WILLIAMS: -- where I am. Okay, obviously one of the strengths, the greatest strengths, of the campaign to ban landmines is the fact that we achieved a treaty banning the use, production, trade, and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines. Another tremendous accomplishment is that we did it in record time. We did it outside of the normal diplomatic channels which made it possible. If it had been negotiated in Geneva in the CD, the Conference on Disarmament, we would not have the treaty we have today. That, all by itself, is a fabulous accomplishment. Another really important accomplishment of the campaign is the fact that we did it, in concert, if you will, with governments. Smaller and middle sized governments, you know, the middle powers, that want to do things differently in the post-Cold War period. We worked in open partnership with them and that's an unusual thing. And, those are both pretty fabulous.

INTERVIEWER: What do you think the greatest challenge is that you and your work faced in dealing the middle governments, in not following the __ parameters of negotiating a treaty?

WILLIAMS: Well, I'm asked that as much as I'm asked, you know, 'what were the disappointments in the campaign?' And, other people will answer this differently. For me, it happened so quickly. The momentum was so strong that disappointments really don't register for me. You know, others will say things like 'the US not signing.' Obviously, that's, you know, a low point, but I don't consider that a disappointment either.

The campaign moved so quickly, from the time we were, you know, formally launched in October of '92 until the treaty was signed in December of '97. That's five years. And, we accomplished the, you know, unachievable goal, the Utopian goal of banning the weapon. So, it's really hard for me to think about, you know, setbacks and disappointments and it was just an amazing process.

And, working with the smaller and middle sized powers was a positive experience because they were willing to step outside the diplomatic process. Canada, in particular, recognized that if we did it the way it has always been done, we would be recreating the CCW, the Convention on Conventional Weapons Negotiations, which resulted in nothing. And, it had to be done differently. And, the biggest risk was governments being willing to work openly with us and allow us inside the negotiations and, for us, you know how NGO's, non-governmental organizations, tend to be. They didn't want, a lot of our colleagues were not comfortable working openly with governments. They felt we were, you know, caving in, if you will.

INTERVIEWER: What's been the impact of the Nobel Peace Prize on the International Campaign to Ban Landmines?

WILLIAMS: There's several different ways to look at it. The announcement of the prize was made on the tenth of October in '97, which was shortly after we successfully completed the negotiations of the treaty itself in Oslo. At the negotiations, there were ninety countries participating, and it was a three-way process of negotiations and, at the end, many of them gave their closing statements, which can be pontificating, but some of them can be good. And, in the process, there were quite a few countries that waffled, and we were not sure that we would get them all at the signing. And, we were, you know, beginning to wonder and kind of bet amongst ourselves as to how many would show up to sign the treaty. And, we felt we'd be quote, unquote, successful if we got all ninety. And, instead, we had a hundred and thirty-three. No, excuse me. I'm wrong. We now have a hundred and thirty-three. One hundred twenty-two, I think, actually signed in Canada, and we're convinced that it was the prestige and the impact of the Nobel Peace Prize that made many governments rethink their position.

And, I can give you a concrete example, which was Japan. Foreign Minister Obuchi said very clearly that, because of the peace prize, he was going to re-think the contradictions in Japanese policy, contradictions being that they give a lot for aid for mine victims in clearance. At the same time, they weren't going to sign the treaty. And, he ended up signing. And, they've already ratified. So, it's had a huge impact in that, just that sense.

It also gives us access. When we travel now, we meet with the foreign minister or the president. Before, we used to meet with second secretary twice removed on my ex-cousin. You know, that kind of thing. And, now, people want to meet with us. So, it's helped a lot.

INTERVIEWER: What has the impact been on the US campaign?

WILLIAMS: The US campaign has been, quite frankly, in a bit of disarray.

SAPIENZA: Could you start over -- the US campaign to ban --

WILLIAMS: As if we would be talking about a different US campaign -- the US campaign for Al Gore. I'm sorry. The US campaign to ban landmines has been, in the view of many in the international campaign, a little bit in disarray for a while. I'm not quite sure why, but there has been about a year or so that the US campaign has been rather quiet. And, uh, it seems to be now in the process of re-invigorating itself and ready to move forward and get grassroots pressure on the government to actually do the right thing.

INTERVIEWER: How do you then keep the issue fresh? I mean, you've accomplished so much. How do you keep the momentum going, getting average citizens involved or interested in the landmines issues?

WILLIAMS: Success breeds success. People want to be involved with things that are successful, that are moving forward. One of the ways the campaign has been able to maintain its momentum is because we always have strategies, plans of action, concrete things that both individuals and national campaigns can do. I believe that human beings tend -- you know the lemming factor, move forward because everybody moves forward? If you tell the campaigns what the next steps they should consider for their national work are, then they tend to do them. And, that's been part of the success of the campaign.

Every time we have a conference, it is not talking heads. It is, okay, we're having a regional conference in Beirut. What do we do to help increase, you know, awareness in the Middle East? What do we do to get the countries on board? We're very weak in the Middle East. I'll be going to Beirut -- this probably won't show up -- I'll be going to Beirut on Saturday, but, I mean, we will come out of it with a strategy for the region, not just, oh, gee, there are minds in the world, oh, gee, there are victims. That's been he way we've been able to keep up the momentum.

Sometimes I think the landmine campaign is being held to a higher standard. Because we've accomplished so much in such a short period of time, the questions that we get from journalists frequently -- I just did an interview with Newsweek the other day. And, it was a little bit of an antagonistic interview. Can you, you know, where do you go from here? Does anyone care about this issue anymore? How come there aren't more ratifications? Excuse me, we have a hundred and thirty-three countries on board. Sixty-four have ratified already. Within one year. It's becoming binding international law more quickly than any treaty in history.

The state's parties chose to meet two months after it becomes law. They didn't have to do that. Under the terms of the mine ban treaty, states had to meet within a year in order to assess where the treaty stands at the moment. They could have put it off for an entire year. They decided to do it immediately because momentum's there, because they want to keep the pressure up. I don't know what standard we're being measured against, but it's quite peculiar to me.

INTERVIEWER: When you said there are programs of action that there are plans, what are some of the things that you are encouraging national campaigns, grassroots, and individuals who want to get involved, what can they do?

WILLIAMS: Crown me queen. That's not --

INTERVIEWER: I want that in the tape.

WILLIAMS: Don't you dare. That was a joke. You see, queen is my family nickname since I was little. We lost Princess Di. You know what I'm saying?

INTERVIEWER: Queen Jody.

SAPIENZA: You might have to take out Queen Noor.

WILLIAMS: Queen Noor is cool. She's really good, actually. She's very political, unlike the princess. What did you ask me?

INTERVIEWER: I said what kinds of things are you encouraging grassroots organizations to do national campaigns and individuals who want to get involved who say they there's a lot of issues out there, but I want to do something on landmines.

WILLIAMS: Well, on national campaigns, it's easy, because they're part of the campaign. We are now obviously in the ratification, universalization, implementation phase of the ban movement, meaning if your country has signed, make sure they've ratified. If they've ratified, what is the national legislation? What is included? What are their plans for destruction of stockpiles, for example? How much money are they going to be contributing so that other countries can de-mine and for victim assistance?

The Campaign has launched a new initiative called the Landmine Monitor, which is another innovative and exciting element of the campaign. Through which civil society will be actively involved, for the first time, in monitoring compliance of the treaty. We'll be producing a report to be handed out to governments at the first meeting of states' parties. So, campaigners are being asked to collect information, data to be put in the report.

Individuals can do the same, obviously, on an individual level. In the United States, write to the President. Press your congressional representatives to do the right thing. You can also, in our country, I often ask that we send letters to the Joint Chiefs. You know, they tend to be sort of isolated from public sentiment. They think they stand outside, in my view, not the law -- that's a little harsh, although I feel harsh toward them, frequently. But, they don't seem to believe that, you know, civil society has any right or interest in talking to them or they have any interest in responding. That they're somehow isolated because they have -- you know, they're the men that have to defend the country.

I think civil society should write to them, you know. Ask them what's their issue. If all of our NATO allies except Turkey can give up this weapon and we have the most advanced Army in the world, why can't we? That's absurd. And, that's something that we're trying to push here in the US.

INTERVIEWER: What do you hope will be accomplished in the next year? I mean, everything's moving so quickly. I mean, we can talk about this is a short-term goal. What do you hope to see in the next year?

WILLIAMS: I would like to see every country that has signed already ratify. If we got almost half in the first year, we could certainly do as well in the second year. We were talking recently about the next five years, because, in five years will be the first review conference of the mine ban treaty, even though countries meet every year until that review conference, they're meeting just to assess where things stand at the moment, how can we keep the momentum up. At the review conference, there's the possibility for, you know, amendments, etc., etc.

Many of us believe that, by the first review conference, this will be a firmly established norm. A firmly established international law, that we will be approaching universalization, meaning every government will be on board. That there will be sustained money for mine clearance and victim assistance. I think that's a doable, given how much we've accomplished in the first five, six years. Also, the campaign was not established to exist forever. The campaign wants to go out of business. I mean, that's the goal. It's not to be around pontificating about how great we were. It's to get the job done and move on to other things. There are lots of things in the world to deal with.

INTERVIEWER: That's what my next question is. What are you doing now? I know that --

WILLIAMS: I vacuum really, really, really good. I do -- it's like a family obsession. My sisters and I vacuum. Really.

INTERVIEWER: Come over and vacuum anytime.

WILLIAMS: I was just chatting with my sister, Mary Beth, yesterday, because we're both a little confused about the meaning of life and what we want to do next. She's the one stuck in my house in the ice storm. She's a nurse. She doesn't want a new job. They moved, you see. And, she said, every time she thinks about having to go get a, you know, interview for a job, she notices dust and dust bunnies, and she vacuums. I feel the same lately. Every time I'm supposed to write a letter or do something, I see dog hair and I vacuum. What am I going to do next?

INTERVIEWER: I mean, your role, you're not the campaign, you know, it's what are you, ambassador at large or some such?

WILLIAMS: Isn't that the queerest title? I actually get letters addressed to Ambassador Williams. I try not to laugh.

INTERVIEWER: Okay what are you doing now? Instead of what are you doing next, what are you doing now? I mean, you're going --

WILLIAMS: You know, since I was a child, I wondered about the meaning of life. I'm completely serious. What's it all about, Alfie? I'm serious. I'm actually really going through this stuff right now. What's my next issue. I've done landmines. Is it going to be, no kidding. I'm serious, actually. What do I do now?

INTERVIEWER: I mean, what, obviously, you're not, well, you are on the ground, but you're doing different things than you were doing. You're not trying to get a landmines treaty passed, there is one. What is your work consist on, what are you focusing on?

WILLIAMS: My work in really ways isn't that different. I mean, the part that is different is I don't do the day to day coordinating. Thank you, God. They hired three people to replace me, which is fabulous. I don't want to, I'm burned out on that part. But, I was a public spokesperson, especially in the last couple of years during the very difficult year of pushing the Ottawa process forward toward the negotiations. I pressed governments then. That's what I still do now. Unfortunately, because I am the most visible person for the campaign, the requirements to go out, you know, sully forth and pontificate, are greater than they were before. And, that's a little daunting sometimes.

INTERVIEWER: One just quick question -- what, and I know that there are differing views on this. I really just want Jody Williams's. What do you think, what kind of relationship is necessary to have with the US government? Do we need to be pushing the US government to change its position, or do we need --

WILLIAMS: The United States government needs to be pressed to sign the treaty, obviously. I mean, one of the goals of the campaign is universalization. That means everybody. That means the United States as well. The difference I think is that, during the two years between the Ottawa challenge by Lloyd Axworthy of Canada, when he challenged the world to negotiate the ban treaty in one year, and now. Many of us believed that, quote, unquote, the most important countries in the world were not the United States, Russia, China - you know, the big three of the Cold War period. The most important countries were Bosnia, Croatia, Angola, which is a serious problem, Cambodia, Afghanistan. Countries that are already living with contamination. Countries where, they might go, sink into war, again, as Angola has. We want those countries to sign and destroy their stocks first.

There's not a lot of fear that the United States is going to mine Massachusetts Avenue. You know. We do want them on board. The early debate, after the Axworthy challenge, was, yeah, we really want the US on board because, in the belief that they would bring many with them. Well, they didn't come on board, but we got many anyway. So, there relative importance to declined tremendously. It doesn't mean they shouldn't come on board. It doesn't mean we don't want them to come on board. But, you know, I'm still, I'd rather see a Ukraine sign the treaty. They have ten million mines in stockpile. You want them to sign, destroy their stocks because, you know how the Soviet states are. They're in economic chaos. I'd rather they be destroyed before they sell them. The US probably isn't going to run around and sell its landmines. So, it's a, you know, points of debate within the campaign.

SAPIENZA: Ken Rutherford did a good job of bringing into focus the impact of landmines on Americans. And, that, I'm just curious. After the ban, how has he ban affected the lives of people who live in these contaminated areas? Outside of the US, people may not understand what it's done. Could you elaborate on that?

WILLIAMS: You asked me earlier about the impact of the campaign, it's greatest successes. And, I gave the obvious answer, being the treaty itself, how many countries have signed. The campaign, though, has achieved much more than that and it's sort of the side benefits that aren't so obvious to the uninitiated and those living in minefields probably would not consider this to be a side benefit, but the US military, for example, notes that there has been no significant trafficking of landmines in the last four and a half years now. That's a huge accomplishment. That means that even countries like China, Russia, that haven't signed, are not exporting landmines. That obviously is going to have a huge impact on the ground because there will be less landmines put in the ground.

None of us were Polyanna-ish and none of us were so stupid that we would pretend that the minute you have a treaty, every mine victim's life in the world is going to be better, or the minute you have a treaty, every single landmine is going to disappear from the ground. But, the treaty provides the framework for all of that to happen. Without the treaty banning use, production, trade, you would continue to have the use, production, and trade. You would continue to have mines put in the ground and you would never have the possibility of cleaning up the mess.

But, we already have, as I said, you know, essentially a global moratorium on trade, which is a tremendous, tremendous plus. Ten million mines have already been destroyed in stocks. That means ten million mines that are not in the ground to cause new victims. I'd like to call that preventative mine action. The Ukraine actually is on the verge of signing the treaty. That will be ten million landmines in the Ukraine alone destroyed before they get in the ground. These are tremendous advances.

INTERVIEWER: When you see Angola going back to war, I mean, how, what do you feel like needs to be done today? What can we do today to protect the innocent civilizations who are in the fields that are now again at risk?

WILLIAMS: Well, this is, the problem of Angola going -- I should probably take my finger out of my ear. I'll do that again. Sorry. The problem of Angola going back to war is clear. They are already using landmines again on both sides. The Angolan government in Unida. What needs to happen is the firm establishment of this new international norm, this new international law. The Mine Ban Treaty. It's young. It's vulnerable. We need to make sure that everybody does sign it, everybody does ratify. That stockpiles around the world are destroyed so that when an Angola goes back to war, there are not the mines available to use. It's not going to change completely overnight. That's one of the criticism that, you know, we get a lot. Oh, you know, what does it mean? Look at Angola. Laws are broken everywhere in the world. But, you don't not have laws because you know somebody might break them. And, this is a brand new law. It's going to take time to be firmly established. But, it's a process.

INTERVIEWER: So, the destruction of surplus stocks everywhere is really the first priority?

WILLIAMS: Is critical.

INTERVIEWER: What would you say is the first priority, you know, in a country, in these middle countries, these non, they're not producing countries?

WILLIAMS: Well, I certainly believe that preventative mine action is critical. If you destroy the mine in the stockpile, it will cost you a dollar to destroy the mine. Once it gets in the ground it's, you know, hundreds to remove it, and, hopefully, it isn't removed by somebody stepping on it. So, it's certainly cost effective to do preventative mine action.

INTERVIEWER: That was a good ___ clip right there.

SAPIENZA: What, I'm just curious, with all the attention, I didn't go to Ottawa, but I saw the videotape and --

WILLIAMS: Ottawa, the signing of the treaty?

SAPIENZA: Yeah, and we had cameras there.

WILLIAMS: It was wonderful.

SAPIENZA: It seems that there's also been a lot of upstart businesses that are companies looking at ways of de-mining and doing these sorts of things. Could you just sort of talk to that and how the ban has affected getting de-mining, and the other thing, such as finding, helping people get prosthetics for their bodies and that sort of stuff, how has that also been ____ by the ban, all the attention, maybe, that it brought?

INTERVIEWER: You mean, like more research dollars going into --

SAPIENZA: Yeah, that, and, is it really happening? I mean, you see a lot of these elaborate machines, you see a lot of displays here and there, but is that trickling down at all to the people on the ground?

WILLIAMS: We're often asked about the impact of the ban treaty on new technologies for mine clearance on the, you know, impact of prosthetic care for victims. I, it's a very controversial side of the issue, quite frankly. The mine clearance side has always been an area of contention. De-mining NGO's, non-governmental organizations, believe that only non-governmental organizations should be involved in de-mining. Commercial companies believe that they have every right to participate, as well. And, some in the de-mining world believe that all money in the world should only to de-mining and this political ban is absurd. I don't think that that debate has diminished all that much. I don't think it ever will.

But, what has happened is an increase in resources for mine clearance technology, which is, again, another controversial area. Because de-miners in the field want hand-held equipment that can tell them the difference between a mine and a piece of shrapnel. A mine detector picks up the sound of metal. It cannot tell the difference between the metal of a landmine and the metal of a bullet casing, for example, or the metal of a piece of shrapnel, or the metal of a soda can. So, every single time that mine detector beeps, the mine clearance man has to get down on his hand and knees and prod the ground to see if it's a soda can or a bullet casing or a mine.

What they keep saying would be the best thing for them in the field would be a piece of hand-held equipment that doesn't cost a lot of money that won't break down in the field that can tell the difference between a bullet and a mine. But, what you see is sort of the Beltway Bandit types wanting R&D money for elaborate helicopter born, ground penetrating radar that, you know, people in Afghanistan say, you know, we're never going to be able to afford that and we're still going to have to take the mines out of the ground. So, give us the equipment we ask for. And, that's a bit of an area of contention for sure. So, we're trying to pressure governments to give the overwhelming majority to the appropriate technology. Sure, you can do other kinds of R&D. You can't stop R&D. But, it should at least address the issues of the de-miners themselves in the field.

Prosthetics, that has also been a contentious area. There are people who believe that it should be, prostheses should be made entirely from materials found in the country in question. Others believe they should be high tech. But, I think there's been quite a bit of movement and standardization now among handicapped international Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, the International Committee of the Red Cross looking at similar interchangeable technologies because they're all working toward the same goal, and it certainly helps if you coordinate.