INTRODUCTION

The indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel landmines (APMs) over the past fifty years has created a legacy of suffering and instability that those most affected, are ill-equipped to deal with. The individual tragedy of each landmine victim has wider implications for the rebuilding and socio-economic development of a country years after the end of conflict: individuals become incapacitated and a burden on their families and communities, health facilities are placed under considerable strain, large tracts of land and infrastructural sites are inaccessible and refugees are unable to return to their land.

In the last few years, awareness of the situation has been heightened with the review of the 1980 Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW), the launch of the Ottawa Process and the activities of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). The international community agrees that the landmine situation is critical, yet there is still no agreement on how best to tackle the issue.

Aware of the fact that Africa is the continent most affected by the plague of landmines, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) convened the First Continental Conference of African Experts on Landmines on the theme Towards a Landmine Free Africa: The OAU and the Legacy of Anti-Personnel Mines, held in Kempton Park, South Africa, 19-21 May 1997. The conference was funded by the governments of Canada, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden, South Africa and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The Institute for Security Studies undertook the conference arrangements.

This article will provide an overview of the conference proceedings, and examine the debate regarding a ban on anti-personnel mines and the different proposals for eliminating anti-personnel mines. Finally, it will discuss ways in which mine-affected countries can take local or national initiatives to eliminate anti-personnel landmines from their territory.

BACKGROUND TO THE CONFERENCE

The scourge of anti-personnel mines is most acute in Africa. Eighteen of this continent's fifty three states are plagued with these inhumane weapons and six of these appear in the top twelve, on a list of countries with the greatest number of APMs within their national borders.¹ Angola, Mozambique, Chad, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Egypt are most seriously affected; Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Namibia, Rwanda and Burundi have a lesser, but nonetheless significant, problem with APMs.

To address this regional issue, the OAU organised three seminars between February and April 1995, with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to raise awareness among African states of the landmine problem. The seminars also served to brief OAU delegates on the issues on the agenda for discussion at the Vienna Conference to review the CCW.

As a result of the seminars, the 62nd Ordinary Session of the OAU Council of Ministers unanimously adopted Resolution CM/Res1593 which focuses on the following points:

ratification of, or accession to the 1980 CCW and its Protocol II entitled Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices;



developing and strengthening inter-African co-operation in the areas of mine clearance and the provision of assistance to the victims; and



appeals to the international community to increase its assistance to African countries affected by mines.

At the CCW Review conferences, held between September 1995 and May 1996, revisions were made to Protocol II which deals with restrictions on the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices. However, there was considerable disappointment among some states and non-government organisations (NGOs) over the fact that the Conference fell far short of reaching any kind of ban on these weapons. The desire on the part of a few states to register their support for a total ban and to encourage others to follow, led to a Canadian initiative known as the Ottawa Process.

Eleven African states attended the first meeting of the Ottawa Group in October 1996 to "catalyze practical efforts to move toward a ban and create partnerships between States, international organisations and agencies and non-governmental organisations essential to building the necessary political will to achieve a global ban on AP mines." In the Chairman's Agenda for Action on Anti-Personnel Mines considerable emphasis was placed on the need to act at the regional and sub-regional level.

The OAU, in co-operation with the South African Government, took up this challenge by convening the recent conference in Kempton Park.

This first continental conference of African experts on landmines brought together 200 participants from fifty countries, including national delegates, representatives of international organisations, specialised agencies of the UN and NGOs, and included a few landmine survivors. The opening plenary session was addressed by Mr Thabo Mbeki, Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu on behalf of African Campaigns to Ban Landmines, and Professor Kader Asmal, Minister of Forestry and Water Affairs of the Republic of South Africa and Chairman of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee. Statements were read on behalf of Dr Salim Ahmed Salim, Secretary-General of the Organisation of African Unity and Mr Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations. In the closing plenary session, the conference was addressed by Mr Joe Modise, Minister of Defence of the Republic of South Africa, with news of the detonation of 4 700 landmines from South Africa's stockpile of APMs.

Three working groups were established to deal with landmine policy, landmine clearance, and assistance to victims. This article focuses primarily on Working Group One which focused on steps to be taken nationally and continentally towards promoting and supporting a global ban on anti-personnel mines, including discussion on the various international forums for negotiation of a ban.

WHICH WAY FORWARD?

The debate in Working Group One has proven that opinions are still very divided on the way to achieve a ban or restrictions on APMs. There are three approaches currently, or potentially, tackling the issue in the international arena: the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the CCW Review conferences, and the Ottawa Process.

The Conference on Disarmament

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) is the UN's main disarmament forum and is therefore favoured by those few states who consider the APM debate as primarily a security issue with a humanitarian dimension (as opposed to a humanitarian issue with a security dimension). With a track record that includes the formulation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention, some feel that this forum has the experience and credibility to take on the landmines issue. More importantly, however, its 61 members, representing all geographical areas, include so-called essential states that are major powers known to produce APMs. Some consider that a ban which does not include these essential states will be entirely ineffectual. Others consider that the proliferation of landmines has already occurred (besides the 110 million landmines currently deployed world-wide, there are a further 200 million in stockpiles), thus major landmine producers are no longer critical to the process. Far more critical, is the inclusion of some of the world's most mine-infested countries, such as Mozambique and Angola, that are not part of the CD's exclusive membership.

Another drawback of the CD as a forum for debate is its need for consensus on all decisions. This often leads to protracted negotiations which may culminate in no agreement being achieved as a result of the use of a single veto, or which may reduce agreements to the lowest common denominator. Many people feel that the recently concluded Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was weakened in this way by the intransigence of a small number of states, sometimes due to traditional enmities among members. Since the conclusion of this latter treaty, the CD has not even been able to achieve agreement on its work programme for the coming year, which threatens to delay any debate on the issue of anti-personnel mines considerably. However, it has been agreed that the appointment of a special co-ordinator on APMs will be discussed. Presently, the UN's Department of Humanitarian Affairs co-ordinates all mine-related activities in the UN. However, with the restructuring of the UN in progress, it is hoped that this role will be more clearly defined and strengthened.

The CCW

Like the CD, the 1980 CCW relies upon consensus in all decision-making, but its membership is open to all states. However, only eight African states² have ratified the Convention and its additional Protocols.³ There has also been a minimal representation of African states at the recent Review conferences.

The CCW text aims to eliminate or restrict the use of certain '"excessively injurious" or "indiscriminate" weapons of war in the manner of previous international treaties, such as the St. Petersburg Declaration (1868) that banned explosive or inflammable projectiles, the Hague Agreements (1899 and 1907) prohibiting the use of projectiles containing asphyxiating gases and the 1925 Geneva Protocol which banned the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases as well as bacteriological warfare. In more recent years, conventions on biological weapons and chemical weapons have been concluded.⁴

The CCW covers a broad range of weapons including incendiary devices, booby-traps, landmines and blinding laser weapons. A ban on the use of the latter category of weapon was introduced at the most recent Review Conference, while the weapon is still at the prototype stage and has never been deployed. If a ban on APMs is successfully achieved and adhered to, it will be important to keep this forum active in order to broaden such a ban to other weapons.

At the last CCW Review Conference, significant changes were made to Protocol II regarding landmines. These include:

an extension of the scope of application to cover internal conflicts;



a prohibition to use non-detectable APMs, as well as remotely delivered APMs that do not self-destruct and self-deactivate;



a prohibition to transfer these two types of mine, with immediate effect;



a prohibition of anti-sensing devices on all kinds of mine;



an obligation to impose individual penal sanctions on persons who violate the material provisions of the Protocol;



a considerable strengthening of the rules to protect peacekeeping and other forces and missions of the UN, as well as humanitarian missions and missions of the ICRC from the effects of landmines;



a strengthening of the general restrictions on the use of all types of mine, particularly regarding marking and recording;



the placement of strict responsibility on the mine-laying party, either to clear or to maintain minefields that it has emplaced; and



a new Review Conference in 2001, and annual meetings of states parties as soon as the amended Protocol enters into force.

These improvements were, unfortunately, offset by a new definition of APMs as "primarily designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person..." It is felt that this definition significantly weakens the prohibitions, as there are many dual-purpose mines which, while functioning and used as APMs, could be said to have a different primary use.

The principal drawback of the CCW process is that it merely places restrictions on the use of APMs, without banning them outright. As several speakers pointed out, however well-intentioned armed forces may be, in the heat of battle, compliance with these strict and complex regulations is easily abandoned. Furthermore, environmental factors, such as soil erosion, vegetation and a high metal content of soil, can move mines that were placed in marked areas or hinder their detection elsewhere. A study by the ICRC on the military use and effectiveness of anti-personnel landmines found that "in the 26 conflicts studied, few instances can be cited where anti-personnel landmine use has be consistent with international law or, where it exists, military doctrine."⁵

Other participants noted that, as long as only use is restricted, any state with a stockpile of APMs may decide to deploy them at a later date or, if transfers are not banned, these stockpiles could be sold to armies or insurgents in other conflicts. In addition, as long as production is not banned, APMs can be assembled quickly and easily wherever they are needed or where a profit may be made from their sale.

Additionally, many felt that in considering the technicalities of amendments to Protocol II, the humanitarian dimension of the problem was overlooked. Rather, by defining circumstances in which certain types of mine can be used, their continued use is actually legitimised, rather than stigmatised.

Thus, the CCW's Protocol II was described by one delegate as "the floor" in the attempt to reduce the problem of anti-personnel mines. In contrast, the Ottawa Process, which envisages a total ban on the production, use, transfer and stockpiling of APMs, is "the ceiling."

The Ottawa Process

The Ottawa Process was initiated shortly after the last CCW Review Conference when several delegations felt that the changes made to the 1980 Convention did not go far enough, fast enough. A group of fifty like-minded pro-ban states met in Ottawa to discuss the way forward on banning APMs. They have created a 'fast-track' diplomatic process which is focused specifically on negotiating a treaty for a total ban on APMs which will be open for signature as early as December of this year. Since the first meeting, a draft text (known as the Viennese Text) has been developed. The current draft, inter alia:

forbids states parties:

* to use anti-personnel mines;

* to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;

* to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention; and



obliges states parties to destroy all anti-personnel mines in accordance with the provisions of this convention.

This treaty has not adopted the controversial definition of APMs as used by the CCW process, but has opted in favour of one similar to that used by the ICRC, namely that an "[a]nti-personnel mine means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons. Mines designed to be detonated, by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped."

This draft text, which goes beyond a total ban by its requirement that states destroy their stockpiles, will be further debated and refined in follow-up meetings in Brussels and Oslo this year, as well as at regional conferences. In the South African conference of African Experts, the Ottawa Process received almost unanimous support.

It is unfortunate that, while these efforts and approaches should be complementary, debate on the best way to proceed can mean that negotiations are stalled and no effective progress is made. For this reason, the Ottawa Process has declared a signing ceremony for any states ready to sign the legally binding treaty in December this year. It is estimated that 65 states will be ready to do so. States who are unable to sign at that time may attend as observers if they wish, but the process will not be held up by the absence of 'essential' producer states. Thus the process is "open to all, but hostage to no-one." The momentum that has been created by this process has served to focus international opinion on a total ban and it is hoped that the new international norm created by the treaty will encourage hesitant states to join.

LOCAL OR NATIONAL INITIATIVES TO ELIMINATE LANDMINES

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), a coalition of over 1 000 NGOs concerned with the landmine problem, has successfully mobilised public opinion around the world to stigmatise anti-personnel landmines. In the countries where ICBL is represented, development and refugee agencies, health care workers, environmentalists, affected citizens and many others have put pressure on their government to enact a total ban on landmines. Many states have already put partial moratoria (such as an almost global moratorium on export of APMs) in place, but, until very recently, few had implemented a total ban through their own legislation. In the past two years, the number of countries endorsing the total ban on APMs has increased dramatically to 51 states. It is crucial that the pressure is kept up at a national, as well as at international level, to persuade other states to formally declare their support for a total ban.

The creation of 'landmine-free zones' will put additional pressure on states unwilling to go against consensus in their region and will increase momentum in demining activities. The Central American region has announced its intention to be landmine-free by the year 2000. In Southern Africa, the recent declarations by South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe in favour of a total ban are examples of leadership in a particularly mine-affected region.

An added tool in this process is the reluctance on the part of some international donors and the United Nations to sponsor demining activities in countries that have not committed themselves to a ban on landmines. It is illogical to spend millions of dollars on demining operations when there is no guarantee against similar devices being deployed elsewhere in the territory, or being exported. A number of national declarations on banning landmines from mine-infested countries may be attributed to this threat.

Other states have demonstrated how, with some initial assistance from the international community, a national capacity to tackle the landmine problem has proven to be effective. While demining machinery and advanced detection techniques accelerate the laborious mine clearance process, they are not essential to the job and usually require the backup of a manual clearance team. In Cambodia, a few qualified deminers have trained people in areas affected by landmines in the use of simple metal detectors. Once they have some experience in demining, these trainees can in turn train more people and so on. Using a metal detector, basic protective clothing, such as helmets, and locally available materials, these deminers can survey, mark, fence and clear affected areas, thus freeing the land for development. It requires no formal qualifications to become a deminer, just concentration and commitment to the task. Among those whose land will be cleared, it is evident that commitment will be particularly strong.

Finally, affected communities have a large role to play in all aspects of tackling the landmine problem. Successful mine awareness campaigns will depend upon good, local communicators and approval by local leadership structures. Information from local people will be critical in defining the area of operation for mine clearance activities and setting priorities regarding the impact demining activities will have on the area. In addition, victim assistance will depend upon local initiatives to circumvent the chronic transport problems in many developing countries. Some interesting ideas, such as a more semi-formal hitch-hiking network and free public transport, are being developed in Mozambique. Thus, developing a national capacity is not merely a cost-cutting exercise, but involves local people in dealing with their local problem in an appropriate manner.

CONCLUSION

Debate on the forum most suitable for negotiating a ban on APMs will no doubt continue. What is certain, however, is that a fourth alternative is not needed. Rather, the individual strengths of each should be considered and promoted. The support of the majority of participants in the First Continental Conference of African Experts on Landmines went to the Ottawa Process. Many expressed their intention to attend the Ottawa signing ceremony in December, most as full participants. The ICRC, which compiles a list of states supporting a total ban on anti-personnel mines, was able to add six African states⁶ to its list,⁷ while written confirmation is awaited from states that made declarations of support for such a ban during the conference.⁸

The conference was deemed a success by all who participated in it, not least by bringing together relevant African actors in the struggle against the scourge of landmines. Advice and experience were shared, new partnerships forged and the momentum towards a total ban was increased. Together, the participants have worked to formulate a strong Plan of Action which details activities and strategies in support of a comprehensive ban on landmines and increased efforts for anti-personnel landmine clearance and victim support in a regional and sub-regional context. The developing of national capacities in demining and victim assistance was particularly emphasised. This document was adopted at the OAU Council of Ministers Meeting which was held in Harare on 2-4 June 1997. The OAU Secretariat will now monitor its implementation. A video showing the destruction of a portion of South Africa's stockpile of APMs made a fitting closing session to the conference.

ENDNOTES

UN Data Base, quoted in AP Mine Ban: Progress Report, 1, Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, February 1997.



Benin, Djibouti, Mauritius, Niger, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda.



Ratification of the Convention requires ratification of at least two of the additional protocols.



See Destroying Lives Landmines: An Overview, Feinstein International Famine Center, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, April 1997.



See ICRC, Anti-Personnel Landmines – Friend or Foe?, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, March 1996.



Algeria, Botswana, Cape Verde, Ghana, Mauritius and Sierra Leone.



This list previously recorded the African States of Angola, Burkina Faso, Republic of Congo, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe as supporting a total ban on APMs.



Including Burundi, Gabon, Guinea, Liberia and Sudan.