3MSP Daily Update 2

(Wednesday 19 September 2001 Managua - Nicaragua) Second day of Third Meeting of States Parties

Note: the URL for the webcast has changed and is now: http://trepco.cancilleria.gob.ni/audio_video.htm

1. General exchange of views

Many governments took the floor to make general comments, including:

• Mexico
• Czech Republic –spoke about the completion of their stock destruction
• Malaysia
• Slovakia
• South Africa –made a strong statement on compliance
• Ecuador – confirmed the completion of their stock destruction
• Philippines – stated that they have submitted an updated and completed Article 7 report
• Guatemala
• New Zealand
• Honduras
• Argentina – said that they are reviewing the number of mines retained for training and development purposes
• Bosnia Herzegovina – spoke about an increase of mine incidents and mine victims because of returning internally displaced people
• Romania
• Holy See
• Chad
• Colombia – spoke about non-state actors laying of mines
• Albania
• Ethiopia – said that despite not having ratified the treaty they have been “practically implementing the provisions and objectives of the treaty, by clearing, not transferring and not planting landmines”. They spoke about the importance of a regional approach with regards adherence to the treaty, concluding that Ethiopia “will stand ready to ratify the Treaty when those states in question in our sub region are willing to adhere to the international legal norms that ban the use of anti-personnel landmines”.
• Sudan – denied they had used mines recently but spoke of continued use by the SPLA. They gave reasons for the delay in ratifying the treaty, including the ongoing war in Sudan, but said, “from our very limited resources we have already started implementing the agreement”.
• Poland
• Chile
• Belarus
• Yugoslavia – spoke of their intention to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty
• Indonesia – said that the treaty is being considered in parliament
• Turkey – re-stated their intention to submit accession documents in the near future. They also outlined plans “towards an eventual mine ban, to be achieved in stages”, including making contacts with neighbouring countries to keep joint borders clear of APMs and concluding bilateral agreements with Bulgaria and Greece on this matter. Similar arrangements are proposed with Greece and Azerbaijan. The Mine Ban Treaty has been translated into Turkish ready for submission to the Turkish National Assembly.
• Congo (Brazzaville) – disputed the figure given in Landmine Monitor report 2001 for their stockpiled APMs
• Bulgaria – informed the meeting of the completion of their stockpile destruction
• Panama
• Bolivia
• Yemen
• Malta
• Cambodia
• Laos
• Venezuela
• Cameroon – said they have already submitted their ratification document in June (though it has still not been received!)
• Uganda – were given a right of reply (under rule 28 of the treaty) and responded to the ICBL’s allegations about mine use in the DRC. They said that they had not laid mines but accused Rwanda of laying mines in positions, which had previously been occupied by Ugandan troops before they withdrew. They stated their support for the ICBL’s recommendation that they conduct an investigation into the allegation.

Stephen Goose delivered the ICBL’s statement to the Third Meeting of States Parties. He began the statement by noting that “ICBL members come to this meeting with heavy hearts in the wake of last week’s tragic events...We believe that it is important that we all – NGOs, governments and international organizations – collectively demonstrate our resolve to continue our fight against what we have long called a weapon of terror, the antipersonnel landmine.”

Goose went on to speak about a number of issues, including three concerns about State Party compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty: firstly, “Landmine Monitor has received reports that indicate a strong possibility of use of antipersonnel mines by Uganda...in the Democratic Republic of Congo in June 2001...A second matter of great concern regarding compliance involves Tajikistan, a State Party since April 2000...A third compliance concern is Article 7 reporting. As of 1 August, a total of 37 States Parties were late in submitting their initial Article 7 transparency measures reports.”

In conclusion Goose noted “the ICBL challenges both itself and our partners in the ban effort to devote the necessary energy and resources to meet the ambitious goals of the 2004 action plan, and to act with creativity and dedication to the humanitarian imperative that gave birth to the Mine Ban Treaty”.

The general exchange of views ran overtime so the session on treaty status and operation was postponed until Thursday 20 September.

2. Informal bilateral

Outside of the formal gathering, there were a number of informal meetings between ICBL delegations and government delegations, including with:

• Australia
• Belgium
• Croatia
• Finland
• Greece
• Turkey
• Yemen

There were also a number of informal campaign meetings such as a meeting of campaigners working on the CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting), the Francophonie Summit in Beirut, Asia-Pacific campaigners meeting, Americas researchers and campaigners meeting, etc. The Universalization Contact Group also met.