| <Previous | Next> |
| <Previous | Next> |
Key developments since May 2000: Finland has reaffirmed its goal of acceding to the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006, despite attempts by the Ministry of Defense to put back the timetable. In 2000, Finland provided about US$4 million to mine action, a reduction from the previous year.
Finland remains the only country in the European Union that has not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. The long-stated goal of joining the treaty by 2006[1] was reconfirmed in December 2000,[2] and more detail given:
“Finland is committed to the objective of an effective global ban on antipersonnel landmines.... [It is still] striving for the goal that Finland would be able to join the Ottawa Convention banning APLs in the year 2006 and replace APLs with alternative means by the end of the year 2010. Solutions on a replacement programme for readiness brigades are to be considered by the year 2001 and for the whole defence system in the context of a possible new defense review by the year 2005....”[3]
In January 2001, the Minister of Defense suggested that Finland should take “a time-out on the APM ban question” because he thought that Finland could not afford to replace the banned mines before 2010. He suggested that in 2006 Finland would only give declaration in principle “of its intention to get rid of mines in the future,” but not do so until 2010.[4] However, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the President reacted negatively to this suggestion and declared that Finland has already made commitments on when it will join the Mine Ban Treaty, commitments which should be adhered to.[5]
The government presented its report on foreign and security policy to Parliament on 13 June 2001, but this will not be discussed in Parliament until September 2001. Regarding antipersonnel mines, the report re-states the previous position, that “Finland is supporting an internationally effective world wide ban on antipersonnel mines and is participating in the EU joint work to fulfil the Ottawa Treaty’s goals world-wide.... Finland has stayed outside the ban because it has not for the moment the economic and technological means to bind itself to the obligations to destroy its existing antipersonnel landmines and to replace them with other military means. Giving up anti-personnel landmines without replacing them with something else would clearly weaken the Finnish defence capacity.”[6]
Finland attended as an observer the Second Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in September 2000. It also attended the intersessional Standing Committee meetings in December 2000 and May 2001. In November 2000, at the United Nations General Assembly, Finland voted in favor of Resolution 55/33V, which calls for universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. In March 2001, Finland attended the technical expert meeting hosted by the International Committee of the Red Cross to consider antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes or antihandling devices. A representative of the Finnish Ministry of Defense attended a seminar, “Understanding the Ottawa Convention,” in Warsaw on 18-19 June 2001, and repeated the timetable summarized above.[7]
Finland is party to Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). It participated in the Second Annual Conference of States Parties to the protocol in December 2000, where it co-sponsored a proposal by the Netherlands that discussions be held with a view to amending the CCW to deal with “explosive remnants of war.” Finland submitted its annual report under Article 13 of the CCW Amended Protocol II.
Finland supports negotiation of a transfer ban on antipersonnel mines in the Conference on Disarmament, “which would complement efforts to achieve elimination of antipersonnel landmines worldwide.”[8]
After years of relative silence on the mine issue, public interest was activated in early 2001 by the government’s ongoing review of its security and defense policy. The Finnish Campaign to Ban Landmines continues to urge the government to make the decision in 2001 to join the Mine Ban Treaty immediately, and opposes leaving this to the future. Some political parties have made statements supporting a faster timetable. But, according to the Campaign, many in government and in Parliament believe that compensation for the replacement of antipersonnel mines is needed, and the question remains whether there is sufficient support for a ban if this also means a big increase in the defense budget. Antipersonnel mines have become a symbol of the old kind of “people’s army” and their replacement is seen as the development of a more technical army that many oppose (including those supporting humanitarian values who would otherwise be in favor of a mine ban).[9] An opinion poll published in July 2001 indicated that 55% supported joining the Mine Ban Treaty, 36% were opposed, and 9% did not answer. In all political parties, a majority supported joining the treaty.[10]
The government’s June 2001 report to Parliament on Finland’s foreign and security policy reiterates that “Finland does not produce nor does it export any antipersonnel landmines. In peacetime Finnish antipersonnel landmines are in storage and are not planned to be used in any other circumstances than in threat of war.”[11] Finland’s Amended Protocol II Article 13 report states, “Finland has no antipersonnel mine production and neither antipersonnel mine export nor import.” It also states that “AP mines M/57 and 61 have been destroyed. Hollow charges M/76 [antitank mines] have been modified.”[12] Finland will not reveal other details about its stockpile of antipersonnel mines. There continues to be doubt about the claim that stocks number less than one million. See Landmine Monitor Report 1999 and 2000 for details about past production, transfer and stockpiling.[13]
The government has handed over future work on the need to replace antipersonnel mines to the Ministry of Defense, which has a technical working group on the issue, and to which a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be invited. In 2003, the working group is due to submit a report to the government on possible replacement for antipersonnel mines, and the issue will be reconsidered in the defense review scheduled for 2004. The goal remains, as before, that “Finland could join the Treaty by 2006 and destroy its antipersonnel landmines by 2010.”[14] A press report in February 2001 said replacing Finland’s antipersonnel mines would cost FiM 4-5 billion (US$600-US$750 million).[15]
In the period 1998-2001, Finland allocated from its humanitarian aid budget FiM120 million (US$18 million) for mine action.[16] Taken together with funding from previous years, Finland’s contribution to mine action from 1991 to 2001 has been FiM147 million (US$21.6 million). Financial contributions made in 2000, for projects in that year unless otherwise stated, totalled US$4,029,600 and included:[17]
clearance;
FiM1.2 million (US$195,000) to the Lutheran World Federation and Mines Advisory Group for mine clearance;
FiM900,000 (US$147,000) to Handicap International for a mine incident database;
FiM656,000 (US$92,000) to the Finnish Red Cross and International Committee of the Red Cross for mine awareness.
International Affairs for mine research and awareness.
Demining Assistance Mission for a training expert.
FiM 615,000 (US$100,000) for a Level 1 survey (location not
reported).
The total of US$4 million in 2000 for mine action represents a continuing decline from US$6.6 million in 1998 and US$5 million in 1999. As of April 2001, the Foreign Ministry had reported nearly US$2 million in mine action funding for 2001.
Contributions to Mine Action in 2001[18]
|
Country/Organization |
Implementing Agency |
Amount (FiM) |
|---|---|---|
|
Afghanistan |
UNOCHA |
3 million (US$441,176) |
|
Cambodia |
HALO |
4 million (US$588,235) |
|
Finn Church Aid |
1.2 million (US$176,471) |
|
|
Handicap International |
500,000 (US$73,529) |
|
|
Finnish Red Cross/CRC |
570,000 (US$83,824) |
|
|
Mozambique |
UNDP/ADP de-mining |
2 million (US$294,118) |
|
UNMAS |
2 million (US$294,118) |
|
|
Total: |
13,270,000 (US$1,951,471) |
|
| <Previous | Next> |
[1] For details of the Finnish position, see Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 812-815.
[2] Letter from Minister of Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja to ICBL, 18 December 2000.
[3] Report of the Permanent Mission of Finland to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 19 December 2000, p. 2.
[4] “Enestam suggests: We can’t afford to get rid of APMs in the promised time schedule,” Helsingin Sanomat (daily newspaper), 15 January 2001; “Enestam wants to delay the mine decision,” Hufvudstadsbladet (daily Swedish language newspaper), 15 January 2001.
[5] “Tuomioja do not accept delays in the timetable to get rid of mines,” Kansan Uutiset (Finnish daily newspaper), “Tuomioja stays behind the mine decision,” Hufvudstadsbladet (daily Swedish-language newspaper), both referring to reports written by STT, the national news agency, 25 January 2001. Kirsi Törmänen, “Ottawa treaty is dividing also the parliaments defense committee,” Uutispäivä Demari (Finnish daily newspaper), 8 February 2001.
[6] “Finland’s Foreign and Security Policy 2001, Government Report to Parliament of 13 June 2001” (“Suomen ja turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka 2001, Valtioneuvoston selonteko eduskunnalle 13.6.2001”).
[7] Interview with Col. Yrjo Kukko, Finnish Ministry of Defense, Warsaw, 18 June 2001.
[8] Report to the OSCE, 19 December 2000, p. 3.
[9] Laura Lodenius, Helsinki, 2 March 2001.
[10] Suomen Tietotoimisto (STT) national news agency, 2 July 2001.
[11] “Finland’s Foreign and Security Policy 2001, Government Report to Parliament of 13 June 2001” (“Suomen ja turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka 2001, Valtioneuvoston selonteko eduskunnalle 13.6.2001”).
[12] CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 report, submitted 4 December 2000, Form C.
[13] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 816-818 and Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 786-787.
[14] “Finland’s Foreign and Security Policy 2001, Government Report to Parliament of 13 June 2001” (“Suomen ja turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka 2001, Valtioneuvoston selonteko eduskunnalle 13.6.2001”).
[15] Olli Kivinen, “Playing Games with Defense,” Helsingin Sanomat, 15 February 2001.
[16] Information supplied by Olli Sotamaa, Humanitarian Aid Unit Statistics, Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 April 2001. An exchange rate of $1 to 6.6844 Finnish marks is used.
[17] Article 13 report, submitted 4 December 2000, Form B, and UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) Mine Investments Database, accessed on 22 June 2001. Dollar amounts are from the UNMAS Mine Investments Database, FiM amounts from the Article 13 report, which omits the contribution for Mozambique.
[18] Information supplied by Olli Sotamaa, Humanitarian Aid Unit, Development Cooperation Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 April 2001; exchange rate used: US$1 = FiM6.8.
