After Cartagena: A conversation with Zach Hudson from the United States Campaign to Ban Landmines

Having attended the Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World, Zach Hudson, who coordinates the United States Campaign to Ban Landmines, was more than willing to share his experience at the conference.  The Summit, which lasted from November 29th to December 4th, was an opportunity for States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction to review their progress for the second time since 156 States had entered it into force in 1999.  I asked Mr. Hudson a few questions about the Second Review Conference and to compare it to the First Review Conference in 2004. Here is our interview to shed a little light on the multilateral international discussions on landmines held in Cartagena and their results. 

What are your thoughts on whether the review process in general has been moving in a good direction when tracking the two review conferences?

We’re happy with the progress during the entire review process so far. It’s definitely moving in the direction we want. This is the second review conference of the treaty. States Parties put together an action plan in Nairobi in 2004 and based the work of the last five years on that plan. In the new Cartagena plan, two of our main focuses were on clearance obligations and victim assistance. States Parties worked on the Cartagena action plan before arriving at the Summit, and everyone then fine-tuned the plan during the conference. The action plan is flexible and it’s designed to be able to be adjustable in response to new challenges.

In terms of universalization, while 156 countries are States Parties to the treaty, 39 countries still remain outliers, so there’s still more to do. But we’re moving in a good direction.

Can you share significant observations that you have made while at the conference?

Well the big one is that the U.S. was in attendance for the first time, which added a whole new level to the conference. Also the casualty rates have fallen from an estimated 20-25,000 per year down to last year’s figure of about 5187, low 5,000’s - that’s huge. As a result, everyone at the conference has a real sense of ‘we did this.’ Civil society and government were able to work on this together. Considering that there has only been one country that used landmines last year, Myanmar, stigmatizing landmines is something that a lot of States Parties are proud of. Of course, 39 countries are still not parties to the treaty. Still, the weapon has been stigmatized. Some impacted countries have asked for extensions, so in terms of clearance there is still a lot of work to be done in the next five years. Not enough funding is available so clearing can’t go as fast as we would like. The countries that have signed on to the treaty need more funding to meet their clearance obligations on time. But the good part is that overall everyone is increasing efficiency and able to clear more landmines with less money.

How are representatives at the conference responding to the U.S. observer status if at all, since they are there to review their progress not focus on countries that are not members of the treaty?

A couple of things come to mind. The week before last, on November 24th, during a State Department daily briefing, answering a question from a member of the press corp, State Department Spokesperson Ian Kelly basically said that the U.S. has completed its review of the U.S. landmines policy, and that a decision had been made to continue the Bush policy. A lot of people went crazy about that including civil society and NGO’s and various State Parties to the treaty, especially since it was a week before the Cartagena Summit. We’ve been calling for a review of the landmine policy for a long time. We expected a transparent process, including legislators, key NATO allies and the NGO community that has been working in the trenches on this issue for the past few decades. Everyone was angry, including State Parties to the treaty. We had been going into the conference excited, especially since it was the first time the U.S. was participating. We were hopeful that the policy review might be conducted with openness to the convention, and then we heard what Kelly said. So there had been this welcoming feeling toward the U.S. attendance at the conference and then it was like being slapped across the face. In response, the NGO community and key U.S. legislators blasted the U.S. for the next few days. The State Department reacted by sending out a correction email the next day to select members of the press corps. They said that they had not concluded the review process—that they had only made a decision as to whether or not to attend Cartagena. They confirmed that a comprehensive policy review had begun and was ongoing. No formal statement was made, so these were all responses to press questions. The correction was welcomed guardedly, because we were concerned that the administration was just backpedaling after the November 24th statement. But then the U.S. delegation made a public statement at the summit and confirmed that there was an ongoing comprehensive policy review. I headed a breakout session at the conference where Steve Costner (Deputy Director of the US State Department’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs) spoke, as did Stephen Goose, from Human Right Watch, as did a representative from what used to be Landmine Survivor Network, which is now, Survivor Corps. I moderated a discussion about the State Department press response and the following statement. Costner clarified some of his points during the briefing and continued the discussion further.

Now we just want to make sure that the policy process doesn’t stall following Cartagena. We want assurances that that the policy review will be transparent and inclusive, and that they will put a timeline on the review process.

Despite all of this, everyone at the conference was welcoming to the U.S.. I think the U.S. delegation was surprised to be so welcomed, but everyone really genuinely wants to include the U.S.. The U.S., even though it is not a party to the treaty is one of the largest spenders in mine actions. It has spent $1.5 billion since 1993 on mine action, but they still need to join the treaty.

After hearing the U.S. statement at Cartagena, can you share your perspective on what was said?

The U.S. delegation spoke about their leadership in humanitarian mine action. They highlighted that they have spent more than $1.5 billion in humanitarian mine action since 1993. They also expressed a desire to remain engaged with this community and in these discussions. We were very encouraged by the statement. It was really only one line from the U.S. statement at the Cartagena summit that made us nervous.

“This is the first comprehensive review since 2003. As such, it will take some time to complete, given that we must ensure that all factors are considered, including possible alternatives to meet our national defense needs and security commitments to our friends and allies to ensure protection of U.S. troops and the civilians they protect around the world.”

That line made us uncomfortable, since the U.S. hasn’t used landmines in 18 years. If you haven’t used landmines in 18 years, then join the treaty. What’s the hold out? The argument about the concern for the protection of soldiers has been ongoing and there are many alternative options to keeping soldiers safe. If they haven’t been used for 18 years, then why not talk about joining the treaty and eliminating landmines that are a bigger risk than a protection?

What in terms of outcome do you expect to be different between the first and second review conference?

The second review conference had more of a concentration on victim assistance. There was a real conversation about how to improve VA, and how to include survivors and deliver assistance to them efficiently. That was a special emphasis at this conference. Also, ten years into the treaty, we are particularly concerned with issues of implementation—not just victim assistance but also meeting clearance obligations., Have State Parties made the clearance obligation deadlines on time? There was less of a focus on this in 2004 because no clearance deadlines had yet passed. The clearance deadline for all original signatories was 2009—ten years after the treaty entered into force. So this year there was some discussions on those countries that applied for clearance extensions.

In 2004, we were concerned with both universalization and how to speed up clearance efforts so that impacted countries would be able to meet their 2009 clearance obligations in time. So there were different stress points between the review conferences in comparison. In 2004, we were trying to figure out how do we enable them to get to the clearance deadline in the next five years.

What have you done to try to reach the goals you set out at the Nairobi Summit in 2004, at the first review conference, in terms of achieving your universalization targets?

We’re constantly pushing for universalization. Now we’re down to 39 countries. Many new countries have joined since 2004, not as many as we did between 1997 and 2004, but we continue to add States Parties. Of course, now, at this point, we’re also concerned equally with the implementation process.

According to your website, in the view of the ICBL, the Cartagena Summit will be successful if it can achieve 3 key goals:

(1.) clearly identify the progress made in meeting the treaty’s objectives, as well as the remaining challenges
(2.) reaffirm States Parties’ long-term commitment to the universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty;
(3.) develop a strong, measurable action plan for the next five years based on lessons learned since the first Review Conference in 2004.

Does it look like the summit is going to be successful?

Absolutely. I’d say check, check, and check. We have political recommitment. We have a strategic action plan in place. We’re talking about how to better achieve implementation goals. And we looked at the progress made and the challenges that lie ahead.

Are you noticing that country representatives are clearly identifying the continuing challenges in treaty implementation? Can you provide examples?

Yes, countries are addressing challenges in terms of implementation—both in terms of victim assistance and clearance challenges. They are recognizing the limitations of funding, and some impacted states are asking for extensions of their clearance deadlines.

Is the Review Conference exploring where the treaty would benefit from building synergies with new related instruments (Convention on Cluster Munitions, Protocol V of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities)? This was one of the ICBL expectations that were raised in the Bangkok Workshop.

The way the conference works is that there is a plenary session where the Mine Ban Treaty is discussed. Governments might mention these other conventions, but they are not discussed in detail. They might mention their significance. In the main plenary, one of the sections was on victim assistance. But government delegates also attended parallel side plenary sessions going on simultaneously that centered specifically on VA. During these meetings, further discussions about the relationship between the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and VA may have been discussed. In addition to this parallel plenary, informal lunchtime side events occurred throughout the week sponsored by various government delegations or NGOs. For example, the USCBL briefing we held on Wednesday was one of these side events. Another example was a briefing also held on Wednesday by the Cluster Munitions Coalition. At this event, the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) would have been discussed—at this point we have 24 of the 30 needed ratifications to trigger the CCM’s entry into force, and this briefing would have addressed plans for achieving these ratifications.

What interim measures would you expect could achieve the political will necessary for their implementation and could overcome the key challenges that countries that are not party to the treaty face? One example cited in Bangkok in April is respecting the core provisions of the treaty and another example is voting for the annual UN General Assembly Resolution on the Convention. The U.S. is taking one of the interim measures you mentioned in Bangkok by attending the conference as observers.

Non-signatories were offered the opportunity to formally witness the signing of the Cartagena Declaration. This would be one way to demonstrate support. Another way would be to vote for the UNGA resolution supporting the ideals of the Mine Ban Treaty. Or just show up—just as the U.S. did at this conference.

What have been the major impediments to success that you’ve observed being discussed at the review conference in the implementation of the victim assistance goals by member states?

It’s the same problem that we have seen in the clearance of landmines. It’s a problem with funding and national capacity issues. Many impacted countries are also developing countries. Many are working in their own systems and they are dealing with a host of issues. It’s complicated. They are just trying to provide for every citizen and sometimes don’t have the capacity to assist landmine victims specifically.

Another thing is expertise. However, one thing about this treaty is that States Parties have access to donor countries and to countries that are implementing victim assistance programs successfully. The treaty makes these technical resources and this expertise readily accessible to all other States Parties.

Have you seen a renewal in the commitment and energy in Cartagena toward the call “to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by personnel mines”?

Yes. States Parties are recommitting financially and politically. They are discussing how to clear more efficiently and quickly. With 420 ICBL campaigners jumping up and down and screaming, they are definitely paying attention to civil society.

Which concrete pledges of future actions stick out to you that you heard at the conference?

Those that had to do with universalization, victim assistance and clearance—particularly evident when it came to countries that applied for extensions. Extension requests were addressed with rigorous analysis. States Parties held these extension-requesting countries accountable and were not willing to simply rubber stamp the process. States Parties required a concrete action outlining how the impacted country will be able to meet the new extension deadline. Donor countries were also involved in this process, understandably given that part of the problem is that impacted countries do not have access to enough funding to complete clearance in time to meet their Article V obligations.

What mentionable milestones have been achieved by States Parties?

Stockpile destruction. The majority of States Parties have destroyed their stockpiles. If they don’t have stockpiles, then they can’t lay landmines. And at this point, several countries have also met their clearance obligations.

The 2009 Landmine Monitor Report also noted that there are only 3,000 sq km of known mine-contaminated areas left to clear.

Have there been announcements of sharp reductions in the numbers of retained mines?

The stockpile deadline for original signatories was during the 2004 conference. Most of those announcements were made back then. This review conference had some stockpile announcements, but more of the focus would have been on clearance obligations.

Any lessons learned about risk education in preventing future mine injuries that you care to share that you have heard at the conference?

One example is Colombia. Landmines there are still laid by non-state actors, not the government. So clearance by civil society is not happening, because it wouldn’t make sense since cleared mines could be re-laid. In these cases, community-based land mine education is used to decrease the number of casualties. Last year, there were around 1,100 casualties in Colombia, and this year there were around 740 casualties. This could be due in part to the effects of MRE, although this is unclear because another reason could be more to do with monitoring and reporting. Maybe more casualties were reported last year than were reported this year. But in general we all feel that mine risk education is saving lives.

Can you talk about any changes to the funding approach discussed at the conference?

Under the International Cooperation section of the plenary session, there were many funding commitments discussed. Of course, funding discussions are difficult right now. The bad economy is affecting governments just as it affects individuals. Nevertheless, funding pledges were made at the summit by donor countries, and we expect more in the near future. Donor countries decide to whom and how funds should be earmarked.

Have you seen procedural disputes derail the talks?

No. There may have been some procedural discussions early on, but there did not seem to be any at this summit.

Are there sharp differences between countries that have been pursuing their efforts to be compliant with the treaty and those who have asked for extensions or have otherwise been lax about reporting?

All states are held to the same standards, and those who asked for extensions had to demonstrate that they would be able to meet the new extension deadlines.

Which States Parties highlighted disarmament? Which States Parties focused on the humanitarian nature of the Mine Ban Treaty?

The conference focus is not disarmament per se. The focus of the conference is the elimination of landmines specifically due to their humanitarian impact. The treaty bans landmines because they are indiscriminate—cannot differentiate between a soldier and a child. And they maim and kill long after conflict has ended.

Are there any strengthened cooperative efforts emerging over humanitarian or disarmament goals?

The treaty in and of itself is about countries joining together around the idea that these weapons kill civilains during and after conflict. There are regional groups that exist—such as the CARICOM, small island nations, Commonwealth States, and others to name a few which may discuss treaty obligations within the context of their region.

Has the Obama administration set up meetings with ICBL and other NGO's to discuss the comprehensive policy review you suggest?

No. We want this to happen. Meetings have happened with DOD, State Department and National Security Council officials, but not with USCBL or ICBL specifically. But some USCBL coalition member organizations have had meetings with various officials to request that the administration pursue a policy review.

Anything else you’d like to add?

I think from the U.S. perspective, this conference is really exciting and it shows civil society working to protect civilians during and post-conflict and continuing to push this issue. As a U.S. citizen I want the U.S. to join. We should be part of a convention that protects people during and after conflict.

I think the U.S. was surprised by the overwhelming civil society support for this treaty at the Summit. I helped put together survivor delegations and youth delegations to visit with the U.S. delegation. Hopefully the U.S. saw from these meetings that there are more benefits from joining the treaty than from remaining as an outlier. I believe the administration will also come to terms with the fact that the military utility of these weapons just doesn’t outweigh the humanitarian crisis they cause. It’s because of the indiscriminate and barbaric nature of the weapon that they are so stigmatized. Also, the U.S., hasn’t used landmines in 18 years. The new administration also talks about engaging in multilateralism, and so now it’s time to show that they mean it. It’s a perfect opportunity.

Reasons that have been suggested for not joining the treaty seem entirely suspect—in particular, the Korea argument is ridiculous. In the case of an invasion from North Korea, the idea that U.S, troops would take the time to lay a new minefield along the South Korean border seems preposterous. There would be far more effective and efficient means of halting a North Korean invasion—especially when with current technology the U.S. would know far in advance if there was a North Korean movement of troops anywhere near the DMZ. And saying that we have present conflicts where we might need to use landmines is not a good argument—especially when Afghanistan and Iraq have both joined the Mine Ban Treaty.

In other words, keeping the option open to use them as a tactic is not recommendable?

No, it’s time for the U.S. to come to terms with the stigmatization of landmines and become a party to the Convention.

How many ICBL campaigners participated at the Summit?

420.

What can we expect the U.S. might do next?

We expect that the U.S. will get back to us with the structure of the policy review. We would like both a timeline and assurances that the process will be transparent and will include voices from legislators, NATO allies who are also Mine Ban Treaty States Parties, and NGOs working on this issue.

Since Colombia was identified as one of 24 States Parties with significant numbers of mine survivors during the first review conference in 2004, while you are in Colombia, can you give a glimpse at the recent successes out of the partnership between Handicap International with the Foundation for Integrated Rehabilitation (REI) through the community-based rehabilitation approach to the care of civilian mine/UXO survivors and the Assistance to Landmine/UXO Victims in Antioquia and Bolivar project started in October 2005?

(this response was provided by Handicap International’s Country Director in Colombia)

Handicap International Belgium has worked in Colombia since 1997. Our first partner was a Colombian organization that specializes in the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities in Cartagena, the REI Foundation. 

The REI Foundation for Integral Rehabilitation IPS is a nonprofit organization that works for the prevention of disability. They work on the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities and support the rights of people with disabilities through an interdisciplinary, institutional, and community approach. Also as a service provider they provide health and rehabilitation services to the community as a whole.

1998-2002 
Support Project Development Workshop Orthopedic Foundation REI, local counterpart of Handicap International in Cartagena. This project has contributed to the following objectives: Qualification of 3 Colombian technicians, logistical support, creation of strategic alliances with other orthopedic workshops in the country (Cali, Medellin and Bogota), Attention to persons with disabilities, Attention to victims of conflict (MAP accidents, victims of violence), production of prosthetics, orthotics and other apparatus for walking.

2000-2003 
Draft Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) in 12 neighborhoods of the city of Cartagena, jointly implemented with the REI Foundation. Outreach Program Communities, Training and support of families with people with disabilities, creating a network of local care services for persons with disabilities (health brigades, home visits) and developing local capacity (Mayeurat, Government) in the theme of disability. 

2004-2007 
Improving the situation of the displaced population and the situation of people with disabilities in the departments of Antioquia, Bolivar and Cesar, building networks of support and implementation of CBR in association with other institutions including the REI Foundation. 

2008-2010 
Strengthening institutional capacity for local support and legal guidance for civilian victims of landmines to timely services in Colombia in association with other institutions including the REI Foundation. 

In 2009, we've worked from the offices of Handicap International in Medellin, Cartagena, Bucaramanga and we work in five departments: Antioquia, Bolivar, Sucre, Santander and North Santander. 

In 2010, we intend to extend our activities, with support from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Belgium to five new departments in the south (Meta, Nariño, Arauca, Casanare and Caqueta)

For more info: if you're interested in learning more about the Convention, both review conferences, the use of indiscriminate weapons, and to stay up to date on USCBL efforts, visit http://www.handicap-international.us/