The idea of a complete ban on landmines, mooted in the Ottawa Convention, has not found resonance with several nations as landmines were (and continue to be) projected as low-cost, high-military value, effective weapons
As the Third Review Conference of the Ottawa Convention begins, the excitement of the supporters of the anti-landmine movement cannot be contained. led by the International Campaign to Ban landmines, these supporters comprise members of international governmental and non-governmental organisations, along with like-minded Governments. Ecstatic over their achievements, some of which include the signing of the Ottawa Convention, its ratification by 161 states, five-fold reduction in the mine-casualty rate since 1999, destruction of 47 million stockpiles of landmines and de-mining in 4,000 sq km of land; these supporters are now determined to give a meaningful conclusion to their efforts to ban landmines.
This thinking is clearly reflected in the theme of the conference, ‘Commit to Complete’, which emphasises the importance of time-bound commitment by member states to fulfil all treaty obligations. Member states will now be asked to publicly accept the challenge of “ending the era of anti-personnel landmines within a decade”. However, in their quest to move ahead, the landmine ban supporters are underestimating the impact of four major factors which could potentially halt if not reverse the progress made in banning landmines till date.
First, 35 countries including major powers and producers and users of landmines such as the US, China, Russia, India and the Koreas are not party to the Ottawa Convention. This not only compromises the credibility and impact of the treaty but also makes the goal of a universal and global ban on landmines unachievable. Second, statistics reveal significant presence and use of landmines along with a high casualty rate of 10 casualties per day. Although there has been a marked reduction in the figures since the time the Ottawa Convention came into force, the statistics are still alarming and warrant effective action.
In the third place, the compliance level of member states to the treaty obligations is questionable. Yemen, in violation of the treaty, widely used landmines in 2011 and there are reports of other member states such as Turkey, South Sudan and Sudan using these banned weapons. In fact, adequate verification systems are lacking in the Ottawa Convention. In addition, several member states including Belarus, Greece and Ukraine have violated the treaty by failing to meet the time-bound stockpile destruction clause. No action has been taken against any of these defaulters. linked to this is the lack of adequate enforcement mechanisms for ensuring adherence to the treaty. Furthermore, several member states have not enacted national legislation to enforce the prohibitions of the mine ban treaty domestically, as required under Article 9 of the Convention.
These factors collectively are a significant roadblock in the progress of the anti-landmine movement and should be adequately addressed before embarking on the journey to promote time-bound completion of treaty obligations; if the goal of a complete ban on landmines has to be realised.
Somewhere between the euphoria of the landmine-ban supporters and the potential roadblocks to their progress, lies the actual ground situation. For, while the achievements of the movement and resulting Convention cannot be undermined, their drawbacks can also not be ignored. What is thus needed is a thorough assessment of the genesis of the landmine ban movement, its growth and culmination into the Ottawa Process and Convention and the functioning of the Convention in the last 15 years. This assessment should, in fact, be the focus of the forthcoming Review Conference in Maputo, and its results should lay the foundation of future course of action.
Such an assessment would reveal, among other truths, two main reasons for the partial success of the Convention. First, the idea of a complete ban on landmines has not found resonance with several states as landmines were (and continue to be) projected as low-cost, high-military value, effective and defensive weapons. Second, the treaty obligations including timeline and no reservation clauses, are considered to be very ambitious and unattainable by several states. As a result of these twin factors, 35 states are still shy of being party to the treaty.
The provision of organising Review Conferences under the Ottawa Convention was made to review the operation and status of the Convention. This is precisely what the aim of the third Review Conference should be. After undertaking a comprehensive assessment, suitable strategies to attract non-member states to join the Convention and member states to comply with the obligations should be adopted. However, as in evident by the theme of the Conference this focus is clearly lacking.
By underplaying the presence of roadblocks discussed above, giving up a thorough assessment of the anti-landmine movement and treaty and seeking commitment for time-bound completion of treaty obligations, the Review Conference, given its present agenda, will be causing a disservice to the cause of banning landmines.