Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 25 October 2000 - Strasbourg

3. Anti-personnel mines

  President. – The next item is the joint debate of the report by Mrs Bonino (A5-0286/2000) on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on Action against Anti-Personnel Landmines (COM(2000) 111 – C5-0158/2000 – 2000/0062(COD));

and the following oral questions:

- B5-0544/2000 by Mr Miranda on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, to the Commission, on landmines;

- B5-0545/2000 by Mr Brok on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, to the Commission, on landmines.

  Bonino (TDI), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is not the first time that Parliament has tackled the issue of anti-personnel landmines. Far from it. In recent years, this issue was one of the driving forces which led to the signing of the Ottawa Convention. A campaign was initiated by certain non-governmental organisations and then taken up by the Red Cross, Europe and the Union as such, and it turned into something approaching a model international campaign.

This was one of the most rapid agreements to be signed in the history of international agreements: it is the only agreement to have been ratified within a year by forty parliaments, thus becoming operative. The most recent meeting in Geneva noted considerable progress in the area of de-mining as well as awareness of the issue. Certainly, much remains to be done, and this is why we must all welcome the Commission's proposal as a positive step. Moreover, I hope that this capacity to exert pressure and the speed with which the Union tackled the issue of anti-personnel landmines might serve as an example for the ratification of other agreements which have always been extremely important to Parliament, such as the establishment of the International Tribunal for Crimes Against Humanity, not to mention the moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

Turning to our report, I welcome the Commission's proposal as positive, and I have to say that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on Development and Cooperation have worked extremely hard in order to improve it – if this was possible – on certain points in particular. I would just like to mention a few of these points which, with regard to Parliament's proposal, seem important and, in any case, represent a tangible step forward in this matter. Firstly – and we hope that Parliament will support us in this – we stress the need to destroy the stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines still held by many countries, including signatory countries, because we feel that Parliament often talks about stockpile destruction as preventative action without really knowing what it is referring to.

The second point has to do with a whole series of elements – which I hope Parliament will approve – regarding budget lines. Commissioner, in addition to further simplifying your proposal – thereby arriving at three budget lines: one general, one relating to research and one relating to humanitarian landmine clearance – we have further simplified the proposed comitology, and we hope that Parliament will approve this, considering that an advisory committee will suffice instead of a management committee, for the very reason that, in the interests of coherent interpretation, we feel that the Commission is responsible for implementing the budget and must account for it with total transparency.

Another important element is that Parliament is not asking for anything general but requests EUR 200 million over the period 2000-2006, plus the funds to be allocated to research, plus the humanitarian heading, for we are indeed – we hope – talking about action and not just a resolution. Experience has taught me, Commissioner, that without funds it is difficult to achieve anything tangible from any point of view.

Moreover, precisely because the sum is so large – EUR 200 million – a considerable increase on past provision – we would like the Commission to establish an internal unit for anti-personnel landmine action, precisely in order to increase the transparency and cohesion of this activity.

From this perspective, these seem to me to be the characteristic elements facilitating responsible management and transparency. We will come to the political side of the report later.

The final point concerns the amendments. I restate my position opposing Amendments Nos 10 and 19, in the interests of budgetary cohesion and, with regard to Amendment No 29, I call for split voting in order to improve the formulation throughout the text, for I feel that it has suffered from some misinterpretation.

I would like to thank you, Mr President, Commissioner, and the hope that all these innovative proposals will not only be adopted by Parliament but also taken into consideration by the Council and the Commission.

  Morgantini (GUE/NGL), draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. – (IT) Mr President, even in common parlance the word 'mine' indicates danger, and if an Italian describes someone as 'una mina' they are calling that person a loose canon.

The European Union must be united in its action and ensure that the production of landmines is stopped, that all stockpiles are destroyed and that the ground is cleared of mines, and that assistance and means of social and economic inclusion is provided for their victims, who include many children, while safeguarding the development of the community affected.

In this sense, there must be a sharp focus on the issue and actions must be undertaken to further raise awareness in order to prevent the matter fading into obscurity. Both the report and the opinions of the Committees, which we are presenting today, stress the driving role played by Parliament and the European Union in the abolition of landmines and in the provision of financial aid to the UN.

As Mrs Bonino said, very clearly and explicitly, the Commission's proposal for a regulation is a further step forward. We have tabled several amendments intended to achieve greater clarity and transparency and to consolidate and rationalise the budget lines and our endeavours in the areas of mine clearance and stockpile destruction. These endeavours are carried out in conjunction with many NGOs, to whom all credit is due for convincing people that it is impossible to defer the issue any more. The Union does, however, have a weak point – a number of weak points – namely that we need to put pressure on Finland, which has not yet signed the Ottawa Convention, and on Greece, which has not ratified it, or Europe will lack credibility when it promotes the adherence of all countries to the Convention and raises the question – which we have also raised in the oral question which we are going to put to the Commission – of whether the candidate countries have to sign the Ottawa Convention before they become Members of the Union.

The Unmine Monitor report for 2000 clearly shows the progress achieved through the Ottawa Convention. There has certainly been a reduction on a world-wide scale in terms of production and trade and stockpiles etc., with a fall in the number of victims, although the figures are still too high. A great many issues remain unresolved, especially since countries such as the United States have not yet signed the Convention and countries such as China and Russia hold enormous stockpiles.

Europe must find a way to ensure that these stockpiles are eliminated from history but linger in our memories as a reminder that we must stop killing people with our lethal products.

  Miranda (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, we are all aware – in fact this has just been mentioned by Mrs Bonino and Mrs Morgantini – of how tragic the results of the use of anti-personnel landmines are and how serious the problem is given the large number of landmines that remain in place and primed on the ground. Some say there are 70 to 100 million of them. Hence the importance and timeliness of the Ottawa Convention, under which the international community is to take concerted action to put an end to this tragedy, which affects the poorest countries most of all. Difficulties do remain, because certain major countries – which have already been mentioned – have not yet signed the Convention. In this respect we can only regret the fact that one Member State, Finland, has not yet signed and another, Greece, has not yet proceeded to ratification, as Mrs Morgantini has just pointed out.

This raises the first question: the need for the European Union, especially the Commission, to do everything possible to encourage non-signatory countries to sign the Ottawa Convention. It would be desirable if the Commission could tell us what it intends to do in this area, particularly with regard to the countries applying to join the European Union. But of course its authority in this field will be greater if the Council and the Member States explicitly state that the European Union will under no circumstances in its external relations use anti-personnel landmines or help in their use. It is, however, essential to ensure the greatest coherence and coordination between the actions taken by the European Union and those taken by the Member States. In this field, too, the Commission can and should play an invaluable role, and it should tell us what it proposes to do in future in this context. The Community actions to be taken in this field must also benefit from adequate budgetary support if they are to be as effective as possible. The Commission’s draft regulation seems too vague. We are firmly in favour of setting up a single budget line for action against landmines, except for research and food aid, and I believe it would be beneficial at the same time to set up a central unit coordinating all actions in this field, as mentioned by Mrs Bonino.

As for the actions to take, it is essential to guarantee that existing landmines – the enormous landmine stockpiles – will be destroyed so as to prevent them from finding their way onto the black market. It is equally essential to put an end to their production. Other mine-clearance or victim-support actions will be of little use if we continue to produce and trade in landmines. We must act first in the area of prevention. Afterwards we must invest more in research, especially research into the detection of mines placed in the ground. Lastly, it is crucial that we reinforce mine-clearance action by ensuring the effectiveness of the actions taken and by giving priority to the countries that respect the Convention, just as it is also essential that we guarantee victim rehabilitation measures.

I would also like the Commission to explain in greater detail what it intends to do in these fields, bearing in mind past experience and the important role that the European Union has taken on in this area. The field of action is, of course, vast and requires funding and great political will. The challenge is enormous, but the extent of this tragedy demands that we make an enormous effort and commitment to put an end to this situation.

  Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know what the consequences of anti-personnel mines are, even if there may often be important military justifications for them in individual cases. They result in immeasurable suffering, especially among civilians and children. But they also often destroy countries' long-term development potential by contaminating entire regions. For this reason it is extremely positive that the Commission and the European Union are tackling this subject as a whole and wish to ensure that a coordinated policy is adopted in this area. Our question to the Commission is intended to encourage it to continue down this path and to strengthen this initiative still further.

I say this because we do indeed need coordination between the efforts of Europe and other international players, areas benefiting from development funds or actions directly administered by the Commission. Proper mine-clearance equipment therefore needs to be arranged and we need to finance research work on detection and clearance, and on equipment that is simple to use on the ground, which is particularly helpful for developing countries. There is also great potential for coordination in relation to personnel deployment, by which I mean both military personnel and civilians. My committee also suggests that you should consider seeking special deployment arrangements in cooperation with Eurocorps, making it possible for Europe to take the lead here. We also certainly need to designate priority areas for mine clearance so as to create special focal points.

Not all countries have yet signed the international conventions, nor have they been ratified by all countries, for a wide variety of reasons. I believe that we therefore need to wage a campaign to make those in positions of political responsibility weigh up what the military benefit of mines is and what the consequences are for the people and the region. By weighing things up in this way they will realise that arms of this kind should no longer be used and that we should help these countries to find political alternatives to using such mines. I also believe that there must be a proper political framework in these regions so as to give such governments the political power to escape from this vicious circle, which means that, ostensibly, in trying to provide protection for themselves they ultimately harm their own population in the long term. I must therefore encourage the Commission to regard this not just as a technical starting point for providing some kind of financial support, but also as an important opportunity to create a political framework with a view to securing an improvement here.

  Patten, Commission. – I should like to express my appreciation for the ambitious and constructive attitude of Parliament which is clearly reflected in the report by Mrs Bonino on the draft regulation, reinforcing the European Union's contribution to the fight against anti-personnel landmines.

It is no surprise that a report by Mrs Bonino is such a powerful and important document. I am grateful but not surprised by the tone of the report. After all, the European Parliament took the lead in the Union in the fight against landmines. It was Parliament which first raised, in 1996, the issue of a horizontal budget line and of a proper legal base to provide a single platform for the wide range of actions that we undertake in this important field.

Parliament was instrumental in galvanising the Union into taking a proactive role at the Ottawa Conference in 1997, which led to the conclusion of the Convention to ban and eradicate landmines. It is the challenge of implementing that Convention to the full which led the Commission to reflect on how to reinforce the contribution of the European Union to the battle against landmines. The result of that reflection is before you in the form of a proposal for a regulation.

I should also like to mention the key role played by civil society, by highly motivated non-governmental organisations and, in particular, by the international campaign to ban landmines. Their efforts are essential for the successful implementation of the Convention and their pressure on governments around the world has contributed tremendously to the encouraging record of ratification and accession.

Over the last eight years we have contributed over EUR 200 million from the Community budget to the fight against landmines. In 1999 alone the Union spent more than EUR 100 million of which EUR 30 million was for Community projects, far more than any other international player. Some Members of the House may have seen the brochure that we prepared for the Ottawa Convention review conference last month, which shows the breadth of the interventions that we are making, covering every corner of the world and every aspect of mine action. I particularly commend the work of the Joint Research Centre.

Being the largest contributor to this cause is not enough. The objective of the draft regulation is to allow us to define a strategic, overall approach and to measure our efforts against well-defined targets on the road to our common final objective of a world free of landmines.

Before I comment on the excellent report before us on the draft regulation I should like to make a few general remarks in reply to the interesting and valuable speeches made by Mr Miranda and Mr Brok.

Of course we share the objective of universalisation of the Ottawa Convention. The European Union has a clear position, set out in the 1997 joint action on extending signature and ratification of the Ottawa Convention to as many countries as possible. But I cannot hide this fact: the Union's powers of persuasion in seeking to achieve this goal are obviously somewhat limited by the remaining difficulties of some Member States in signing and ratifying the Convention. This is, to follow the speech of the honourable Member, a point which we put with some regularity to those Member States.

Clearly, the granting of European Union mine-action support can work as an important lever to get potential beneficiary countries to sign up to the Convention. The communication and the draft regulation provide for a degree of conditionality in this respect, but we should not be too dogmatic. We have to acknowledge the specific situation in certain countries. We should not penalise people who need our help, even if their governments are not yet sufficiently committed to the implementation of the Convention. It is the usual dilemma that we face. It is a dilemma which the honourable Member has expressed with considerable eloquence in the past: the challenge we have again and again of providing humanitarian assistance is people where the humanitarian assistance is very often needed as a result of the actions of their governments. But we cannot penalise people when they have a lousy government.

As for the applicant countries, we would expect them to support the joint action which I have just referred to. This is not Community acquis in the strict legal sense of that term, but we will obviously encourage them to do away with mines in their defence, to stop manufacturing mines or trading in them, and to sign and ratify the Mine Ban Treaty.

If I may again follow a point Mr Miranda made earlier, I am particularly keen that we should also look at projects to destroy the existing stockpiles of landmines. It can be difficult environmentally and it is expensive but we should give that some priority in the future.

I should like to draw Parliament's attention to the Slovenia International Trust Fund which, in only two years of operation, has set up a regional mine-action programme with support from the European Union, the United States and a number of other countries, with projects throughout the Balkans. After the events earlier this year in Zaghreb and the more recent events in Belgrade, we must hope that the future of south-east Europe is free of the setting of landmines.

Enhancing coherence between Community and Member States' action, to which the honourable Member referred, is at the very heart of the communication which accompanies the draft regulation. We have adopted a flexible, coordinating approach rather than a rigid, centralising one. Mine action is most effective when it is tailored to the conditions which are specific to each situation. That is why we do not propose to pool all mine action, even within the Community framework, in a single programme and a single budget line. Instead, we are proposing to set up an expert group with participation from Member States, from non-governmental organisations and from the other relevant players. The intention is that this group should assist the Commission in drawing up an overall strategy for mine actions.

Turning now specifically to the Bonino report, I would like to comment briefly on the very few amendments by Parliament which the Commission has some difficulty in taking on board in their current form. Some of them I have already touched on in my reply to the honourable Member. Firstly, as I have already mentioned, I think it would be a mistake, well-intentioned but nevertheless counter-productive, to make accession to the Ottawa Convention a hard and fast condition for European mine-action assistance. It goes without saying that we will only rarely agree to give assistance to countries which have not signed up to the Convention. But there are bound to be cases where, for political or humanitarian reasons, we wish to assist populations, despite their governments. So I would argue against Amendment No 18.

While I understand and respect the ambition behind the proposal to concentrate all funds for mine action under the horizontal budget line, with the exception of ECHO and research lines, I am not convinced that this gives us the necessary flexibility to maximise the effectiveness of European Union interventions. It may be that over time the horizontal line will attract more attention and more appreciation, but we also need to maintain the link to broader national or regional programming through the geographic budget lines and regulations. I myself would say no to proposed Amendments Nos 3, 16 and 21.

For the same reason I am confident that the human and administrative resources requested for the central mine action policy team are sufficient to guarantee the proper implementation of the regulation. We do not want to add new layers to our bureaucracy; a small team and proper networking can achieve the same results. I would propose to say no to Amendment No 17.

Similarly, we do not want to create another committee, be it management or advisory. Parliament knows that there are far too many of them already and as the House knows, under our proposals for the reform of EC external assistance, we hope to move away from the heavy handed scrutiny of individual projects and instead focus our discussion with Member States on overall strategies and programming. It is what we are agreeing to do on MEDA, for example. This will be done in the various existing geographic committees. Instead of adding another one to the list, we propose the creation of an expert group which will give us a forum going beyond government experts where we can discuss and where we can define overall mine-action strategy to be applied horizontally and to be reviewed every year. Therefore the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 8, 22, 23, 25 and 29.

Finally, on the contracting of mine-action projects, I would caution against the introduction of stricter limitations to the participation in our tenders. As well as pursuing local capacity-building and ownership, we must be able to draw on the best existing expertise and material wherever it is available. In most cases that will be within the European Union, but we may exceptionally have to turn elsewhere. I cannot accept Amendment No 19.

I will not go through all the many amendments proposed by the honourable Member, which the Commission can readily accept and which will in my judgment significantly improve the draft regulation. These only confirm the sense of purpose and ambition which we all share.

We have a lot of work still to do if we are to achieve the objectives of the Ottawa Convention to eradicate these mines within the next decade. The adoption of this regulation constitutes a small, but in my judgment an important step along that road. I hope that we can rely on the continued support of Parliament for the successful outcome of the legislative process.

  Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, some of us have been involved for many years in trying to overcome the scourge of anti-personnel landmines. It is an issue that has caught the public imagination in many of our countries. Governments have expressed their commitment and pledged large sums of money. NGOs have sprouted up in response to the need and yet, some four years after the first United Nation's landmine conference in Geneva and over a year after the entry into force of the Ottawa Convention, we must recognise that many countries and thousands of people, usually in the poorest regions of the world, are still terribly afflicted by anti-personnel landmines and unexploded munitions.

Why is progress so slow? It seems to me that the problems are threefold. Firstly, we need to be focused in our aims. The anti-personnel landmine campaign should not be used as an opportunity to attack western governments, particularly the United States, western military establishments, or western industry. For the most part, western governments are not the problem but part of the solution. We should concentrate our political attention on the real culprits: warring factions and irresponsible governments who have shown no concern about civil populations and who use anti-personnel landmines as indiscriminate weapons of terror.

More importantly, practical mine action should focus on the priorities: making areas safe where the suspected presence of mines is a bar to resumption of normal life and economic development, and assistance to mine victims. Secondly, the international community needs to improve the coordination of its efforts both at the global level and particularly within the afflicted countries. The fact is we still do not know the true extent of landmine infestation and we do not know how effective efforts to clear mines have been. A rapid stocktaking exercise needs to be conducted in each of the most afflicted countries so that we can see more clearly what needs to be done.

Thirdly, we need to ensure that money is spent well. I take some pride in the fact that the European Commission is the world's largest supporter of mine action. This is an area where, in view of the European Union's capacity for coordination of efforts by many countries, an application of large resources to the problem should be more effective. There are many reasons why the rhetoric has not been matched by reality. In a way, the landmine case characterises the wider failure of the Commission to make effective use of the resources at its disposal. The Commissioner for external relations has previously recognised that the Commission's external aid programmes have been an embarrassment. The Commission needs to improve both the quality of its programmes and their speed of implementation. Things are beginning to move in the right direction under Mr Patten's leadership.

The Commission communication and the regulation on anti-personnel landmines are very useful documents, but they omit two key elements, which Parliament's amendments seek to correct. Multiannual funding for mine action must be concentrated on a single budget line and there must be a properly resourced unit within the Commission, specifically responsible not just for the policy framework but also for the planning and implementation of mine action, including contracts. Top-level commitment, proper direction and management with responsibility are the keys to the effective use of resources. Let us have no more gestures but real action and tangible results.

  Van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, the Group of the Party of European Socialists shares the pride which Mr van Orden expressed a moment ago in the role of the European Union. A number of years ago, I visited a school class in Kabul, Afghanistan, and witnessed how children were told about the different types of landmines. And when I saw one of those landmines in the shape of a butterfly, I realised that landmines are designed so that children will play with them and get hurt, and it also gave me an insight into the moral value of those who manufacture this kind of product. I also saw then that the awareness campaigns in schools as well as amongst the population are the most effective tool to prevent victims. A substantial proportion of money should be earmarked for this. On behalf of my group, I welcome the relevant amendments with open arms.

Secondly, it is obvious that we are often fighting a running battle, for while these mines were being cleared in Afghanistan by all kinds of associations, others were being re-laid elsewhere. And I am also casting my mind back to northern Mozambique, where I worked alongside organisations of handicapped people, injured by landmines, who got involved in the clearance and removal activities. This taught me two things. First, you have to involve the local population. People, even if they are injured, can manage a variety of things themselves. Second, I understood that the main aim of landmines is not to kill but to maim, and this makes this moral issue so loaded.

When I arrived in Angola, I saw the Norwegian People’s Aid, and they used a method by which, together with the local population, they traced where the mines were and cleared certain areas very strategically. I took two things away from that experience: you need the experts, in this case the old soldiers of the Norwegian People's Aid and the local population – a crucial component – and you then need to clear the mines strategically. The toothbrush methods, which are extremely expensive and time-consuming, are not always appropriate. It is better to clear strategic regions, so that new life can be breathed into the local economy, etc. This got me onto the idea of not working with the national Angolan authority or via complex structures in the first instance, but of simply working with the authorities through strong NGOs among the local population in a well-organised manner, as is being attempted in Angola.

At the same time, one realises that new landmines are being laid in Angola, and this brings me to the point which Mr Patten highlighted. Commissioner, you said that you were against a number of amendments. I believe, however, that if you were to study them again with more care, you would find that there are a few amendments you quoted which, in my view, concern the awareness campaigns, transparency, access for NGOs, as well as things which are going well at the moment but which could run more efficiently. I believe that you need not be afraid of the amendments tabled by Parliament in this respect. We do not want more bureaucracy or comitology; instead we want to create more room for you, we want things to be done efficiently, and I believe that our priorities in this respect are not a million miles apart.

You may want to re-read a few paragraphs to see if all these points are really ripe for the bin, which is not so easy to admit for an English person. I believe that, as far as that is concerned, you and Parliament are on the same side. The Socialist Group feels part of this massive international anti-landmine campaign and we, together with other MEPs here, are proud of this.

  Haarder (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President, anti-personnel mines are abominable beyond belief. Their purpose is not to kill but to disable and cause the worst possible pain and distress for the victims, their families and their countries. Think of the Soviet ‘toy’ bombs in Afghanistan. They are, unfortunately, incredibly cheap to produce and wildly expensive to find and destroy. It will take a hundred years to have them removed, and more and more of them are being scattered. It was the Liberal, Jan Willem Bertens who raised the matter five years ago in Parliament, and I think this Parliament can really pride itself on having set the ball in motion so that we are now on the way towards a ban on mines. We can also point to the very major and effective contribution the European Union is making on this issue.

More still can be done, however. There are machines which can clear large areas of mines in a short period of time. I have seen such a machine in Kosovo, but it was idle and not in use. Mrs Bonino and Mr Patten are right in saying that it makes obvious sense to destroy the stockpiles, because the cost of destroying a stockpiled mine is only a hundredth of that of destroying one which has been transported to a place where it is difficult to find.

Mrs Bonino and Mr Patten are also right to say that Parliament and the Council should not interfere with the administration, and I listened carefully to Mr Patten’s remarks on this point for he obviously thinks we should interfere still less. I agree in principle. We should refrain from getting involved in the administration. We should instead criticise the Commission if it does not engage in proper administration. We should not, however, be controlling the Commission from a distance. That is a mistake this Parliament is constantly making. The Commission must have the freedom to exercise its powers, and we for our part should be free to slam the Commission – if I may use that expression – if it does not do the work well. Finally, I should like to thank Mrs Bonino. It is refreshing to have such an experienced rapporteur. Thank you for a good report.

  Wuori (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Mr President, very rarely from within the established power structures does anything new emerge. The ban on anti-personnel mines has led to a process that is an excellent example of how NGOs and the European Parliament have been able to define and pursue with determination aims the statesmen either shun or consider unrealistic. In the wake of the breakthrough at Ottawa we now have to ensure that the Union and its Member States attend to the continued action that is vital both in bilateral relations and internal legislation and maintain a leading role, as political will is being strengthened and sustained, so that the agreement is signed and ratified comprehensively, and by my own country, Finland, also. It must also be made a precondition of EU membership for the candidate countries, i.e. become incorporated in the acquis communautaire.

The report under discussion and, in particular, the splendidly expressed opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation create the prerequisites for continued action, with the emphasis on actual mine clearance and attendant operations and not on seeking exotic and extremely costly technological solutions. Biosensors are proving to be very promising in this regard. The Brok resolution, for its part, offers a political dimension to this work and the questions for oral answer put to the Commission by Mr Brok and Mr Miranda offer guidelines that are of major importance. All the institutions of the EU must work on their own initiative and in a way that the poor countries that suffer worst from the mines problem are effectively included in the programme. The main responsibility for monitoring will naturally fall to the Commission, but we must all play a part in ensuring that joint voluntary work to remove this scourge worldwide is concluded as quickly as possible. We can leave behind us a world without mines.

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, our group has a history of calling for the entire spectrum of measures and action needed, from suspending production to destroying stocks, stopping trading, clearing mine fields, rehabilitating victims and raising public awareness.

However, I should like to make the following comment: the number of mines placed increases in direct proportion to the international community's inability to find political solutions to major problems. When, for example, a country feels insecure along its border with another country, its government will take recourse, wrongly of course, to the easy option of a minefield. When the international community cannot deal with the poison of nationalism and confrontation or help find political solutions, those involved will be more willing to take recourse to minefields. We must bear this in mind because it seems to me, as far as the Balkans are concerned, that the West and the European Union must take their share of the responsibility, as the result of their political interventions, for the fact that half the Balkans are a total minefield.

I would like to end by saying that special action is needed in the Balkans and I should like to use this platform to say that the Greek Government should ratify the Ottowa Convention at once.

  Mathieu (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, the Cambodians call mines ‘everlasting sentinels’. These death traps, set off by chance by the victims themselves, sometimes many years after a conflict is over, are real time bombs that hinder the social and economic recovery of whole regions and the rehabilitation of the victims themselves.

As a signatory to the appeal for a world without mines, I fervently support Emma Bonino's report, because it is heading in the right direction. Two years after the signing of the Ottawa Convention, the stockpile of mines remains, alas, an impressive one, at least as far as those that have been recorded is concerned. For those that have still not been recorded, it is time to invent new methods of detection and identification.

It is essential for the European Union's financial input to complement national schemes. Moreover, the European Union as a whole and the candidate countries must sign the Ottawa Convention and, more importantly, ratify it. A very great deal is at stake here, for while war may have its rules, common law for some and codified law for others, the use of anti-personnel mines is not covered by them. Eliminating them is no longer a military problem but a humanitarian issue. Europe cannot confine itself to acting as provider of funds. It is up to Europe to take the lead in considering the most appropriate mechanism, prior to deploying any new weapon. Then it is up to the States to support the process in international fora.

To conclude, Europe must support and deepen the Ottawa process to ensure that we do not have another weapon creating dozens of victims every 20 minutes, as is happening now.

  Raschhofer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community's initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years' work, the NGOs have won people's confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need.

People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.

  Gollnisch (TDI). – (FR) Mr President, I will speak very briefly during my allotted minute, just to express regret that the Council is not represented at such an important debate, although it is quite obviously the institution with the greatest scope for action in the field our Members are discussing at this moment.

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area.

The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community.

Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.

  Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I am pleased that we finally have European legislation, in the form of a regulation, on anti-personnel landmines and that today we have a good report on the subject by Mrs Bonino.

In the previous term of office – as we have heard – the European Parliament approved the commitment by the European Union to fight against one of the cruellest, most lethal, most cowardly weapons in existence. The Committee on Development and Cooperation – as Mr Patten has said – introduced a budget line in 1996 dedicated to de-mining. However, this heading line nonetheless unfortunately decreasing in inverse proportion to the emphasis we are placing on this matter here.

Given that we are now approving the budget, I will linger a moment over the figures that worry me. This year the figure was EUR 8,100,000. For the coming year, the Council and the Commission have agreed to reduce the total to EUR 7,400,000 and Parliament proposes an increase of EUR 3 million compared with the year 2000. These figures are not much to solve a problem that affects 110 million people in 64 countries, 26,000 victims of mutilations every year and, vitally, the many children who are described in countries such as El Salvador as the broken children, as these children are maimed, missing their hands, arms or legs.

I therefore ask that the importance of increasing this amount be conveyed to the Council, which is not represented here, and to the Commission, given that unfortunately, for each mine that is cleared, between 20 and 50 others are laid. At the current de-mining rate it would – as was mentioned earlier – take well over 100 years to clear the planet of anti-personnel landmines. I therefore ask that, although it is not enough, account be taken of the amount proposed by Parliament and that it should contribute to respecting the Ottawa Convention and I ask those countries that have not signed it or ratified it to do so.

  President. – Since various comments have been made, I would like to specify that although the Minister is not present, the Council is represented by senior civil servants, who will of course pass our words on to him.

  Frahm (GUE/NGL). – (DA) Mrs Bonino, one minute in which to talk about a report which really speaks volumes about your commitment is very little, but I am happily in agreement with most of the conclusions of the report, including the implied criticism of those countries which have still not ratified the Ottowa Convention. My own country took all too long to do so, unfortunately. There is a problem in the report. In my opinion, there is a tendency to try to relieve the CFSP of civil assignments. I believe it is healthy to strengthen the civil obligations of any organisation which has military activities. What I mean in actual fact is that, in addition to carrying out their normal developmental and humanitarian activities, the Council, the CFSP and the Member States should be required to match any amount spent on military activities with at least a corresponding amount for civil activities, for example mine clearance in the relevant areas.

  Zimmerling (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing a very sad subject today. I am sure we are all at least in agreement that anti-personnel mines should be outlawed worldwide. I would like to subdivide this topic into three major areas. The first area is that of prevention. I am sure we in this Chamber agree that existing mines, and especially anti-personnel mines, must be destroyed. When I think of the problems and the events in developing countries, such as those in the ACP area or in Central America, it is evident that things cannot continue like this. Another point I regard as vital is that we need to tackle the black market, especially in Africa.

The second important area for me is follow-up action. In this area we have to pay special attention to de-mining programmes and humanitarian actions. In particular, research initiatives in this area need to be supported, especially those concerned with technology for detecting and clearing mines. However, nor should we ignore the fact that the European Union, and in particular the European Parliament, is increasingly in a position to check more effectively where the money we intend for this purpose is actually going.

The third area I have in mind concerns specific measures that ought to be proposed, examined and implemented. I believe that we should pay special attention to the victims of mines. These are, for the most part, private individuals, civilians, children and child soldiers – another topic that we have already discussed. With regard to children who have been mutilated in this way and therefore need long-term care, there is now the possibility of providing "growing" prostheses, which in Europe ...

(The President cut the speaker off)

  Souladakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, what we are basically doing in today's debate on the Bonino report, an excellent report, is codifying measures to deal with an extremely serious international problem. The Titley report, which we voted on a few days ago, basically represents a second step forward on questions of common foreign, defence and security policy which will, I believe, slowly but surely build up into a global policy for the European Union with flesh on its bones in the form of uniform terms and uniform rules. I think that time will prove that those who took the initiative were right and we will stop seeing charity workers alongside children with their legs blown off, given that the policy should work as a policy of prevention rather than repression. It is no coincidence that most mines are to be found in crisis areas, i.e. in areas where a different sort of initiative could have been taken in order to resolve the crisis.

Now to a question which was touched on in connection with my country, Greece. I am certain that the Greek Government will not delay in ratifying the convention in question, given that it has already signed it as a country. However, we must bear in mind that it will do so despite the fact that ‘neighbouring Turkey’ does not have the best of intentions vis-à-vis Greece. This is, unfortunately, a fact of life and was brought home to us again recently, last week in fact, during NATO exercises, which were seen as an opportunity for a different kind of policy in the form of a show of intransigence. But let us hope that the future will bring a solution to these problems.

Be that as it may, I believe that the majority vote which this report will receive here in Parliament will strengthen it to the point at which even those who do not have eyes to see or ears to listen will see and will listen.

  Knolle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I support Mrs Bonino's report, which provides for greater efficiency and transparency, and on which the Committee on Development and Cooperation has given its opinion. I would like to thank her for her outstanding work. I witnessed the suffering of mine victims with my own eyes during and after the war in Bosnia, in 1992, 1995 and 1999. Many victims are small children, who suffer terrible trauma and appalling mutilation, and whose lives are destroyed before they have even started properly. Every child that we can protect from death or terrible injuries because of mines, be it in Bosnia, Africa or elsewhere, makes all our efforts worthwhile. I would also like to sincerely thank the non-governmental organisations for their commitment.

I would briefly like to comment on one point, and this concerns our amendment to the motion for a resolution. There is no worldwide consensus in favour of banning anti-vehicle mines. They are still regarded as essential protection against armoured vehicles throughout the world and within NATO. No one should seek to belittle the achievements of Ottawa by saying that anti-vehicle mines should have been included. In that case the Convention would certainly have been doomed to failure from the outset.

With regard to the enlargement of the EU, the candidate countries absolutely must sign the Ottawa Convention. The USA, Russia and China should be urged to sign the Convention. Greece and Finland should ratify the Convention as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I would dearly like to see all mines banned throughout the world, as they are some of the most diabolical and repulsive arms that exist. Unfortunately, however, we are not in that utopian world.

  Carlotti (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, one day in December 1992, a young shepherd in Mozambique forgot the risk: he thought it had gone with the coming of peace. That over-confidence cost him his left leg.

Two kilometres away from a hamlet in Bosnia, in 1999, a sign indicated the presence of mines in a field, but this did not stop a little boy going there. For him it was a place to play, like any other. Indeed, every time a war ends, people leave the refugee camps to return to their villages, hoping to lick their wounds and attempt gradually to rebuild a normal life. But a mine is impervious to peace agreements and continues, inexorably, to do its job.

Even though 139 states have now signed the Ottawa Convention, mines are still doing their job of destruction. Every 20 minutes somewhere in the world a mine will explode, bringing death or mutilation. Of course, the Geneva Conference has brought some progress and we must stress that positive trend, for it really is the result of the determined battle the NGOs have long been waging. However, the progress made should not blind us to the reality, and that reality is a total of 27 people killed and another 41 mutilated every single day. The reality is 250 million mines in the arsenals of 105 countries. Even last year, mines were used in 20 conflicts, mainly in Europe.

So I welcome the work done by my fellow Members, Emma Bonino and Luisa Morgantini, who have once again brought the political debate into the heart of this Parliament. They make it clear how much we still need to do. For my part, I want to highlight the need to adopt the convention universally so that it may become a total success, firstly by ensuring the compliance of the laws of the various states, so as not to have yet another example of an international agreement that fails to be applied. We must indeed put pressure on those European Union countries that have not signed it, like Finland, or not ratified it, like Greece. Why not consider sanctions, Commissioner, against those who do not respect the agreements? Why not include a clause on accession to this convention in the enlargement conditions?

You replied to all that a moment ago. I know there are still differences of opinion on this or that amendment. Yet I would ask you to look at them more carefully, because some of them are acceptable to the Commission. Whatever the outcome, we will all of us together show that we are determined to fight against what has to be called ‘a cowards’ war’.

  Vatanen (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, war is a cruel way of solving people’s differences. It is tragic when the civil population suffers as a result of its leaders’ lack of skills and experience. The Ottawa Convention, which restricts the use of mines, is a very worthwhile endeavour. Too many children have lost their lives or become crippled while playing in a danger zone. The EU’s aid programme is necessary and I fully back it. It is our duty to help nations that are suffering as a result of political mistakes made long ago. In some countries there are more mines than there are truffles in France, and both are as hard to find.

Although I am in favour of ending the misuse of mines, I do wish to raise the issue of the problems that Finland has in this connection. Finland has not signed the Ottawa Convention, and reference has been made to that quite often here, as in the case of the previous speaker also. The criticisms, however, are sanctimonious and based on ignorance. Ladies and gentlemen, just look at Finland. The country is sparsely populated and it has a land border with Russia that is more than a thousand kilometres long. The history we share with our neighbour has often been full of anguish. We must fall back on the old Roman truth: the best way to keep the peace is to prepare for war.

The mines are an essential part of Finland’s defences. They cannot be used to conquer other countries, but are only used for purposes of defence. All the mines in Finland are safely stored and are not exported to other countries. Their use is subject to stringent discipline. I would like to stress this. Furthermore, all the mines are easy to remove in the wake of any conflict. Finland cannot be put in the same category as many less developed countries, where the use of mines is very random and the inevitable consequences of that are evident.

It must be realised that Finland spends large sums of money on mine clearance in other countries. In practice, this means removing mines with Finnish equipment, providing assistance for victims, and the destruction of mine stores. This work supports the EU’s efforts. Finland has already, for its own part, taken responsibility for the world’s mine problem. This must, nonetheless, come about in such a way that one’s own country’s security is not compromised as a result of political pressures.