Why aren't we condemning Pakistan's land-mine plan?

[Davey Boy 2.0]

From today's Globe and Mail

--------------------------------------------------

LLOYD AXWORTHY Lost in the flurry of news reports of Saddam Hussein's execution was a seemingly innocuous item announcing that Pakistan is preparing to use anti-personnel land mines as a way of curtailing movement across its border into Afghanistan. This move deserves an immediate international response because of its potential destructive impact.

First, it is an admission from the government of Pakistan, one of our self-proclaimed allies in the fight against the Taliban, that it is incapable of controlling its lawless northwest territories where the Taliban and other militant groups breed and conspire in their attacks against the occupying NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Rather than doing what the Pakistanis ought to be doing -- exerting proper security within their own territory -- they are taking the easy and inefficient way out, adding greatly to the risks faced by the many innocent people living in that region.

Second, and more serious as far as Canadians are concerned, is the reality that our government appears to be capitulating to the transgression of a treaty of which we were the primary authors.

And if the deafening silence from Ottawa is to be taken as any sign, there is downright acquiescence to the measures.

Ten years ago, Canadian diplomats, parliamentarians, civil society groups and cabinet ministers were engaged in a full-court press to mobilize support for a treaty that would ban the use, manufacture and trading in land mines. In December of 1997, officials from 122 countries came to Ottawa to sign the treaty that set in motion a worldwide effort to reduce the risk of land mines and rid the world of a killer of innocent people. It was a demonstration of Canadian leadership in the vital area of establishing international rules of law.

Since then, Canada has played a prominent role in increasing the number of nations signing on to the treaty (now more than 150), advancing the plan for demining and aiding the victims. Fatalities have dropped by more than half, the area of mine clearance exceeded 740 square kilometres in 2006, and trafficking has virtually stopped.

Most important, the basic prohibition of land mines as a weapon of war was becoming an international norm, and the argument for its efficacy as a weapon was being dismissed.

The treaty's 10th anniversary, set for the end of 2007, was meant to give its worldwide supporters the chance to assess its value and to make further progress in eliminating this destructive tool of war and its spinoff imitators such as cluster bombs. But Pakistan's move casts a shadow on the treaty's accomplishments -- and just might precipitate a regression where other countries feel that they, too, can flout the treaty because of the silence and unwillingness of its supporters to condemn Islamabad's action.

That is certainly what happened when Pakistan and India tested nuclear weapons -- the international response was tepid, with the exception of the Commonwealth, where Canada led the effort to put the genie back into the bottle. Ironically enough, the only voice that has spoken up on Pakistan is the Afghan President, whose spokesperson was quoted as saying: "Fencing or mining the borders is neither helpful nor practical; the border is not where the problem is." Instead, according to the Afghan government, Pakistan should stop helping the Taliban.

What makes the silence of NATO -- and, by extension, Canada -- so suspect in this case is that they have been the prime promoters of having Pakistan try to limit the number of Taliban crossing into Afghan territory. Does that mean that their silence must be construed as compliance? If so, it puts Canada into direct contradiction with one of its stated disarmament aims and undermines its reputation as a country that promotes humanitarian efforts to save lives -- another casualty, perhaps, of the war-fighting mentality that has taken over Ottawa's foreign policy-making.

This one-dimensional combat preoccupation has already severely curtailed the effort within Afghanistan to undertake demining efforts to clear the detritus of the last war. Funding has fallen off, leading to the laying off of demining personnel and an increase in casualties among children, according to the 2006 Landmine Monitor Report.

Canada, in this 10th anniversary year of the land-mine treaty, can redeem its reputation by making it very clear from the highest sources that it condemns the Pakistani move. It should also use its diplomatic clout to have NATO reject this effort to eviscerate the land-mine treaty, and it should contribute in a serious way to reducing the risk to ordinary Afghans from the many land mines that still pose a risk to life and limb in that poor, war-torn country.

Lloyd Axworthy, president and vice-chancellor of the University of Winnipeg, served as Canada's foreign affairs minister from 1996 to 2000.

[SmoothedShredder]

United States... Stephen Harper... wha?!

I'm going back to sleep.