Page 264 - 100 Reflections that Crafted Geneva International_V-Petrovsky_private special edition

100 Reflections that Crafted Geneva International

Certain Conventional Weapons, which amended the landmine Protocol was an
important step in this direction.

While an outright international ban was not achieved at this stage, some
significant results have been reached. The agreement on revised Protocol II has
set a new precedent for international humanitarian and arms regulation law.
For the first time a provision bans the transfer of all non-detectable anti-
personnel landmines. The provisions governing the protection of peace and
humanitarian missions have been strengthened. And the review mechanism of
annual conferences will sustain momentum towards further improvements in
the Protocol and towards a complete ban on mines. It is encouraging that more
than 30 Member States officially declared their intention to put into effect such
a ban unilaterally.

However, what is needed is a complete prohibition of landmines. In this
connection the role of the NGOs and especially the International Committee
of the Red Cross is difficult to overestimate. The impressive information
campaigns which the ICRC undertook in an effort to ban landmines have been
and continue to be instrumental in mobilizing public opinion effectively to
exert meaningful pressure on Governments.

Despite the difficult challenges the multilateral disarmament process
works and has brought valuable results. While complex and time-consuming, it
nevertheless benefits from diverse input and ensures the greatest possible
adherence to agreements. The six major regimes of arms limitation have been
created through multilateral efforts.

Of course, the new multilateralism is not a substitute for bilateral or any
other form of negotiations. All procedures that work toward disarmament and
confidence-building - including unilateral action - must be exploited and
supported. However, linking progress in one area to progress being made
elsewhere is a recipe for failure. I have consistently called for a different
approach: “constructive parallelism.” Success in one area should encourage
gains in others. Lack of progress on a specific issue must not preclude advances
being made elsewhere. The issues being considered are too important to be
subjected to this type of diplomatic brinkmanship. Constructive parallelism
offers the best assurance that the goal of negotiations will be achieved, and that
international security will be further strengthened.

242