Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Dec 1997

Vol. 483 No. 6

Anti-Personnel Mines: Motion.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, pursuant to Article 29.5.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, approves the terms of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 17th day of November, 1997."

I am pleased to move this motion. The conclusion of the convention banning the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines has been the result of the determination of a number of countries, including Ireland, to by-pass the deadlock in more traditional diplomatic negotiations in favour of a fast track multilateral negotiation. Those countries committed themselves in the so called "Ottawa Process" to the conclusion of a comprehensive and global ban on anti-personnel mines in the shortest possible time.

We were not prepared to proceed at the pace of those Governments which continue to use diplomatic negotiations for the purpose of maintaining their prerogatives to use these inhumane mines for the foreseeable future while countless thousands of innocent victims were being killed and maimed monthly.

On taking office, the Government set the conclusion of a global ban on landmines as the immediate priority of Irish disarmament policy. The determined and purposeful pursuit by like-minded Governments of this singular goal led, in the short duration from its launch in Ottawa in October of last year to its culmination at a diplomatic conference in Oslo in September of this year, to the conclusion of a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel mines for all time and the elimination of existing mines within a set time frame.

Ireland, together with a core group of nations, including Canada, Austria, Mexico and South Africa, played a key role at the Oslo Conference in bringing about the conclusion of this convention. Under the convention, anti-personnel mines will be banned without reservations and exceptions and for all time.

To summarise its main provisions, the convention prohibits the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines; requires the destruction of all stocks of anti-personnel mines with the exception of a small number of devices required for mine detection, clearance and destruction techniques; provides for the clearance of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under national jurisdiction and control in accordance with a specified time-table; promotes international co-operation and assistance by states in a position to do so to help mine affected countries clear mines and to support the victims of landmines; contains transparency and compliance provisions, including the requirement to make declarations and provide other information on compliance and implementation as well as procedures for clarification and fact-finding missions and entrusts the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as depositary, with the servicing of meetings of state parties and the implementation of the convention's reporting and clarification mechanisms.

When this convention was concluded at Oslo, it enjoyed the support of more than 100 participating delegations, including in particular the mine affected countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. While the United States participated in Oslo, its delegation declared that it was not in a position to forego the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines for the foreseeable future. The majority of participating states in Oslo, including Ireland, would not agree to an exception which would have compromised the fundamental global approach we were pursuing and would have defeated the goal of a total ban which we set out to achieve.

We are disappointed that the United States will not be in a position to join us in signing the convention this week. The United States was the moving force behind the 1996 UNGA resolution calling for the total abolition of these weapons, and we still hope that by signing this convention in the near future, it will give concrete expression to its commitment to bring about an end to these hideous devices.

A number of other significant states, including Russia, China, India and Pakistan and two of our partners in European Union, Greece and Finland, did not, despite our best efforts, participate in the conference. Since Oslo there have, however, been a number of positive developments in this regard. Greece announced that it will sign the convention in Ottawa. Japan and Russia have stated that they will sign in due course, and other countries that traditionally have been negative towards the Ottawa process will now also sign at Ottawa.

At the signing of the convention in Ottawa tomorrow, the Irish delegation will be led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and with the adoption of this motion today it will also be possible for Ireland to be among the first countries to ratify the convention tomorrow. The ratification of the convention, following the adoption of this motion will be possible because existing legislation, including the Explosives (Land Mines) Order, 1996, provides the appropriate legal and administrative instruments, including penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control. This order bans the manufacture, keeping, importation, conveyance or sale of landmines.

In addition, it is the Government's policy that the Defence Forces shall not use anti-personnel mines in any future Defence Force military operation. Ireland is therefore already in a position to ratify this convention without any further implementing legislation. In being the first to ratify it, it is the Government's intention to signal the importance it attaches to the entry into force of the convention, which requires 40 ratifications to bring it into force. It is especially important that it should enter rapidly into force and become a norm of international law because all along, there have been countries which have attempted to belittle the effort we have made to reach a global ban by means other than the traditional diplomatic route.

It was argued that the convention agreed between those countries eager to halt the scourge of anti-personnel mines working together with mine affected countries would be no more than an instrument of so-called declaratory diplomacy. Instead we have managed to conclude a convention negotiated by more than 100 states, which is a comprehensive treaty providing all the requisites of a verifiable disarmament agreement and one which needs no further or subsidiary agreements to bring about the total elimination of these barbaric devices. It will be up to Ireland and other like-minded countries to work towards universal adherence to this convention so that any use of anti-personnel mines will quickly be deemed unacceptable anywhere and by anyone. We believe there are sufficient like-minded countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe determined to see that this treaty enters into force with the shortest possible delay. Our ratification of the convention on the first day it is open for ratification will be a statement of our determination to contribute to bringing this about. While in Ottawa the Minister will be examining with other states' signatories and especially with our fellow core group countries the significant ways in which we can promote the universalisation of this convention.

We have been doing our part to assist mine affected countries to clear their lands of these inhumane weapons and to help the victims of landmines to recover from their injuries and reintegrate into their communities. This year alone we allocated over £1 million to support projects in countries such as Angola, Mozambique, Cambodia and Bosnia which are suffering the consequences of the indiscriminate use of landmines. Long after a conflict is over innocent people continue to suffer and are prevented from resuming normal social and economic activities. The Government is committed to continuing to support demining projects, community mine awareness programmes and victim rehabilitation.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians, have lost limbs to anti-personnel mines, and hundreds of thousands more have lost their lives following mine explosions because of the lack of transport and medical care. The international committee of the Red Cross compiled data in 1995 which showed that approximately 26,000 people per year are killed or maimed by landmines. Some 19.8 per cent of these were children under the age of 15, 7.3 per cent were women and 4.2 per cent were men over 50 years old. The remaining 68.7 per cent of victims were "potential combatants".

However, this statistic is open to interpretation and should be read in conjunction with a 1993 study carried out in Peshawar with refugees from Afghanistan, which revealed that only 17 per cent had been engaged in some form of military activity at the time of their maiming or killing. As NGOs have consistently pointed out, landmines are not very good at killing and injuring soldiers but they all too easily kill and maim civilians and contaminate their land.

Over the past 25 years, the use of landmines has destroyed not only people and their families but also the productive potential of entire regions and even countries. In Afghanistan and Cambodia, for example, up to 35 per cent more land could be made available for farming if it were not for the threat of land mines. The area is equivalent to more than twice Britain's cereal producing area. The consequences are easy to see. These countries at one time were self-sufficient in food and now partly depend on international aid.

This is not exceptional. The people and economies of about 35 countries are severely affected by land mines. Some additional 30 countries have varying degrees of difficulty with this threat. This amounts in all to about one-third of the world.

This is the backdrop to the world-wide civic campaign involving hundreds of NGOs and millions of citizens to inform, educate and campaign against the effects of land mines and to demand a comprehensive, purposeful and lasting solution to this problem. These organisations, supported by public opinion, have demanded a complete ban on the production, stockpiling, sale, transfer, export and use of anti-personnel mines. They also seek increased resources for mine clearance and victim assistance.

Anti-personnel land mines do not differentiate between an old woman collecting firewood, a UN peace-keeper and a fully armed hard-bitten enemy soldier. This is why the campaigners have sought a review of the laws of war governing the use of land mines.

Previous attempts to review the UN convention which was signed in 1980 and came into effect 14 years ago today, that is, 2 December 1983, have not been successful. It is frightening to note that since the early 1980s more land mines have been made than during any period in history with, perhaps, the exception of the period of the Second World War. In previous discussions to review the inhumane weapons convention, the order of the day was for certain member states to seek "get-out" clauses so as to suit their own military, commercial or political purposes. The definition of anti-personnel mines was amended to exclude mines that are classified — that is classified by the manufacturers, exporters and user states — as having different primary design. For example, anti-airfield mines or anti-airfield clearance mines that have distinct and substantial anti-personnel effects could have been left outside the scope of previous treaties because they could be classified differently, with the primary design purpose of, in this instance, runway denial.

A review of the treaty process was eventually agreed in May 1996 and the amended protocol to land mines and the UN Inhumane Weapons Convention came into force but still did not live up to the expectations of the international campaigning groups or public opinion. The amended treaty had no teeth. There were virtually no verification and sanction mechanisms, for example, but Canada declared at the end of the conference that it would host a meeting of like-minded countries in the autumn of 1996 to progress the matter further. How many times do we hear NATO member states described as war lords? Canada has shown the way and has shown that the will of one state can change the view of many others. It is true that Ireland was one of a small group of countries which participated with Canada, but it is time that Ireland regained its confidence in taking initiatives of this kind on the world stage. The Canadian move in relation to land mines is not unlike the nuclear non-proliferation treaty moves instigated by Ireland over 30 years ago. It is time we renewed that pioneering spirit. One state can make the difference. Thanks to Canada, there is now a programme on the table which is workable and can be effective in dealing with the land mines issue. Canada ended its conference by challenging all states to return in December 1997 to sign a treaty banning anti-personnel mines, and Canada has since instituted a vigorous programme of diplomatic meetings, demarches and pressure to try to bring about a ban on anti-personnel mines within one year.

This will not solve the problem for those who have already suffered. There remains the potential for suffering for those who still live in areas which are mined, but it should ensure that future conflicts do not leave behind the deadly legacy that has scarred the world over the past quarter of a century. According to the Bureau of Political and Military Affairs, US Department of State publication "Hidden Killers: The Global Problem With Uncleared Landmines, l993" landmines are "the most toxic and widespread pollution facing mankind". At last a serious dent can be made in clearing this pollution facing mankind. I am sorry that the United States, which carried out that research, will not be one of the first 40 states to sign the treaty.

Jim Carstairs in "Diplomacy, International Law and The Civic Campaign Against Landmines" states:

Canada has chosen its allies well; the massive weight of public opinion and the international N.G.O. campaign, and peer group pressure from supportive countries. It has set a date for a ban in such a way that it would be politically impossible for many states to disagree publicly and will isolate all those states which do not fall into line, and it has done away with the principle of consensus. The rubric has been: "if you don't like it, don't turn up" and "if you do turn up, you have to agree to a strong position first". Some governments did not appear to have understood this message when 89 participants and 36 observing states met in Oslo from 1st to 17th September l997 for the conclusion of formal negotiations on a landmine ban. It swiftly became clear that many country delegations were uncomfortable with the real dynamics of what has been called the "Ottawa Process". The hangover from cold-war and disarmament policy took its toll as delegates struggled to consolidate the political statements of their respective governments in favour of a total ban on anti-personnel mines with their own ingrained training in resistance to change. Many of the delegates had come from the more traditional consensus-based Conference on Disarmament and found it hard to accept that it was public opinion that was driving the process forward, at times it appeared in spite of the diplomats themselves.

The ban treaty which has resulted, though not perfect, represents a real step forward both in terms of addressing the urgent humanitarian crisis caused by landmines and in terms of laying the foundations for a new post Cold War diplomacy. It may be premature to estimate the number of countries that will sign the treaty this month. I hope the number will be 100 and, if not, that it will at least be the 40 required to enable the treaty to come into effect.

The important features of the treaty are a complete ban on anti-personnel landmines covering production, use, stockpiling, transfer and development; destruction of stockpiles within four years from ratification; clearance of mine fields within ten years; provisions on assistance for victims assistance, demining and stockpile destruction; comprehensive transparency requirements and review and follow-up mechanisms.

I pay particular tribute to all the Irish and international NGOs. I mention in particular Pax Christi, the international Catholic peace movement, which has worked so hard to bring about the convention on the prohibition on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of antipersonnel mines and on their destruction. I have some concerns about Article 5.3 which allows certain state parties which believe they are unable to destroy or ensure the destruction of all antipersonnel mines within the time period to request a review conference for an extension of the deadline. However, it is clear that the treaty is a major achievement. The previous Government worked hard to bring it about and the present Government has completed the work. It is a commendable day's work and shows what democratic governments acting together, in this case led by Canada, can achieve. It also shows the important role of NGOs and how much can be done in response to public opinion where there is a will.

I make no apology for concluding with the words of Canada's Foreign Minister, Mr. Axworthy, at the Ottawa conference:

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a straightforward choice. We can remove one hundred million mines, an arm and a leg at a time. Or we can act. There is momentum, there is political commitment and, most importantly, the peoples of the world support what we are trying to do.

In being one of the first countries to ratify this convention, Ireland is recognising the will of those people. I hope the minimum number of states will ratify the convention to bring it into effect immediately.

Mr. M. Higgins

Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo agus muid ag caint faoin Chonradh tábhachtach seo a shíniú agus a chur i bhfoirm ghnímh sa tír seo.

I very much welcome the opportunity to support this motion approving the terms of the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction, to be signed by Ireland on 3 December 1997. It is appropriate that all sides of the House pay tribute to the achievements of those who have brought about the convention, particularly the role played by the Canadian Government.

There has been huge public support for banning landmines. The real issue affecting us as politicians is how to bring about the destruction, decommissioning and prohibition of the production of landmines. It is incumbent on us to speak clearly about the nature of the problem. One of the horrific facts of our time — I was spokesperson on Foreign Affairs for about 11 years, up to about five years ago — is that those who make and sell armaments, of which landmines are a part, regard the production of such weapons and means of destruction as an ordinary commodity production. There is an appalling contradiction in international treaties in that countries which, on the one hand, sign up in terms of international jurisprudence with a great flourish of rhetoric for the most admirable and idealistic forms of human co-operation, even using the word "peace", are at the same time the most obdurate objectors against any restriction or restraint on the production or sale of armaments, which is one of the great obscenities at the end of the 20th century.

I asked the then Taoiseach, on his way to discussions on the Amsterdam Treaty, to see if it was possible, in the context of the treaty, to place some restraint on the volume and production of armaments. That theme was discussed, but it must be stated regularly and plainly that perhaps the children, if not the adults, of the planet will cry out in horror at one of the most appalling combinations of facts, which is a defilement on the planet, that not only is there no serious restraint on the production and sale of armaments and the placing of landmines but that they are sold to the most vulnerable, starved and malnourished people in the world.

If total resources on the technology and science of landmine production was deflected for five years and devoted to solving the water resources problem of the world, we would begin to envisage the transformation of whole countries on the African, Asian and Latin American continents. Yet neither the research, the application of technology nor the scientific delivery into the social systems of these countries is possible. Very often the least democratic countries are the biggest purchasers at international armament fairs.

It is interesting that in 1995 the figure of expenditure for military purposes was $744 billion and the developing countries' share of that money was $114 billion on allegedly defence-related material. The poorest one-fifth of the world bought one-fifth of the total production of the richest one-fifth of the world, devoted entirely to destruction in a military sense. There is no point imagining that politics or diplomacy has succeeded when these facts are repeated decade after decade. The significance of the convention, the seeds of which we are discussing this evening, is that it is at least a small step in the direction of knocking the old con game that something cannot be agreed until everything is agreed, the old strategy of throwing the landmines question in with the question of denuclearisation in the knowledge that we have fobbed it off for a number of years. It was the moral will of the people against such a diplomatic blind that brought us to this point.

Unlike many Members, I have had the experience of travelling in a North African desert through approximately 7 kilometres of a mined area and watched people point to the hidden jelly fish in the ground like the ones that had amputated the arms and legs of members of families I had met. There is another appalling side to this. The international legal regime lists this as a heinous act in all the international conventions against cruelty and for the protection of civilians because the target is indiscriminate, frequently the civilian population. It is used to strike mortal terror in non-compliant populations or as an antiterrorism device. It is also frequently used to move people from areas they have farmed to areas already under pressure, thereby creating an environmental effect.

Millions of landmines remain in the ground. The agenda of action for the international community is to put an end to the production, sale, distribution and placement of landmines. It takes 200 times more effort to remove a mine than to place one. Funding must be allocated for the technology to comb out mines. Resources must also be provided for artificial limbs and rehabilitation programmes.

It is a significant scar on all humanity that we have devoted so much intelligence and resources to producing such indiscriminate weapons of destruction. The number of people killed by landmines is far greater than the conservative estimate of 25,000 per year. That figure is taken from the known 110 million landmines in Angola, Eritrea, Mozambique, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Cambodia, South Korea, Iraq and Bosnia. Some of the countries with whom we share international treaties are cynical about this matter. The European Union is being besmirched by its attitude to the armaments trade. Some people followed the Iran-Iraq war as if they were looking at video games and others took obscene pleasure from deploying weapons to the war. Landmines were sold by western countries to a regional conflict which later erupted into a much more serious one.

I am sure young people will have more regard for politics when they note all Members of the House are in agreement on this issue. One cannot talk about landmines and imagine it does not have implications for our economic and international relations in the other realms of politics in the European Union. We must integrate what we are doing here with what we are doing elsewhere if we are to take the next necessary steps.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. D. Wallace)

I support this measure which, when implemented, should lead to a large number of people being saved from the horror of these dreadful devices. The removal of anti-personnel mines throughout the world cannot happen soon enough. Before commenting on the specific nature of these appalling instruments of war and terror, I will reflect on a worrying tendency in modern life, the ever increasing use of violence. It is both sad and extremely strange that at a time when the world has never been more advanced in terms of the sophistication of solutions available to a wide range of problems, people in such numbers seem to find the need to turn to violence. It affects mankind at international, national, local and domestic levels. Unless some significant progress is made as a matter of urgency in tackling the situation, the future for mankind is very worrying.

While it has recently been very heartening to see a person of the calibre of our former President assuming a key United Nations role in the campaign for human rights throughout the world, it is very sobering to recall the limited success of the international community in tackling a variety of violent crises around the globe. For example, it is only a few years since the appalling events in Bosnia. This was rapidly followed by genocide on a huge scale in both Rwanda and Burundi. The agony of these countries continues to some degree or another. Despite the scale of these human and man-made disasters, very little has been achieved to date in terms of convicting and punishing the main culprits in these countries.

Whatever we may say about the effectiveness of the United Nations in areas of conflict such as those I have outlined, there can be no doubt either about the organisation's general good intentions or its unique position in offering possible solutions to war. In this regard, the measure before us will undoubtedly strengthen the hand of the UN as it attempts to successfully tackle a range of ongoing conflicts across the world.

All instruments of war are obscene whether guns, tanks, knives or mines. In each instance the clear intention is the same — to inflict death or the maximum possible level of injury on another human being. Consequently, the use of such weapons is a crime against humanity. In an ideal world, there would be no such thing as a legitimate target. However, the reality of life means that there is a tendency in a war to divide the population into those involved in the armed forces and all other citizens. In an attempt to place some boundary on the horrors of war, there have been a number of international efforts and conferences aimed at protecting non-involved citizens during the course of war.

The development and use of the anti-personnel mine was a deliberate and cruel step taken to make a mockery of such measures. These weapons are totally indiscriminate and take a particular toll on non-military personnel. They are laid in their hundreds of thousands and many remain as death traps long after the conclusion of hostilities in the relevant conflict. I sincerely hope the prohibition of these terrible devices will be implemented rapidly.

I would like to briefly return to the overall issue of violence in our society. As I have already stated, violence is not restricted to interstate conflicts. Instead, it seems to crop up on a regular basis in modern life. For example, in recent years we have seen a very disturbing increase in the level of extreme violence against women. On many occasions this has lead to either death or severe injuries. Similarly, children and older people no longer seem to be safe from the ravages of violence. It is particularly devastating and worrying to see the level of domestic violence being recorded throughout the country.

There are regular new additions to the litany of violent crimes. For example, the practice of random drive by killings has become increasingly common in cities throughout the United States. Similarly, the concept of road rage has become an increasing feature of life in the United Kingdom, and thankfully to a much lesser degree here. The epidemic of drug abuse which has struck western societies over the last 20 years or so has further added to both the obscenity and frequency of violence. The desperate drug abuser will often carry out the most horrific attacks simply to obtain resources to support his or her compulsive habit. Drug suppliers and dealers use violence as a mark of their vile trade in human misery.

Therefore, as we approach the new Millennium and aspire to newer and greater heights for humanity in a variety of activities, it is vitally important to take stock of who we are in terms of the fundamental values adopted throughout our society. While a range of issues remain to be effectively tackled at international and national levels, there are few of greater importance than the need to address the obscenity of violence in all its horrible manifestations.

In many ways, the modern emphasis on the individual has contributed to an increase in the level of tension in society. For example, the need to be assertive is stressed more and more in commercial life and personal development. While the biblical advice of turning the other cheek was widely promoted a few years ago, we are now more likely to hear people being encouraged to get their retaliation in first. Unfortunately, this is increasingly the case in the competitive world of sport. The vital need to win at all costs is stressed, despite the fact that sport should primarily be about enjoyment and recreation.

The sum of my comments is that violence is an evil and a crime against mankind and that it must be tackled at a number of levels. Otherwise, the very basis of civilised and humane living will be eroded beyond repair. While I do not wish to indulge in any attack on the media, it is worrying to see the central role of violence in so many television series and films. It even penetrates various cartoons screened, supposedly, for the entertainment of children. What possible message can children get from watching such material, day in day out? With its simplistic division of everyone into good and evil, it cannot help the developing child to adopt a balanced view of life. The effect on children's views is clearly reflected in the nature of toys which are the most popular, especially at Christmas.

I warmly welcome the adoption of anti-personnel mine measures at international level. Hopefully, the resulting benefits will become apparent at the earliest possible time. However, the issue forcefully brings to mind the cancer of violence and the worrying failure of the most affluent societies to deal effectively with it. I have no doubt it is a problem which will require a wide coalition of efforts, especially education, before the scourge of violence or the daily threat of violence, totally disappears. Since the target of violent behaviour is often the most defenceless members of the community, we must keep their interests and concerns in mind at all times.

Proinsias De Rossa

The ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction marks a small contribution on the part of this country to a safer and more civilised world. However, the ratification of this convention by all countries, especially the main producers of these lethal weapons, would be a major contribution to a safer and more civilised world. If one wished to find an example of man's inhumanity to man and the unscrupulousness of the world's armaments industry, one need look no further than landmines. These weapons are hidden, they do not differentiate between the pressure of a barefoot child and that of a military vehicle, they are cheap to manufacture and install but expensive to remove and remain lethal long after a military conflict has ended. Landmines continue to render significant areas of productive land unusable and this land is often in areas where the need for food is greatest.

Landmines are often made of plastic and no bigger than a child's hand. The legacy of the landmine is truly awful. An estimated 26,000 people, mainly civilians, are killed each year. Compared to the 3,000 people killed during 25 years of appalling atrocities in Northern Ireland one gets an indication of the appalling waste of life. An estimated 110 million landmines still pose a threat in 70 countries, particularly in the Third World. We are told that the world's major powers plant two million to five million landmines every year. The United Nations estimates that at present rate of clearance it will take 1,100 years to rid the world of landmines at a cost of $33 billion. That means it will be the third millennium by the time they are cleared or, looking backwards, we should have started to clear them the year the Normans landed in Ireland. It costs only a few pounds to produce and lay a mine but it can cost almost £1,000 to remove it. The more sophisticated mine detectors now cost approximately £6,000 each. One person involved in clearance is killed for every 5,000 mines removed.

While we have never produced or used landmines, our Defence Forces serving abroad with the United Nations have not been immune from their threat. Much of the work of the Irish troops serving in Lebanon with UNIFIL involves the detection and clearance of mines. Earlier this summer six Irish soldiers involved in clearing an Israeli minefield were injured when one of the devices detonated. One of those involved, Private Gary Maloney, lost his leg in that explosion.

Against this background, it is shameful that it has taken so long for serious efforts to tackle the problem and for this convention to emerge. There is no doubt that if there had been more casualties in what we like to call the developed world and if the problem had not been largely confined to the Third World, action would have been taken earlier.

Our welcome for the convention must also be tempered by the knowledge that many key players did not participate in the Oslo conference at which it was agreed and that some have made it clear they will not ratify it. While Ireland is entitled to credit for the key role it played in securing agreement at Oslo, it was particularly disappointing that two of our European Union partners, Greece and Finland, did not participate. Major producers of mines, including Russia, China, India and Pakistan, did not participate either. I understand, however, that Greece has announced it will sign the convention and there are signs that Japan and Russia will sign at some stage in the future.

The attitude of the United States which participated in the Oslo conference but whose delegation said it was not in a position to forego the production, stockpiling, use and transfer of anti-personnel mines for the foreseeable future is most disappointing. Many people find it incomprehensible that a country which claims to offer moral leadership in world affairs continues to assert a right to use such weapons. It is even more extraordinary in the context of statements issued by the US Government at the end of October when it launched new initiatives to remove existing landmines. Yet it continues to maintain the right to manufacture, stockpile and use landmines as and when it sees fit.

President Clinton has been quoted as saying:

"as Commander in Chief, I will not send our soldiers to defend the freedom of our people and the freedom of others without doing everything we can to make them as secure as possible". The contribution landmines make to the security of the US forces is totally disproportionate to the death and destruction their continued use will bring to tens of thousands of innocent civilians of whom few, if any, will be American.

Many people in the United States do not share the enthusiasm of the US armed forces for these dreadful weapons. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October, is headed by an American woman, Ms Jody Williams. It will continue to exert pressure on its Government to change its position and I hope our Government will use the close relationship that exists to exert all possible pressure on Washington and on the other countries which have opted out of this convention to follow the example of virtually every other country in the world by ratifying it.

Apart from the dreadful death and injury caused by these weapons, the landmine problem is adding greatly to the difficulties of many developing countries in feeding their people. Whole areas of potentially productive agricultural land are off limits because they are infested with landmines. We must look for an accelerated clearance programme to stop the death and destruction and to free up additional areas for food production, and the primary responsibility for financing this campaign must rest with the countries which have profited from the production of these landmines.

Ms Fitzgerald

I would like to share my time with Deputy Gormley.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the eve of Ireland's signing this convention in Ottawa. Tomorrow is European Disability Day and, while the disabilities caused by landmines are outside the Europe Union, we should be mindful of the disabilities caused by landmines for many years.

Everybody in this House agrees this is an optimistic moment in international relations but, as Deputy Higgins pointed out, one must reflect on how international relations have got to the point which has allowed so many landmines to be put in place. It is a gross failure of the world order which has allowed this horrific situation and the statistics on landmines are very depressing.

Today I watched a video produced by the Irish Red Cross. The effects of landmines all over the world, the number of landmines, the length of time it will take to clear them and the cost to public health systems, life and the environment, are depressing. Landmines affect every one of those areas on a daily basis. The scale of the problem is enormous and, while this is an optimistic moment at which so many countries will sign this convention, it is very clear that the convention has been brought about primarily by the work of non-governmental organisations and by the sort of focus which individual personalities, such as the late Diana, Princess of Wales, have brought to bear on this issue.

Obviously, there have been those in the international political community who have worked to make sure this convention is successful but landmines are an indictment of the political world order because the scale of the damage is so intense. It is very worrying that the US and China will not sign tomorrow, and that it is questionable whether Russia will sign, although there seems to be an indication that these countries are moving in a more proactive way in relation to tackling this issue.

The scale of the problem has primarily been pointed out by the International Red Cross, whose members were working with people who had suffered the effects of landmines exploding. In 1995 the International Red Cross launched a worldwide campaign advocating a ban on the weapons and it has done a tremendous amount of work since then. Since 1979 the International Committee of the Red Cross Rehabilitation Programmes alone have made over 100,000 artificial limbs for 70,000 amputees in 22 countries. Some 140,000 pairs of crutches and 7,000 wheelchairs have also been produced.

It is interesting to note that most victims of landmines are civilians who step on a landmine after a war has ended. In some countries 30 per cent of victims are women and children. The basic facts are that every 20 minutes landmines claim one victim. Every hour three people are killed or maimed by these weapons and in any one day 70 people will become victims of landmines. It is estimated that every month 2,000 people are killed or maimed by landmines. In other words, in a year landmines kill or injure 24,000 people.

Landmines kill or maim more people every year than the population of the suburbs of Crumlin and Inchicore combined and it would take less than five months for landmines to kill a population equivalent to that of Terenure. As other speakers said, the scourge is very far removed from Ireland.

In some ways it is easy for us to sign this convention. We are not involved in this deadly trade. However, at a moral level it is important that we have taken a lead in it and that we are up front. We should continue to use our influence internationally to make sure that other countries which will not sign the convention do so in the future. As well as direct victims of landmines there are many indirect victims. Communities have been terrorised and many countries have been devastated through landmine infestation. A great deal of land cannot be used as a result of landmines, which hugely affects the economies of the countries concerned. Access to fresh water may be denied — most people injured or killed by landmines were collecting water.

This treaty is only a first step in the huge job of de-mining. It costs between $3 and $10 to produce a landmine and between $300 and $1,000 to remove it. This treaty to stop landmine production is important but huge costs will have to be borne to clear landmines. One estimate is that it will cost £300 billion over a period of 1,100 years, which is an horrific thought.

I hope the Minister will be in a position to support a worthy workshop run by the Irish Red Cross, providing supports to people injured by landmines in Kenya. The organisation launched a Christmas appeal to raise £135,000 and asked the Government to back the campaign with an equal amount. Given that tomorrow is not only budget day and European day for disability but also the date for signing the convention, it is appropriate the Government should support the work of the Red Cross. The aids which landmine victims need are cheap by western European standards but are expensive in countries where landmines abound, so the victims cannot afford them. Anything we can do to give aid should be done. Landmines also affect those we send abroad to offer humanitarian assistance and to keep the peace. A number of them have been killed by landmines also. This has direct relevance for the many Irish people giving aid.

It is important that the treaty is signed tomorrow but it is horrific that matters have reached their current state, in which landmines are so pervasive. It will take a huge international commitment to get rid of the existing mines, even if no more are produced.

Mr. Gormley

I thank Deputy Fitzgerald for sharing her time. I praise the Government for participating in this positive initiative. We can be justifiably proud of our role. We also must praise the previous Government, which initiated a joint action of the EU Council of Ministers in October 1996, during the Irish Presidency, which established a moratorium on mine exports with the stated goal of total global elimination of land mines. This embargo was legally binding and seems to have been adhered to. Deputy Higgins' party colleague, the former Minister of State, Ms Joan Burton, played a positive role in that regard.

Deputies have referred to the statistics, which are frightening: for every mine cleared, 20 new ones are planted; in Bosnia alone, 4 million to 6 million mines were planted; it will cost a staggering £33 billion to clear mines and it will take 11 centuries to do so, as Deputy De Rossa said. I hope this treaty will give added impetus to this work and speed up the process significantly. The cost of laying a mine is $3 but to remove it costs $1,000, which gives an idea of why the costs are so huge.

Many people say that political or NGO activity is a waste of time but politics has played a useful role here — the NGOs, specifically Pax Christi, have been mentioned. In September 1995 there was a review of the UN Convention on Inhumane Weapons, which controls the use of anti-personnel mines. That meeting broke up in disarray when they could not agree on even the basic rules. Ironically, in spring 1996 the Gulf War commander General Schwarzkopf joined 14 other US generals calling on President Clinton to back a global ban. I join the criticism of the US for not coming on board on this. As a world leader, it needs to take a lead on this matter rather than leaving it to smaller countries such as Ireland to become part of the Ottawa process.

Pax Christi is pressing the UN to proclaim 2000 as the international year of the eradication of land mines. The Minister should emphasis the importance of this to his colleagues.

I wish to single out for praise the European Union, which has played a very positive role in making available about £11 million for the clearance of mines. However, we must ensure the mines are cleared. We cannot have what is known as "double dipping" where the companies which produced the mines, such as Meckam in South Africa and Daimler-Benz, are seeking the contracts to remove them, which is quite a lucrative business. Ireland should seek to have the EU declared a mine free zone. There are mine fields in Greece and Finland, although the Finns dispute that. As the EU broadens it may include the Czech Republic and former Yugoslavia which also have mines. The Organisation for African Unity and CARICOM have said they wish to have mine free zones in their areas.

It is very important that, in talking about the elimination of land mines, we are aware Ireland is part of that military process and the export of weapons. The Afri report last year highlighted the fact that Ireland is involved in the arms race. In 1996 the Department of Foreign Affairs approved 35 export licences for specifically military goods, those which do not have a dual purpose. These included airforce equipment, such as runway arresters which are a type of net to catch planes landing on aircraft carriers, and electronic devices for aiming gun turrets. These goods are exported to countries to which Deputy Higgins referred, such as Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia and Singapore, which do not have very good human rights records.

It is incumbent on the Government to take action on this matter. The Afri Report stated:

Clearly, the Department of Foreign Affairs is operating a twin track foreign policy: the public one, as outlined in the White Paper, proclaiming our principled stand on the arms trade and human rights; and the hidden agenda that promotes the sale of weapons parts and military goods to dubious destinations all over the world in contravention of agreed EU guidelines.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachtaí uilig a labhair sa díospóireacht seo. Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil na Teachtaí uilig sásta tacaíocht láidir a thabhairt chun go mbeadh éifeachtaí an Chonartha tábhachtach idirnáisiunta seo á gcur i bhfeidhm i ngach áit sa domhan. Tá dóchas ann freisin go mbeidh na tíortha nach bhfuil sásta an Conradh a shíniú ag an am seo sásta sul i bhfad glacadh leis an réimse seo agus na moltaí atá sa Chonradh a chur chun cinn. Tá sé riachtanach go dtiocfaidh an lá sin.

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to this debate and who expressed not only their support for the ratification of this convention but their abhorrence of the unbelievable toll landmines have inflicted and are likely to continue to inflict on various communities throughout the world. The growing awareness in this country of this matter has been expressed by the Government. In 1994 the amount allocated to support the UN and the NGOs, such as Concern, amounted to approximately £450,000. This has now been increased to approximately £1 million. The commitment to supporting such efforts will continue.

Deputy Gay Mitchell raised the question of the definition of anti-personnel mines. While not ideal, the definition in this convention is considerably wider than any previous convention of its kind. Anti-personnel mines are defined as "mines designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons." Deputy Gay Mitchell also raised the provision in Article 5.3 that allows state parties that believe they are unable to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel landmines, referred to in the first paragraph, within the prescribed time period to submit a request to have the time period extended. While I understand his concerns, this provision is specifically designed to help developing countries that might not be in a position to clear mines with their own resources. They should be able to present a case for funding from the donor community countries. This is expressly provided for under Article 7.

Reference was made to the support given by Canada. However, we should not forget the role played by other countries. Austria prepared the first draft of the convention and organised an expert meeting last February to discuss the text. Belgium hosted the meeting in June that convened the diplomatic conference that took place in September in Oslo, which was co-chaired by Norway and South Africa. Ireland played a key role in Oslo. Germany also hosted an expert meeting earlier this year that concentrated on the verification mechanisms of the convention. To keep the momentum moving forward, Ireland will be offering in Ottawa to host the expert meeting next year to assess the current state of the anti-personnel mine problem as well as progress in mine action.

Deputies De Rossa, Fitzgerald, Gormley and Michael Higgins referred to the fact that, so far, America has not seen fit to ratify this convention. This is disappointing. However, this and other issues will be discussed in Ottawa this week. It is extremely important that the American Government be persuaded to change its mind. We must avail ourselves of whatever persuasive influence we have, together with other EU and non EU countries, to ensure that this happens without delay.

I thank Deputies for the undoubted support given to the convention. We look forward to continuing to make our best efforts to ensure that the ratification of the convention will have the desired effect of removing and banning the production of anti-personnel landmines and remove this enormous blot in international history, especially in Third World countries. I will not repeat the statistics which are so horrific as to compel every conscientious person with any influence to work towards an agreement which can be implemented throughout the world.

Question put and agreed to.