Excellencies, fellow activists, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

We are here to look into the future of humanitarian mine action. At the same time it is also timely to celebrate the past. The Mine Ban Convention was negotiated and adopted here in Oslo in September 1997. Many of you were present; many of you were active in the process. The Convention was signed in Ottawa in December the same year. During these five years, we have -with the Mine Ban Convention - made considerable progress towards ridding the world of the humanitarian suffering caused by anti-personnel mines.

It is a source of great satisfaction to me to note that the mine ban movement has been so successful, and to see that the lives of so many people in mine-affected countries have been improved.

There is no doubt that the Mine Ban Convention has done much to eradicate anti-personnel mines and to save lives and limbs in most regions of the world. Not only have two-thirds of all the states in the world – 125 – become State Parties, but the norm established by the Convention is also largely respected by non-state parties. This is a true achievement

In consequence, the use of anti-personnel mines has ended in several of the countries where it has been most widespread. I am happy to note that countries like Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Eritrea have rapidly stopped their extensive use of anti-personnel mines and joined the Convention as a result of peace initiatives. Furthermore, and most importantly, the number of new mine victims has declined. There has also been a dramatic reduction in anti-personnel mine stockpiles: more than 34 million anti-personnel mines have been destroyed over the last few years, and there has been a decrease in production and trade in these mines. In the last few years the number of APL producers has dropped from 55 to 14.

I cannot talk about the Mine Ban Convention without mentioning the movers and shakers in the Ottawa process. Firstly, there is no doubt that NGOs played a crucial role. They started the whole process. It was their commitment, dedication, and skill that carried it along. They were the people from the field who were aware of the problem and had clear and constructive ideas on how to deal with it. In addition, the ICRC and the Red Cross helped to make this an issue of humanitarian law. The ICBL and the ICRC took upon themselves an advocacy role, and managed to convince public opinion and governments that this was an urgent problem.

I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that this led to one of the most successful examples of cooperation and partnership between governments and NGOs that the world has ever seen. I would like to quote from an article written by Jodie Williams in 1999 that speaks to this very point:

"It demonstrates that small and middle powers can work together with civil society and address humanitarian concerns with breathtaking speed. It shows that such a partnership can be a new kind of ’superpower’ in the post-Cold War world".

The NGOs have continued to actively participate and support the development of the Convention into an effective instrument with clear objectives. Not the least of their achievements is monitoring of the implementation of the Convention through the Landmine Monitor.

I headed the Norwegian Delegation to the First Meeting of State Parties to the Mine Ban Convention, which took place in Maputo in 1999. It was highly appropriate that this meeting took place in an African country. The countries on the African continent, many of which were strongly affected by the impact of anti-personnel mines, also played an important role in the Ottawa process and the negotiations on the Convention. It was most pertinent that the first meeting of State Parties was held in Maputo, since Mozambique is one of the most mine-affected countries in the world. Without the strong participation of mine-affected countries in the movement to ban anti-personnel mines, the Convention would never have been as successful as it is.

The new alliances that were formed between governments in the mine ban movement cut across old borderlines of cooperation. The traditional division between North and South has been non-existent in this process. I think this is one of the main reasons why the work against anti-personnel mines has been more successful than many other areas of multilateral cooperation.

Mine action programmes have expanded considerably as a result of the Convention. As Norway’s minister of international development, I have noted the broad and positive developments that have taken place in the field of humanitarian Mine Action. Mine clearance has evolved from a strictly military operation to a more systematic and sophisticated humanitarian and development activity. Humanitarian Mine Action has become more community-oriented, and socio-economic factors are increasingly being taken into consideration in the process of allocating resources and planning and implementing Mine Action operations. And this progress is very encouraging. Because humanitarian Mine Action not only prevents immediate suffering, it also has broader implications. A mine-free community is a precondition for socio-economic development.

It was an honour for Norway to host the negotiations in Oslo in 1997. Ever since 1995, when the Norwegian parliament and government decided to work for a total ban on anti-personnel mines, subsequent Norwegian governments have been staunch supporters of this policy. Since 1997, the Mine Ban Convention has been the single most important framework for our mine action-related activities. In principle we give priority to mine action in countries that have joined the Convention, unless there are strong humanitarian reasons not to do so. Over the last five years we have contributed nearly 120 million US dollars to humanitarian Mine Action. We intend to maintain the same level of support in the coming years.

I wanted to make this a statement of celebration – to mark how well the Mine Ban Convention is functioning in practice, and how it is helping to keep international attention on the global anti-personnel mine problem and consolidating global mine action efforts. The first five years were a good start. Much has been achieved during this period. Much still remains to be done.

Although we have made significant achievements, the work ahead must not be underestimated. One of the major challenges in the years to come will be to keep up the momentum and maintain awareness of the continued necessity to solve the problems caused by anti-personnel mines. We must not be complacent.

We must continue to universalise the Convention. Today new mines are being laid by countries such as India and Pakistan, and in other parts of the world. Not only do we need to get more countries to join the Convention. We are also facing another challenge – anti-personnel mines being used by non-state actors.

Now that the framework of the Mine Ban Convention is well established, we will focus more strongly on the core humanitarian and developmental objectives of the Convention. This means aiming for more concrete results in victim assistance, in mine clearance and in stockpile destruction. We have to mobilise and secure the necessary resources for this work, both human and financial.

The Ottawa process has been an encouraging experience. We have managed to keep it a very practical and result-oriented process. The progress made so far has shown that even though the challenges may be daunting, dedication, commitment, partnership and hard work can make a difference, – make a difference where it really matters.

In conclusion allow me, again, to quote Jodie Williams. This time I have singled out a few words from her Nobel Lecture that speak volumes about why this issue matters:

" The landmine is eternally prepared to take victims. In common parlance, it is the perfect soldier, the ’eternal sentry’. The war ends, the landmine goes on killing".

It is this killer we have to stop! And it is this battle we have to win. Let us also learn from this battle, and create new kinds of ’superpowers’ to win new strides for humanity.

Thank you.