U.S. Special Representative for Global Humanitarian Demining
Ottawa Talks, Canada, March 23, 1998
TEXT: AMBASSADOR INDERFURTH ON KEY ELEMENTS OF DEMINING EFFORTS
(Says unprecedented international coordination needed)
Ottawa -- The U.S. Special Representative for Global Humanitarian Demining says the international community should pursue the short-term goal of making "mine-affected countries" in Central America "mine-free" by the turn of the century, and the longer-term goal of ensuring that the rest of the world is mine-free by 2010.
Ambassador Karl Inderfurth spoke about the need to design an international coordinating mechanism to accelerate humanitarian demining efforts during a speech in Ottawa on March 23. He said humanitarian demining activities -- such as mine awareness training, mine detection and removal of unexploded ordnance, immediate landmine victim assistance and longer-term rehabilitation, and developing new anti-mine technologies -- should be "people-based" and "involve actions to assist those who have become casualties, as well as actions that will prevent further victims."
Speaking at a conference organized by Canada as a follow-up to the signing of the Landmine Convention in Ottawa in December banning anti-personnel landmines, Inderfurth said: "The goal of humanitarian demining should be 'zero-victims.'"
Humanitarian demining is "very expensive and time-consuming," compared to military demining or counter-mine efforts, he explained, because humanitarian demining has to ensure that "an entire area used by civilians...be virtually 100 percent mine-free (99.6 percent to be exact)."
Inderfurth outlined seven elements of support that the international community "must bring to implementation of our humanitarian demining objectives," including finding "creative ways of facilitating private investment and participation in humanitarian demining and landmine survivor assistance."
The ambassador expressed confidence that between the current deliberations in Ottawa and the forthcoming May 21-22 demining conference in Washington, "we will be able to reach agreed conclusions about how we must organize ourselves to get this job done."
Following is the text of Inderfurth's remarks as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
When we met in Ottawa last December to witness the signing of the Ottawa Convention, we agreed that it was imperative to turn immediately to the task of removing the threat of landmines to the civilian population worldwide, the tens of millions of landmines that are already in the ground. We meet here again to reaffirm that humanitarian demining is the urgent task and that it is time to forge the necessary international coordination to get the task done.
When we speak of the task of humanitarian demining, we envision it in its broadest sense, encompassing the full range of activity required to protect civilians from landmines: that is, mine awareness training, landmine detection and removal, removal of unexploded ordnance, immediate assistance to landmine victims and their longer term rehabilitation, and the development of new technologies to facilitate mine detection and removal. It is clear that a task this comprehensive will require international coordination on an unprecedented scale.
United Nations Under Secretary General Bernard Miyet has presented a well conceived plan for reorganizing and coordinating mine action within the U.N. system. This is the essential first step, because the United Nations and its agencies form the core of our ability to bring relief to mine-affected countries. We must also recognize that the United Nations, especially UNDPKO (United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations), will only be able to coordinate its activities and act effectively as the core of an international coordination mechanism if it gets the full support of the major donor governments and the interested community outside government.
Seven Points of Coordination
Let me now elaborate the elements of support that we believe the international community must bring to implementation of our humanitarian demining objectives. We seek seven essential elements.
First, UNDPKO and other aspects of the U.N. coordination plan that Under Secretary General Miyet has outlined will require supplemental support from donors to develop a stronger coordinating capacity as expeditiously as possible. It is our understanding that several governments are prepared to offer support of this sort. We believe the list will grow.
Second, the U.N. coordination mechanism must become a wider clearinghouse for all humanitarian demining activity, not just that of the United Nations. We must work together to define a broader U.N.-based clearinghouse/coordination mechanism that can bring all interested entities into communication to assess needs, define priorities, and help focus resources accordingly. For example, U.N. coordination should include the opportunity for input from governments and non-governmental centers of expertise. They should help with the tasks of defining priorities, setting standards, and bringing technology into the mix. This coordinating mechanism should, working with donor governments and non-governmental experts, develop a catalogue of needs and opportunities with cost estimates, that governments and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) could use to determine how to direct their resources toward all aspects of humanitarian demining. (The catalogue would list what is already underway and what still needs to be done, indicating where additional resources are required.)
Third, the coordination mechanism must have access to a full data base that provides a more reliable and comprehensive view of humanitarian demining needs and conditions. The Swiss government's generous offer to fund improvements to the U.N. data base is a welcome contribution to this effort. In particular, the data base should focus on information contributing to detailed assessments and inventories of country-by-country demining needs. When the U.N., for example, is embarking on a country inventory it should have in hand the results of inventories that have already been conducted by donor governments and/or NGOs, and vice versa.
Fourth, the Mine Action Support Group which was convened in New York by Norway, will be an important channel of communication and consultation between the U.N. and the major donors. In the nature of a "Friends to the Secretary General," this group should also provide a forum for donors to exchange ideas with mine-affected countries and NGOs with experience in demining.
Fifth, there are aspects of resource management that ultimately transcend the ability of a single institution to resolve on its own. The U.N. clearinghouse mechanism should be supplemented by a consultative group, as was proposed by the EU Ambassador at the December Ottawa Conference, in which representatives of the major donor governments, the U.N., World Bank, and other sources of public funds for humanitarian demining can review the catalogue of needs to ensure that donor programs are not inadvertently working at cross purposes. It is a reality that donor governments will continue to direct funding through bilateral programs, in addition to whatever funds may flow through the multilateral programs. It is also a fact of life that donor programs are governed by a great variety of political and other legislative conditions that limit how they can be directed. There must be a forum for the major bilateral and multilateral donors to adjust their comparative advantages to ensure that the full range of humanitarian demining needs is being addressed.
Sixth, the U.N. clearinghouse/coordination mechanism should also be supplemented by better coordination of humanitarian demining technology research and development. The United States will be convening representatives of other governments investing in technology R&D (Research and Development) immediately after this workshop to explore the possibilities of establishing an R&D coordinating mechanism. If such a mechanism is feasible, it would serve the broader international humanitarian demining community.
Last but not least, we must find creative ways of facilitating private investment and participation in humanitarian demining and landmine survivor assistance. Several interesting new initiatives are already in train. The U.N. Foundation, which will channel Ted Turner's unprecedented $1 billion ($1,000 million) donation to the United Nations, is developing new mechanisms for directing and monitoring the input of private resources into U.N. projects, including humanitarian demining. We will undoubtedly be hearing more in the course of the Ottawa Workshop about this promising new partnership between the U.N. and the private community. The United States U.N. Association is also engaged in discussions with the U.N. to develop a similar arrangement to implement is "Adopt a Minefield" program. Several California winegrowers have conceived a "Mines to Vines" initiative for funding humanitarian demining in areas that could be developed into vineyards and farms. We believe the opportunities are unlimited.
We look forward to exploring these ideas in the working group discussions that will follow this plenary.
Defining Priorities
I would also like to address the question of priorities for humanitarian demining. Those who have been out in the field with various demining programs understand well that humanitarian demining is quite distinct from its military antecedents. Where military demining or counter-mine action tends to focus on a limited objective and can tolerate a certain degree of risk, humanitarian demining must ensure that an entire area used by civilians must be virtually 100 percent mine-free (99.6 percent to be exact). Compared to military demining, therefore, humanitarian demining is a very expansive and time-consuming.
With traditional military demining or counter-mine activity priorities are determined by relatively clear military objectives, for example, the need to move a convoy from point A to point B. With humanitarian demining, the priorities are much more wide-ranging, far less clearcut, and often require making hard choices. They relate to the degree of threat posed by landmines to civilians and their economic or social activity and, because of limited resources, involve complex calculations about socio-economic conditions and goals in any given nation or society.
The major priorities for humanitarian demining, for example, are probably best defined in Cambodia's five-year demining plan:
-- land used for the resettlement of refugees and displaced persons and settled land with high civilian casualty rated;
-- land used for agriculture;
-- community development;
-- reconstruction and development of infrastructure in priority zones.
Furthermore, decisions to undertake humanitarian demining activity must be people-based. They must involve actions to assist those who have become casualties, as well as actions that will prevent further victims. The goal of humanitarian demining should be "zero victims."
In designing international coordination for accelerating humanitarian demining, we must ensure that it also has the capacity to make these very complex calculations about humanitarian priorities.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we have a big job ahead of us, but I believe that the international community has the will to achieve it. Our goal for the mine-affected countries should be "mine-free" status, as we hope will be the case for Central America by the year 2000, and for the entire international community by the year 2010. I am confident that between our deliberations here in Ottawa and those that will follow in Washington in May, we will be able to reach agreed conclusions about how we must organize ourselves to get this job done.
This Web site is
produced and maintained by the United States Information Agency
Return to the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation homepage Return to the USIS homepage