Fig: Young boy facing unexploded ordnance in Russell Islands, Solomon Islands on his hikes to fishing grounds. Photo by Mette Eliseussen
The 19th Meeting of States Parties of the Mine Ban Treaty took place, virtually, from The Hague, Netherlands during 15th-19th November this year. This was followed by the release of the Landmine Monitor’s 2021 Annual Report. SafeGround’s Pacific Outreach team has subsequently reflected on our work over the past six months and what still needs to be done to achieve our goal of a Pacific free of weapons contamination.
Pacific casualties on the rise
For the first time since its inception, the Landmine Monitor’s 2021 Annual Report
refers to casualties in a Pacific country, the Solomon Islands. Since 2008, SafeGround has promoted mine action in the Pacific. Many small island nations are still facing a dangerous legacy of weapons contamination from explosive remnants left from World War II. In May 2021, two youth leaders from the Seventh-day Adventist Church were killed in West Honiara after a buried US bomb exploded at a community fundraiser. Just a few weeks ago, two East Honiara locals were killed after a possible World War II ordnance exploded under a stone oven. Annie Kwai, World War II historian and author of ‘Solomon Islanders in World War II: An indigenous perspective’ lost her nephew to an unexploded ordnance (UXO) several years ago. Kwai has highlighted that the Solomon Islands has no registry of UXO victims. This is true for most Pacific island nations. As a result, the number of accidents caused by explosive remnants of war in the Pacific remains unknown.
While these tragedies shed light on the potential extent of the issue, there has never been an exhaustive survey conducted in the area. This should be a priority to gain a clear understanding of the degree of contamination and determine the scope and scale of the danger. SafeGround has conducted extensive research in the area and has found evidence that there are large amounts of abandoned weapons in the Solomon Islands.
To join or not to join?
While 2021 has seen shifting national and regional priorities, SafeGround’s Pacific Outreach Team has worked throughout to promote universalisation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) . We have sought to understand what benefits the Pacific gains from the international treaty framework and how the lack of attention and mine action funding towards the Pacific, has perhaps hindered involvement in the CCM.
Of the nine Pacific Island States affected by explosive remnants of war, seven have signed and ratified the Mine Ban Treaty of 1999; Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Marshall Island has signed but not ratified and Micronesia has neither signed nor ratified the Mine Ban Treaty. Fast forward to the Convention on Cluster Munitions of 2010, and unfortunately, the opposite is the case. Only two legacy weapons-affected Pacific nations have signed and ratified this convention, Nauru in 2015 and Palau in 2016. Seven affected states, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, have yet to join. All other Pacific states except Tonga have signed both the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. (Australia, New Zealand and Japan are state parties to both the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions).
According to Kelisiana Thynne from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Pacific nations have a history of joining international humanitarian treaties; 9 out of 15 Pacific Island countries have already ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons of 2017, 11 out of 15 countries have ratified the Biological Weapons Convention and all of the Pacific Islands countries have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Pacific Island nations are peaceful nations, who rarely have armies, and have never waged war against another country. World War II was imposed upon them and left a dangerous legacy of unexploded ordnance that has never been cleared.
So why are so many of them reluctant to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions? Charlotte Skerten from the New Zealand Permanent Mission in Geneva has spoken of the hesitancy due to cost and bureaucratic challenges such as how to create and implement new laws. Skerten highlighted that New Zealand has developed simplified model legislation specifically for countries that have not possessed nor been contaminated by cluster munitions which is available on the CCM website. However, the fact that so many Pacific nations did not hesitate to sign up to these other treaties indicates that this is not the main reason that they have not yet joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Given, with the exception of Micronesia and Marshall Islands, that legacy weapon-affected states all became a party to the Mine Ban Treaty, why the big dropout on the Convention on Cluster Munitions? Why have the five affected nations – Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu – chosen not to join?
Mine-action consultant Ian Mansfield and SafeGround believe hesitancy to join the Convention on Cluster Munitions are linked to lack of access to funding as well as expertise from a mine-action community of donor countries, demining agencies, and civil society closely linked to the treaty framework of landmines and cluster munitions. Mansfield notes that of some 35 mine action donors worldwide, only a handful have contributed to mine action in the Pacific. Researchers from SafeGround have so far also found that there is little or no victim assistance or risk education in affected Pacific nations.
While global mine action funding has been on a general increasing trend each year since 1999, we have again, in contrast, noted the irregular funding and clearance efforts in the Pacific. The little amount of funding for mine action in the Pacific has been difficult to maintain. In 2020, following an accident that killed two deminers from the Norwegian People’s Aid, funding from the US for the first-ever humanitarian demining operation in the Solomon Islands was stopped. The lack of attention towards the Pacific could be attributed to the size of the area or the unknown scope of the issue. Although they are smaller, they also need attention and assistance to deal with the problem of explosive remnants of war (ERW).
The Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions have become a default focal point for funding and clearance efforts. The various treaty frameworks hold member states to scrutiny with their obligations to clear affected lands or fund and assist those that have a dangerous legacy. Since 1999, extensive international mine action standards have been developed and more than US$9.578 billion has been spent on mine-action in 77 countries. However, if the danger lurking in the country is not by a munition that is covered by a treaty then the affected country could be overlooked. In the Pacific, Palau has received US$14.93 million, the Solomon Islands has received US$3.84 million and the Marshall Islands has received US$996,000. This constitutes approximately 0.21% of the total global mine action budget since 1999.
However, until a survey has been done, the international community cannot be certain that landmines and cluster munitions are not present among the legacy weapon contamination. SafeGround believes it is time this is examined.
UXO on the Pacific Forum Leaders Agenda
The Pacific Island Forum members endorsed a Regional Strategy on Unexploded Ordnance in 2012. The strategy was part of their goal to improve the capacity to address regional Pacific security concerns, such as transnational and organised crime and the presence of unexploded ordnance. The strategy “aims to improve coordination between national administrations, donors and demining organisations to mitigate and remove the threats posed by the presence of unexploded ordnance in many Forum Island Countries.” It refers to the mine action community and its treaty framework of the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It mentions Palau as an example of a member country accessing this key know-how, expertise and funding assistance. It notes the total lack of experience in handling UXO and the need for expertise and applying International Mine Action Standards.
In the 2012 Regional Strategy on Unexploded Ordnance, the Pacific Island Forum called on member states to ratify and implement both the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It also tasked the Secretariat and international stakeholders to explore possible funding assistance to enable Forum Members to participate in annual treaty meetings. However, so far most Pacific states have never participated in the meetings because of distance and cost.
The distance and access to flights from the Pacific to any UN meetings usually mean travel for 2-5 days one way. The cost of tickets and layover is high. As a result most Pacific states never attend, and hence they do not learn about the treaty framework and its community. We believe this is another barrier causing Pacific hesitancy in joining the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Today, other pressing issues such as COVID-19 and climate change might cause UXO to be less of a priority in the Pacific. However, unlike these two major issues, there are tangible and immediate actions that can be taken to address the problem of ERW in the Pacific for good.
2016 was the last time that we saw an affected Pacific country join the CCM. In 2020 Niue joined the Convention. SafeGround calls on all Pacific nations to join and commit to never use, produce, stockpile or transfer cluster munitions and on state parties to the Convention on Cluster Munition and Mine Ban Treaty to support the Pacific with its ERW problem. We recognise that there are some significant barriers, but we will continue our efforts to garner support and work towards a Pacific free of weapons contamination.
Recent Comments