CONTENTS:

1 - GLOBAL: A Nobel Laureate looks back on the first 10 years of the Mine Ban
Treaty
2 - ZIMBABWE: Children who never existed


1 - GLOBAL: A Nobel Laureate looks back on the first 10 years of the Mine Ban
Treaty

JOHANNESBURG, 26 November (IRIN) - The ground-breaking Mine Ban Treaty (MBT),
which came into force 10 years ago, will hold its second five-year review
conference from 29 November to 4 December in the port city of Cartagena in
northern Columbia.

The founding coordinator of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL),
Jody Williams, won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her organization's work, seen
as an instigator of the MBT, after 1,300 civil society organizations in 95
countries mobilized to rid the world of anti-personnel mines.

From 1999-2004 she was a senior editor at the Landmine Monitor Report, an
oversight initiative by civil society, keeping a watchful eye on the
implementation of the treaty and compliance with its terms.

Williams, along with fellow laureates Shirin Ebadi (Iran), Wangari Maathai
(Kenya), Rigoberta Menchú Tum (Guatemala), and Betty Williams and Mairead
Corrigan Maguire (Northern Ireland), launched the Nobel Women's Initiative in
January 2006 to promote women's rights activists, researchers and organizations
working to advance peace, justice and equality for women. Williams serves as its
chair.

Williams spoke to IRIN about the MBT, its successes, its influence on other
initiatives, and what the world may have looked like without the MBT.


Q) Has the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT) fulfilled your expectations since it came into
force?

A) What we have accomplished in the mine ban movement, and through the legal
framework of the Mine Ban Treaty, is nothing short of amazing. When we started
this effort I didn't really imagine a ban treaty in our immediate future, let
alone as quickly as it was accomplished. The implementation of and compliance
with the treaty has been fantastic.

Mines have been stigmatized and the norm has taken hold. Countries for the most
part are doing what they are supposed to do - even many outside the treaty. A
dozen formerly mined states have declared themselves to be mine-free; the number
of new victims has fallen every year - the number of new victims has been cut by
two-thirds.

Millions and millions of stockpiled mines have been destroyed and never will
take a life or a limb. The broader impact of the mine ban movement - the model
of civil society-government partnership, the reinforcement of the idea of
'citizen diplomacy', the inspiration we've given to activists around the world -
is something I'd never thought about at all.


Q) What unforeseen difficulties has the MBT encountered in its first 10 years?

A) There are always things that could be better; work that could be further
along than it is. There should be more mines out of the ground by now, and some
governments are more than taking their time in getting the job done.

There definitely should be much more effort on the part of governments to
address the multiple issues facing landmine survivors in a consistent and
comprehensive fashion, with a view to the long term. While providing medical
care and prostheses, where appropriate, is critical, it really is just the
beginning of meeting the needs of landmine survivors.


Q) Has the vigour that first greeted the MBT started to wane?

A) I've been rather surprised by the vitality that still pervades the movement
to ban landmines - whether it be the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
(ICBL), or the International Committee of the Red Cross, or UN Agencies that
work on the issue, or governments that are part of the treaty.

I guess there is some degree of waning involvement, but I'd credit that mostly
to the fact that there has been remarkable implementation of, and compliance
with, the MBT.


Q) The MBT was negotiated outside of the UN process; what was lost or gained by
taking this path?

A) In the case of the MBT, I have to say that in my opinion nothing was lost
and everything was gained by negotiating the MBT outside the UN. The final
treaty emerged from the negotiating process stronger than when negotiations
started - essentially impossible inside the UN process, where reaching
consensus, and therefore generally the lowest common denominator - is the rule.

All one has to do to confirm that is look at Amended Protocol II - the Landmine
Protocol - of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). In fact, when we
launched the ICBL in late 1992, we pressured states to hold a review conference
of the CCW, with the goal of amending Protocol II to ban landmines rather than
simply - and very badly - attempting to regulate their use.

We failed miserably within the UN and with the CCW. It can be argued that
Amended Protocol II is even weaker than the original Protocol, but out of that
failure came the impetus to really come together and negotiate the MBT, through
what became known as the Ottawa Process.

And the Secretary-General is the depository for the MBT, thus bringing the
treaty back into the UN. We lost dictatorship-by-consensus inside the UN, and
gained a treaty that really deals with the landmine problem through the Ottawa
Process.


Q) What precedent did civil society's role in the MBT set for future
international treaties? Did it change the face, method and outcomes of such
international negotiations?

A) As much as many governments still do not particularly like having to deal
with civil society, the government-civil society partnership that was forged by
the mine ban movement has had a big impact on civil society's role, and in
treaty negotiations.

The model has been used in banning cluster munitions, in the work bringing
about the treaty on the rights of the disabled, the protocol on child soldiers,
the treaty on the International Criminal Court, and in ongoing post-treaty work
dealing with landmines and cluster munitions - to name just a few.

Globalization has not only affected corporations, it has opened the world to
civil society organizing, and increased our ability to see the goals and
aspirations of people around the world elevated and listened to in ways that did
not seem possible previously. If governments actually responded to the views of
their citizens when negotiating treaties, we'd be able to turn our attention to
other issues.

As long as they don't, civil society will have a role to play in addressing our
common problems. The successes of the ICBL and the Cluster Munition Coalition
have demonstrated that it can be done, and have inspired people everywhere to
recognize their ability to come together with others and help change the world.


Q) When the campaign to ban cluster munitions started it was thought
'unrealistic'. What did you think your chances were?

A) Actually, before the launch of the ICBL some of the founding NGOs and
individuals did not call for a ban on landmines; some only called for better
restrictions. It is just part of the process - the outcome is what matters. In
both cases - the mine ban and the cluster munition ban movements - the pressure
by civil society resulted in treaties banning the weapons. I'd have to say,
'Awesome achievements!'


Q) There are powerful states not party to the MBT: China, Russia and the USA.
Has their exclusion compromised the MBT, or has it shown up these countries for
being on the wrong side of history?

A) Of the countries you name - China, Russia and the US - each has its own
reasons for not yet joining the treaty. Also, while each of these countries
still remains on the wrong side of history, each has taken steps that are
reflective of the global stigmatization of the weapon.

Neither Russia nor China export landmines anymore; China has provided
assistance for mine clearance. In fact, the only country that we have been able
to document as consistently using landmines, is Burma.

The norm has taken hold. In the case of the US, under the Obama administration
we are more hopeful of movement of the US toward joining the treaty than during
the previous administration. The US has actually been in virtual compliance with
the MBT since before it entered into force. It is hard to imagine, especially
given the foreign policy goals of the President, how remaining outside of the
treaty can be justified under the circumstances.

Q) Demining seems to be going well, but can this said for victim assistance?

A) As I said before, where governments have fallen way behind is in addressing
the multiple needs of landmine survivors. While there are significantly fewer
new survivors every year as a result of successes of the mine ban movement, the
needs of most are still not adequately being addressed.

I noted that while providing medical care and prostheses, where appropriate, is
critical, it really is just the beginning of meeting the needs of landmine
survivors. Their needs are complex and not easy to address, but without a
meaningful commitment by governments it becomes harder still. The amount of
resources put into assistance to landmine survivors does not begin to compare
with the commitment to mine clearance.


Q) If the MBT did not come into effect, how would the world look today?

A) I think it's pretty clear that if there were no Mine Ban Treaty the world
would look very different - in every area related to landmines as well as in a
broader sense. When we started this movement, there were mines going into the
ground in huge numbers, and very few were coming out. The number of new mine
victims each year was going up.

Without our movement, mines would continue to be used; new types developed,
produced and traded; they'd be stockpiled. Instead of a world with millions of
stockpiled mines destroyed, and therefore unable to be used and wreak more
chaos, there would be millions more new mines in stockpiles. There'd be more new
victims every year and more new minefields around the world. Instead, we are
conquering the landmine problem.

Also, there would be no Landmine Monitor - the genius breakthrough system of
civil society monitoring of a treaty, which is being studied and serves as a
model for other efforts to monitor treaties.

In a broader sense, 'citizen diplomacy' would likely not be as prominent as it
is today. 'Ordinary citizens' might not feel as empowered to try and tackle some
of the world's problems. There likely would not be a Cluster Munition
Convention. And the list goes on. We have changed the world for the better. What
more could one ask for in a lifetime?

go/he

[ENDS]


2 - ZIMBABWE: Children who never existed

JOHANNESBURG, 26 November (IRIN) - Workers living on a farm settlement about
35km from Harare, Zimbabwe's capital, bury their dead children secretly because
parents cannot afford to get them to a clinic or hospital in time.

"The farmer who is running this farm is not paying us our wages and, as a
result, there is no way in which we can raise the money to go to clinics or
hospitals," Gerald Campion, 50, a farm worker, told IRIN.

The settlement has two self-appointed "midwives", who sometimes err in helping
pregnant women, resulting in deaths. "People on this farm don't know how to use
contraceptives, and there are so many pregnancies that the women take care of,"
Campion said.

Theresa Maphosa, 14, of Hopley Farm, a makeshift settlement 10km outside
Harare, has been left to tend her sick six-month-old brother after their mother
died of bleeding while giving birth. Her father is unemployed and cannot afford
to take the infant to hospital, and their neighbour, Nesia Simukayi, is afraid
that the infant will die soon.

The plight of the farm workers illustrates the grim scenario portrayed in a new
survey by the government and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), indicating that
access to vital social services for women and children is worsening.

A hundred children younger than five years die every day, mostly of preventable
diseases like pneumonia, HIV/AIDS and diarrhoea, said UNICEF.

The Multiple Indicator and Monitoring Survey (MIMS) noted a 20 percent increase
in the number of deaths of children aged under five years since 1999,
particularly those in rural areas and vulnerable communities with low income.

The survey in May 2009 found that one in every two pregnant women in rural
areas was delivering at home, 39 percent across the country did not have access
to requisite medical facilities, "while 40 percent were not attended to at birth
by a skilled attendant, posing huge dangers for both mothers and newborns".

The poorest were also finding it more difficult to access health services,
which had severely deteriorated during Zimbabwe's 10-year economic crisis, said
Tsitsi Singizi, UNICEF Zimbabwe's communications officer.

Even though the MMIS report painted a gloomy picture, "As UNICEF, we hope that
the report will be used to identify areas of need and mobilize the necessary
resources," Singizi told IRIN.

"We are concerned that the trend whereby standards of living continue to fall
is bad news regarding the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals but
with the right attitude, we can achieve them."

Farms were hard hit by droughts and the fast-track land-reform programme,
launched in 2000, and have been unable to produce enough food to feed the
country.

The US-based Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWSNET) reported in
September that Zimbabwe faced a cereal shortage of between 180,000 metric tons
and 370,000 metric tons, making it difficult for vulnerable communities to
access adequate nutrition.

fm/jk/he[ENDS]


IRIN's coverage of climate change and Eritrea has won a major prize. Add your
voice to make us the people's choice in time for Copenhagen. Please?
http://bit.ly/3IlJbZ

© IRIN. All rights reserved. More humanitarian news and analysis:
http://www.irinnews.org

[This item comes to you via IRIN, the humanitarian news and analysis service of
the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The opinions
expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations or its Member
States. Reposting or reproduction, with attribution, for non-commercial purposes
is permitted. Terms and conditions: http://www.irinnews.org/copyright.aspx

IRIN partners: Canada, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, South
Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, UNEP and the IHC. More information:
http://www.irinnews.org/donors.aspx

This mail is from a non-reply e-mail address. Contact IRIN at:
feedback@.... Revise or stop your subscription:
http://www.irinnews.org/subscriptions ]

Subscribed Email: newsbox@yahoogroups.com