The Convention on Conventional Weapons Protocol III on incendiary weapons was discussed today at the 6th Review Conference. 

On behalf of a group of 8 organizations, Mines Action Canada delivered a statement urging states to close the loopholes in the protocol. The statement notes that Protocol III was inspired by the suffering caused by incendiary weapons like napalm but calls on delegates to the Review Conference to be inspired by the resilience of survivors like Kim Phuc who survived a napalm attack as a child and now believes that "[e]very single day, we have the
opportunity to be better people." Closing the loopholes in Protocol III is a way to be better. 

You can read the full statement here. 

You can learn more about incendiary weapons here.

The Convention on Conventional Weapons is meeting this week for its 6th Review Conference at the United Nations in Geneva. 

This meeting happens every five years and offers states the opportunity to assess progress made under this treaty and to set plans for the next five years. 

Today, MAC's Military Advisor delivered our general statement at the Review Conference of the Convention on Conventional Weapons commenting on autonomous weapons, incendiary weapons and the protocols on landmines and explosive remnants of war.

Building on our 2019 statement, MAC asked states if they will take a direct route towards peace and disarmament or will they continue to aimlessly wander through the diplomatic woods?

Read the full statement here.

The pandemic has made 2020 an unusual year, kept us physically far from each other but united more than ever to show that humanitarian disarmament is as relevant, and perhaps even more relevant, than before. In these first days of 2021, it is important to carry forward lessons learned from that challenging year. 

Since June, more than 250 civil society organizations have signed an open letter arguing that humanitarian disarmament can help lead the way to an improved post-pandemic normal. In a new video, Mahpekay, indiscriminate weapon survivor and orthotic specialist delivering rehabilitation services, Elkin, operator working in Colombian mine contaminated areas and Raluca, humanitarian disarmament advocate share how pandemic has affected their work. Images from Pakistan, India, Afghanistan Colombia, Belgium, France, New York, South Africa, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Turkey and Thailand show how this pandemic is a worldwide concern. MAC has been part of an informal working group on humanitarian disarmament and COVID-19 and we are pleased to share this video from Humanity and Inclusion highlighting some of the lessons learned in 2020:

To mark the new year, in the spirit of humanitarian disarmament and the Open Letter, we are calling the international community to prioritize human security, reallocate military spending to humanitarian causes, work to eliminate inequalities, ensure multilateral fora incorporate diverse voices, and bring a cooperative mind-set to problems of practice and policy. By being inclusive in 2021, we can reshape the security landscape for the future and help create a new—and improved— “normal.” 

Humanitarian disarmament approach offers proven model for change

(July 2, 2020)—More than 150 organizations from around the world released a joint letter today stating that humanitarian disarmament can lead the way to an improved post-pandemic world.

Endorsed by global campaigns that have garnered two Nobel Peace Prizes and fostered the creation of four international treaties in the past 25 years, the letter argues that humanitarian disarmament's proven human-centered approach should guide current and future efforts in dealing with the pandemic and advancing human security.

“This year has shown that security is not just about military might. The COVID-19 pandemic, as well as locusts in East Africa and the wildfires in Australia, show that we need a dramatic shift in our understanding of what true security means” said Erin Hunt, Program Manager at Mines Action Canada. “Expertise from civil society and cooperation between states will be key to building a safer post-pandemic world and we encourage Canada to foster these partnerships at home and around the world.”

The letter’s signatories include local, national, regional, and international organizations from around the world. Disarmament, human rights, peace, faith, medical, student, development, and other groups have all endorsed the letter. The widespread support across campaigns underscores how seriously the humanitarian disarmament community views the letter’s call. 

Humanitarian disarmament seeks to reduce the human suffering and environmental damage inflicted by arms. To advance its goals of preventing and remediating harm, money invested in unacceptable weapons would be better spent on humanitarian purposes, the letter says. 

As COVID-19 exacerbates inequalities and presents new challenges for conflict survivors and other persons with disabilities, the letter also warns against entrenching marginalization. It calls for inclusive and non-discriminatory measures to bring affected communities into decision-making.

During the pandemic, international diplomacy has gone digital, creating the possibility for more meaningful and inclusive participation. The letter argues for seizing these opportunities while ensuring accessibility and inclusivity. It also stresses that cooperation—including the coordination, information exchange, and resource sharing that underlie humanitarian disarmament agreements—is essential to addressing global issues.

The letter concludes with a call to prioritize human security, allocate spending on humanitarian causes, work to eliminate inequalities, ensure multilateral fora incorporate diverse voices, and bring a cooperative mindset to problems of practice and policy.   

The original endorsers of the letter were leading humanitarian disarmament campaigns with hundreds of member organizations. They include the International Campaign to Ban Landmines–Cluster Munition Coalition and International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, winners, respectively, of the 1997 and 2017 Nobel Peace Prizes. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, Conflict and Environment Observatory, Control Arms, and the International Network on Explosive Weapons are also original endorsers.

Key humanitarian disarmament treaties include the Mine Ban Treaty (1997), Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008), Arms Trade Treaty (2013), and Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017).

The letter remains open for future signature by civil society organizations worldwide.

###

Open Letter on COVID-19 and Humanitarian Disarmament

• English - https://humanitariandisarmament.org/covid-19-2/open-letter-on-covid-and-humanitarian-disarmament/
• French - https://humanitariandisarmament.org/covid-19-2/open-letter-on-covid-and-humanitarian-disarmament/lettre-ouverte-sur-desarmement-humanitaire-et-covid-19/
• Spanish - https://humanitariandisarmament.org/covid-19-2/open-letter-on-covid-and-humanitarian-disarmament/carta-abierta-sobre-covid-19-y-el-desarme-humanitario/

For more information, contact:

• Bonnie Docherty, Harvard Law School’s Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative, [email protected], +1-617-669-1636
• Erin Hunt, Program Manager, Mines Action Canada, [email protected] +1-613-302-3088

As we have in previous elections, Mines Action Canada submitted surveys on humanitarian disarmament policy to the major political parties - the Conservative Party, the Green Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. We were unable to reach the People's Party of Canada via telephone or email and thus was unable to send a copy of the survey to them.

With assistance from international experts on each of these topics, we are pleased to provide you with a brief analysis of each response to assist you in making your decision for October 21st. MAC does not endorse any one party as each party's positions on humanitarian disarmament issues have strengths and weaknesses. Overall, we would have liked to see stronger commitments to fund disarmament work and more concrete examples of how policies would be put into practice. 

Before we get into any analysis of the parties' positions, here are the full answers as provided to Mines Action Canada in alphabetical order:

• Conservative Party of Canada (the Conservative Party)
• Green Party of Canada (the Green Party)
• Liberal Party of Canada (the Liberal Party)
• New Democratic Party of Canada (the NDP)

While Mines Action Canada is happy to provide this resource free of charge, please consider making a donation to support our work.

NGOs including Mines Action Canada and academics have used the UN’s International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict to urge governments to increase the protection of people and ecosystems by strengthening measures to enhance environmental security before, during and after armed conflicts.

The 55 organisations and experts from the fields of the environment, health, human rights, humanitarian disarmament and sustainable development argue that protecting people and ecosystems means that governments and the international community must move faster and further to address the environmental causes and consequences of armed conflicts.

The statement comes as conflicts around the world, and their aftermath, are continuing to take an enormous toll on people and the environment through pollution, infrastructure damage and the collapse of governance. But it also comes as our understanding is increasing over how stresses linked to climate change, water and food insecurity, environmental degradation or the unsustainable use of natural resources can contribute to insecurity.

The concept of environmental security includes a variety of issues involving the role that the environment and natural resources can play across the peace and security continuum, and their relationship to human well-being, development and security.

Acknowledging the interconnection between the environment and security provides insights into how the societal tensions over natural resources that can lead to conflicts can be reduced, how civilians could be better protected during conflicts, and how peace can be built and sustained in their wake.

Environmental issues are increasingly visible in countries affected by conflict. In southern Iraq, protests erupted over water contamination that has affected 110,000 people and which had been caused by years of conflicts, increasing water scarcity and mismanagement.[1] The UN Security Council has recognised the role that climate change and environmental degradation have played in fuelling conflict in the Lake Chad region.[2] In Somalia, the long-running conflict is being sustained by a vicious cycle of overharvesting for the charcoal trade and the degradation of agricultural lands.[3]

The signatories argue that recognising the importance that environmental security plays for human security before, during and after conflicts is vital and should drive policy development. In doing so, they highlight the importance of properly integrating the environment into conflict prevention, into the analysis of conflicts, into humanitarian response and into post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding.

Find the statement here. 

[1] NRC (2018) Basra Fact Finding Mission Report #3: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/NRC%20Basra%20Key%20Findings%203_FINAL.pdf

[2] UN (2018) Better Governance of Underfunded, Poorly Managed Lake Chad Basin Key to Resolving Conflict, Suffering across Region, Speakers Tell Security Council: https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13259.doc.htm

[3] UN Environment (2018) Somalia calls for international cooperation to stop illegal charcoal trade https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/somalia-calls-international-cooperation-stop-illegal-charcoal-trade

I have been working with Mines Action Canada since January and today is already my last day as an intern here. My study abroad year has come to an end and next week I leave Canada and from September I will be finishing my undergraduate degree in political science at the University of Leeds.

As an intern at Mines Action Canada I learned a lot about a field that previously I was not very familiar with. While the focus area of Mines Action Canada may not seem very uplifting with its focus on explosive weapons and landmines, I was happy to discover that while there is still a lot of work to be done, it is important to remember that so much progress has already been made.

Unfortunately it is human nature to focus more so on the negative than the positive, but having worked here I have realised that there is much to be celebrated in regard to disarmament and the use of explosive weaponry. For example, more and more countries are joining the landmine treaty, countries are co-operating in order to stop the future use of autonomous weapons or “killer robots” and an ever increasing number of countries are finally being deemed as “mine-free” after decades of conflict left them as extremely dangerous places to live.

Working here also taught me how rewarding it is to be involved in humanitarian work, even in the small way that I became involved. I think many people become disillusioned when they read about such huge issues as landmine contamination or the use of improvised explosive devices; however working with Mines Action Canada has shown me that there is a multitude of ways that anyone can become involved and try to make a difference.

I have not made firm plans as to what I would like to do post-graduation, but working at Mines Action Canada has definitely opened my eyes to the world of humanitarian work and so this field is definitely something that I would consider.

Claudia Pearson is an undergraduate student from the University of Leeds studying abroad at the University of Ottawa. 

Canada's 2015 election campaign is the longest in over 100 years and it is shaping up to be an incredibly close race. With the election less than a month away, Mines Action Canada is please to share information on the national parties' disarmament policies. 

In June 2015, we sent the four national parties (Conservative Party, Green Party, Liberal Party and New Democratic Party) a survey covering humanitarian disarmament topics from landmines to the Arms Trade Treaty and from toxic remnants of war to nuclear weapons. As of September 21, we received responses from three of the parties. 

With assistance from international experts on each of these topics, we are pleased to provide you with a brief analysis of each response to assist you in making your decision for October 19th. MAC does not endorse any one party as each party's positions on humanitarian disarmament issues have strengths and weaknesses. Overall, we would have liked to see stronger commitments to fund disarmament work and more concrete examples of how policies would be put into practice. 

Before we get into any analysis of the parties' positions, here are the full answers as provided to Mines Action Canada in alphabetical order:

• Conservative Party of Canada (the Conservative Party) did not provide a response to the survey. MAC followed up with numerous emails and phone calls to no avail.
• Green Party of Canada (the Green Party)
• Liberal Party of Canada (the Liberal Party)*
• New Democratic Party of Canada (the NDP)

Should the Conservative Party provide answers before the election this page will be updated.

Thank you to Amelie Chayer, ICBL-CMC; Anna Macdonald, Control Arms; Daniel Hogsta, ICAN; Mary Wareham, Human Rights Watch; Kimberly Brown, Save the Children; Richard Moyes and Thomas Nash, Article 36; Rob Perkins, Action on Armed Violence; Wim Zwijnenburg, PAX; Doug Weir, Toxic Remnants of War Project, and Rosella Chibambo, Nobel Women’s Initiative, for their assistance analyzing the parties' responses.

While Mines Action Canada is happy to provide this resource free of charge, please consider making a donation to support our work.

Over the past three years that I have been working full-time at Mines Action Canada in the field we like to call humanitarian disarmament, I have been struck by the results achieved by my colleagues around the world. Working with like-minded states, humanitarian disarmament campaigners are reframing conversations about weapons to focus on humanity and to build a safer, more peaceful future for us all. When people say that taking a humanitarian approach to disarmament is weaker than looking at state security and is idealistic compared to a real examination of power, they are missing out on much of the story. Putting humans at the centre of disarmament has shaped international law and state practice for years now and it continues to do so. Humanitarian disarmament campaigners get things done even when no one is looking.

Starting in mid-2013, humanitarian disarmament campaigners in the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots began to call for meaningful human control over the use of force. Publications, media interviews and statements encouraging states to ensure meaningful human control emerged from campaigners around the world. At the first informal meeting of experts on the topic at the Convention on Conventional Weapons in May 2014, meaningful human control appeared a few times in the debate alongside other issues. Campaigners continued to push the issue forward and strove to deepen the discussion about meaningful human control nationally and internationally.

Less than a year later at the April 2015, we saw a shift in the discussion – meaningful human control was called for and mentioned by numerous state delegations. Meaningful human control featured in the food for thought paper distributed by the German chair of the meeting and in working papers submitted by other states. The concept was mentioned during discussion in almost all sessions during the week. As the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots end of meeting summary put it: “The need for meaningful or adequate or another form of “human control” has been central to the debate with the majority of states speaking in support of retaining it.” Some proponents of autonomous weapons systems have implied the topic is complex and technical however in less than two years, humanitarian disarmament campaigners have successfully framed the debate around concepts everyone can understand – human control and humanity. 

The concept of humanity and obligations to protect civilians put forward by disarmament campaigners are also that the root of two recent policy changes by the United States. First, in September 2014, the United States released a new policy regarding anti-personnel landmines after years of campaigning by Americans and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. The new policy is slightly weaker than hoped as it bans landmines everywhere in the world but the Korean peninsula; however, this policy aims to bring the United States into “closer alignment with a global humanitarian movement that has had a demonstrated positive impact in reducing civilian casualties from [anti-personnel landmines].” Even so, the humanitarian argument, carefully researched and shared by campaigners, is winning out. 

Disarmament campaigning resulted in a second policy change in the United States within the past year; this time on depleted uranium weapons. In October 2014, a Pentagon spokesperson stated that depleted uranium could be used if needed during the ongoing military operation against ISIS. Following intensive campaigning citing humanitarian concerns about the weapons, the Pentagon reversed course just a few months later in March 2015 and clarified that “US and Coalition aircraft have not been, and will not be, using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq or Syria.” This about-face shows campaigners can help governments change policies to protect civilians even during military operations by framing a disarmament issue around humanitarian concerns.

Even within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), long a bastion of big talk about “real” security concerns and deterrence, we have seen the discussion shift towards a humanitarian approach. The 2010 NPT Review Conference outcome document included mention of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and since then campaigners have worked very hard to ensure the conversation deepened and spread. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons’ call for a treaty banning nuclear weapons based on their unacceptable humanitarian impact has gathered support from around the world. The International Committee of the Red Cross has called for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. There have been three widely attended international meetings on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons (Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna) and at the most recent meeting, Austria issued the Austrian Pledge vowing to fill the legal gap regarding nuclear weapons due to their humanitarian impact. An increasing number of states have endorsed the Austrian Pledge.

A large number of states have embraced the humanitarian framing and issued joint statements about the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at NPT and at First Committee of the UN General Assembly. The most recent humanitarian statement, as they are called, had 159 states signing on. For nuclear umbrella states that are uncomfortable with the idea of a ban on nuclear weapons, the shift towards a humanitarian discourse has been problematic. For the past two years, Australia has led a second humanitarian statement with weaker language (Canada signed this statement not the larger, stronger one). Even those who would like to maintain the status quo cannot escape the shift in language led by disarmament campaigners.

Some people who do not follow the humanitarian discussion see this Australian statement at the NPT as evidence of a weakening of the humanitarian initiative. In reality, the Australian statement shows how far the nuclear weapons discussion has shifted and how strong the humanitarian initiative is – states on the outside need to adopt the language in an attempt to avoid political fallout. Humanitarian disarmament campaigners have changed the conversation and built impressive global momentum towards a ban on nuclear weapons all while being disregarded as idealists with an impossible dream by so-called ‘realists’. 

Reality is disarmament campaigners have a proven track record of using well-evidenced humanitarian arguments to change government positions and to create international laws and norms. From landmines and cluster munitions to the newer issues discussed above, humanitarian disarmament campaigners are getting results. Donors, governments and citizens who want to see real change in the world of peace and security should get behind the humanitarian disarmament movement.

Humanitarian disarmament campaigners are not out of touch idealists. All our goals as a humanitarian disarmament community are possible however we have been framing the debate to make them not only probable but more realistic as well. A pre-emptive ban on autonomous weapons is much more realistic than waiting to see if there is some mythical benefit to humanity of delegating decisions about the use of force to robots. Ending the use of depleted uranium is much more realistic than refusing to even research the problem. A ban on nuclear weapons (even without the nuclear weapons states) is much more realistic than expecting a magical global security situation to materialize and “create conditions conducive to nuclear disarmament”. No one here is tilting at windmills; we are changing the disarmament conversation and changing policies nationally and internationally to build a safer, more peaceful world.

The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots had a pretty good 2014 but many people view 2014 as a terrible year full of death, war and disease around the world. Fortunately, things are not as bleak as the news makes them look. The humanitarian disarmament world has seen a lot of successes this year and each of these successes is a win for humanity.  So let’s recap the good news stories of 2014 in the humanitarian disarmament world.

• The Arms Trade Treaty became international law [entered into force] on Dec. 24.
• After the 3rd Review Conference of the Ottawa Treaty, the U.S. banned landmines everywhere in the world with the exception of the Korean Peninsula.
• Nuclear disarmament started the year with the successful Nayarit Conference on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons and ended it with the Vienna Conference where the Government of Austria issued the Austrian Pledge to to identify and pursue effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.
• The Toxic Remnants of War Project raised international awareness on the environmental impact of conflict through a new report Pollution Politics and a briefing at the United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons.
• Waterloo, Canada’s Clearpath Robotics became the first commercial company in the world to support a ban on autonomous weapons (killer robots).
• At least 157 countries condemned the use of cluster munitions in Syria in numerous fora.
• The United Kingdom hosted the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict.
• Iraq called for a treaty banning depleted uranium weapons.
• The International Network on Explosive Weapons saw an increase in states speaking out about the use of explosive weapons in populated areas during the Security Council’s Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians and during the United Nations General Assembly First Committee.

As we get started on 2015, it’s time to pick our favourite humanitarian disarmament success story of 2014. We conducted a poll with over 200 respondents to see what the biggest humanitarian success story of 2014 was. They voted for Clearpath Robotics becoming the first commercial company in the world to support a ban on killer robots! The second highest vote was for the Arms Trade Treaty becoming international law [entering into force] on Dec. 24 and the third highest was The Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons and the Austrian Pledge.

To stay up to date on all sorts of humanitarian disarmament developments, join the Mines Action Canada mailing list.  Please share this with your family, friends and networks to spread the good news!