International Treaty to Ban Land Mines

First five-year review of international treaty to ban land mines opens

(AP)
29 November 2004
NAIROBI, Kenya - The first five-year review of the international treaty to ban land mines begins considering governments' compliance with the pact on Monday, and starts work on a five-year action plan.


Activists and government officials have claimed some successes but despair that the world's largest land mine producers still make, use and sell the deadly devices.

Many lives have been saved because of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines and acres (hectares) of farmland have been cleared of the lethal devices ensuring local communities can grow their own food, but more needs to be done, said Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki.

" Our conscience cannot be appeased until every mine is cleared and every person injured by land mines is assisted and integrated into society," Kibaki told more than 1,000 delegates representing 120 countries, activist organizations and survivor groups at the opening session on Sunday.

" The conference must send a strong and clear message to both producers and users of land mines that this is not a weapon of choice in any war," he said.

Jody Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work to ban mines, said the pact had seen " tremendous successes" but now risked failure. The Ottawa Convention bans the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines.

" We would not be here ... if governments did not hear us. If governments did not show incredible leadership," said Williams, who won the 1997 peace prize along with the International Campaign to Ban Land mines that she helped to found.

" We will not see continued progress if we don't meet the needs of land mine survivors."

The convention has been ratified by 143 countries and stipulates that mined areas be cleared within 10 years.

The United States, China and Russia are among 42 countries that have not ratified the treaty.

The US State Department said on Friday it is not sending a delegation because of the cost of participation and disagreement with crucial elements of the pact.