of a mine explosion when stepped upon. The teenagers were fooling around, laughing each time they triggered the explosive sound that indicated how easily they could become landmine victims, like the 11-year-old Cambodian amputee who laughed along with the teenagers and showed them where the mines were placed by triggering them with one of his crutches. It took a few minutes, but one by one the teenagers recognized the links between their game and this small boy's missing leg. The potentially immense political power embodied in such visibly emerging awareness is not lost on delegates, a significant number of whom stressed the need to achieve tangible, immediate improvements to the current situation as demanded by their publics.

Like the simulated minefield, the photo exhibitions, videos, documentation, and, most importantly, opportunities to see and talk to landmine victims (no matter how strenuously avoided by delegates) that were arranged by the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the conference brought the voice of those living with landmines to the negotiations. That a number of delegations fought with limited success to block advancement of the status of NGOs and to downgrade the status of the ICRC within the Protocol negotiations indicates how effective a role these groups are playing despite their limited access.

The effort to exclude NGOs, which clearly play such an important role in all aspects of the landmines issue, highlights the most daunting barrier to an effective solution to landmines: fear - fear of having no alternative but to reject landmines on moral ground that is not shared by enemies; fear that giving up what has been fought for as an inalienable right will suggest weakness and/or that existing relationships and power structures will be realigned unfavourably; fear that military mandates and strengths will be undermined by the search for a balance between humanitarian cost and military utility; and fear that not all parties to the landmines problem are at the table to learn, reconsider, and become legally and politically bound by the outcome of negotiations. Thus, despite consensus, the chasm between the positions of States Parties to Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons remains wide.

Not a solution but a step

The conference did not produce a solution to the landmines problem. But it did define a common position between distant extremes and in this sense highlighted the work remaining to be done. Ongoing and indeed intensified work is needed at all levels. For those states who accept or are coming to accept that landmines must be banned now, there is the need to define the common elements of such a movement; to undertake the research that will enable them, within their own countries, to consolidate understanding and commitment; and to align with other states and strategize to achieve the understanding and commitment of those currently outside the ban movement.

Discussion must be maintained with those who defend their right to landmines, and forums like the CCW provide an opportunity to educate and to exchange ideas. A sustainable solution to the landmines problem ultimately will be the result of education and discussion. For this reason, NGOs must encourage governments to ratify the Convention and work to persuade states who were not part of the discussions to accede to the agreement.

NGOs and states must make a particular effort to understand fear as it operates broadly within the context of the landmines issue. The fear that comes from living with landmines is only beginning to be recognized in its extremity. The fear that obstructs the banning of landmines is, for many, even more difficult to understand - but it must be understood. Many states face tangible or perceived threats to their security. Acknowledgment of fear is critical to surmounting or allaying it.

In the interim, there is the likelihood that nothing short of well-defined and agreed-upon international legal and political norms will change the stance and behaviour of states that are comfortable with the status quo. Thus, NGOs must step up the global awareness campaign necessary to accelerate and sustain political commitment to the landmines problem. NGOs must strategize on how most effectively to build and maintain the social pressure for change on slow-moving and intransigent governments. The academic community must be fully engaged in the landmines issue. Information on the history, psychology, and political culture of obstructionist countries must be integrated into analyses of landmines. The profile of landmines within broader peacemaking and conflict prevention agendas must be heightened. Efforts to quantify the broad economic ramifications of landmines on societies are urgently needed. Consolidation of the efforts of all involved is critical in generating global pressure for change.

In an interesting evolution, representatives from Canada, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, and the UN Deparment of Humanitarian Affairs, UNICEF, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees were interviewed during the last round of CCW negotiations at a UN press conference. The representatives were asked about the need to strive for a solution to the landmines problem beyond the CCW and how this might be achieved. This press conference represented a remarkable consolidation of traditionally independent voices that added coherence, credibility, and urgency to the call for a solution to the landmines crisis.

All opportunities to develop a coherent majority voice striving to achieve a solution to the landmines crisis need to be explored. As noted in the sidebar, Canada is now participating in a number of initiatives to build support for a comprehensive and immediate ban on anti-personnel landmines.

Ultimately, global consensus must be the objective. Consensus is an essential step to resolving conflict, whether over the rights of governments to trade and use landmines, or in terms of how war is waged more generally. Ending violence and building peace depend upon trust - trust that all perspectives brought to the table will be carefully considered and reflected in the outcome of discussions. In this sense, the CCW served and will continue to serve as an opportunity to inform, educate, and persuade states to break new ground and to overcome the fear that drives the continued acceptability of landmines. In this light, the CCW can be appreciated for what it is - one ameliorative step along a difficult road to prevention.