| <Previous | Next> |
<Previous | Next>
|
Key developments since May 2000: France has continued to promote universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, with a special focus on compliance issues. In February 2001, France organized jointly with Canada and Mali a Pan-African seminar in Bamako. In 2000, the total French contribution to mine action programs was about US$6.77 million, an increase from the previous year.
France signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997, ratified it on 23 July 1998, and became a State Party on 1 March 1999. National legislation was enacted on 8 July 1998, and stockpile destruction was completed in December 1999. Since then, France has concentrated its efforts on encouraging States that are not yet party to the Mine Ban Treaty to accede or ratify as soon as possible.
The Commission Nationale pour l’Elimination des Mines Anti-personnel (CNEMA, the National Commission for the Elimination of Antipersonnel Mines) was mandated by national legislation[1] to ensure full implementation of the treaty, including assistance to mine action projects and mine victims in other countries. The CNEMA annual report for 1999, presented to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin in July 2000, reported on French implementation measures and recommended the following:[2]
The Second Meeting of States Parties in Geneva in September 2000 was attended by a large French delegation led by Samuel le Caruyer de Beauvais, Ambassador for Mine Action. France attended the intersessional Standing Committee meetings in December 2000 and May 2001. At these Standing Committee meetings France made proposals for the promotion of the Mine Ban Treaty’s compliance and verification measures (Article 8). Brigitte Stern, CNEMA’s President, stated in May 2001, “Each and every state is responsible to request clarifications when some questions are raised relating to compliance by a member State.” She added, “In order to reconcile the spirit of cooperation of Article 8 and the goal of Article 8, the very best solution is to have States perform their duty to ask for clarification collectively. And of course, rather than creating a new body for the State to act in coordination to implement Article 8, the CNEMA would support the use of the [intersessional] coordinating body.”[3]
To encourage increased participation from States in the intersessional work program, France has requested translation of the Standing Committee meetings into French, with costs to be borne by the international Francophonie organization.[4]
France has submitted three transparency reports in accordance with Mine Ban Treaty Article 7: on 26 August 1999, on 3 May 2000, and on 11 June 2001.[5]
France voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 55/33V, which calls for universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. In addition, on 28 November 2000, Ambassador de Beauvais introduced a draft resolution on behalf of the EU and associated States entitled “Assistance in Mine Action.” He noted that although each year many countries devoted substantial resources to mine action, the international effort was clearly not sufficient “to eliminate the unfortunately often irreversible effects of the use of a cowardly and cruel weapon. The focus today must be the responsibility of those who are still using such mines, which kill and mutilate every day. The international community must unremittingly urge them to stop using those arms and encourage them to become involved in mine action.... As a priority...the European Union is pushing for a comprehensive and speedy implementation of the Ottawa Convention.”[6] UNGA Resolution 55/120 was adopted by consensus on 14 December 2000.
France is a State Party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Amended Protocol II, and attended the Second Annual Conference of States Parties in December 2000. France said it was willing to discuss various proposals to amend Amended Protocol II and the CCW, especially regarding “credible and effective verification.”[7] France was among States opposed to the duplication of intersessional work already existing in the framework of the Mine Ban Treaty. France submitted its report in accordance with Article 13 of CCW Amended Protocol II on 11 December 2000. The report details relevant legislation and mine action assistance given from 1992-2000, and notes that the Engineering School in Angers has set up a database on antipersonnel mines.[8]
At the preparatory committee meeting in December 2000 for the CCW Review Conference, the French delegation, speaking on behalf of the EU, called for a rapid start to structured debate on proposals regarding the issue of explosive remnants of war, presented by the Netherlands and co-sponsored by many other countries, including France.
France continues to take initiatives to encourage universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Just before the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty on 1 March 2000, France announced its intention to organize, jointly with Canada and Mali, a Pan-African seminar in Bamako, Mali, to “promote universality and comprehensive implementation of the Ottawa Convention.”[9] The seminar took place on 15-16 February 2001, and France made a number of recommendations in its closing session:
The Ambassador for Mine Action added his personal conclusion that the Bamako seminar was remarkable for its pan-African spirit, noting that, “Almost all the African countries attended the seminar, including several of the minority of those who have not joined the Ottawa Process and never attended the Convention’s follow-up meetings.”[11] Handicap International (HI) welcomed the French support for the demining training center in Benin but regretted that it was addressed only to military personnel. On the other proposals, no concrete agreement has been reported but at the Standing Committee meeting on 11 May 2001 Ambassador de Beauvais reported that that there had been considerable interest in the training center and the CNEMA conference, not only from French-speaking countries.[12]
Other measures to promote the Mine Ban Treaty include a videocassette produced by the Ministry of Defense presenting its commitment to the Mine Ban Treaty. This was sent to parliamentarians, local councilors, international organizations, NGOs, foreign embassies in Paris, research centers, public resource centers and journalists. A short version was presented during the Second Meeting of States Parties in September 2000 and given to each delegation.[13]
In addition, a humanitarian demining training course has been created in the Engineering School in Angers, intended for both military personnel and civilians.[14]
Ambassador de Beauvais commented favorably on the Landmine Monitor Report 2000, noting that, “the objectivity and the precision of the content of the chapter for France shows how seriously it has been conducted and it had been appreciated by French authorities.”[15] The Mine Action Ambassador attended the Landmine Monitor researchers’ meeting held in Washington DC on 8-9 March 2001. France contributed FF300,000 (US$42,800) to the Landmine Monitor Report 2000.[16]
Questions remain about the fate of the antipersonnel mine production facilities of Giat Industries. The Mine Ban Treaty requires that production facilities be decommissioned or converted. Giat was for a long time identified as one of two major antipersonnel mine producers in France, but Giat surprisingly told Landmine Monitor last year that it had never produced antipersonnel mines and possessed no production facilities.[17] Yet, in March 2001, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that as far as it is aware Giat “does not deny” having produced mines before entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty.[18]
France completed the destruction of its antipersonnel mine stockpile on 20 December 1999, and included details in its second Article 7 report on 3 May 2000. A total of 4,514 mines were retained for training purposes, as permitted under the Mine Ban Treaty.[19] France has not included in its Article 7 reports an explanation of the specific purposes to which the mines will be used, an issue that gave rise to concern in the CNEMA report.[20] Ambassador de Beauvais, though, has indicated that the retained mines are at the disposal of the Delegation Générale pour l’Armement and the Section Technique de l’Armée de Terre for testing and demining procedures and protection of deminers. He stated that the number of antipersonnel mines retained in 2000 ranges from 4,361 to 4,539.[21]
Concerns were noted in Landmine Monitor Report 2000 about certain French antivehicle mines with antihandling devices that may function as antipersonnel mines or explode from the unintentional act of a person, and should therefore be considered banned.[22] The Ambassador for Mine Action has asserted that the antivehicle mines currently stockpiled by the Ministry of Defense are not covered by the Mine Ban Treaty, but do comply with the CCW Amended Protocol II.
With regard to the HPD F2 and MIAC Disp F1 antivehicle mines, he stated that the two mines are not made with devices specifically conceived as antilifting systems, and that military doctrine calls for their use only in high intensity conflicts against an armored enemy. Any attempt to remove the HPD F2 could not be considered an unintentional act as the mine is buried. He said the self-neutralization and self-deactivation functions of the HPD F2 and MIAC Disp F1 make them “among the safest mines currently in use” and “their technical characteristics ensure that they are not an obstacle to humanitarian demining operations after the end of hostilities.” Ambassador de Beauvais also said that France does not have in its stockpiles four antivehicle mines with low metal content: the KP 77, MACIPE, MIAC ID 51, and 1951/1953.[23]
After a technical analysis, Handicap International concluded that both the HPD F2 and MIAC Disp F1 mine can be dangerous during humanitarian demining operations.[24] HI is carrying out further investigations into both these mines. The next CNEMA report, which will be presented to the Prime Minister in October 2001, will provide more information regarding antivehicle mines stockpiled by the French Army.
France attended the International Committee of the Red Cross technical seminar held on 13-14 March 2001 in Geneva to consider the issue of antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes or with sensitive antihandling devices. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on General Operation and Status of the Mine Ban Treaty on 11 May 2001, France urged that antivehicle mines be dealt with by the CCW and not by the Mine Ban Treaty. The French representative described antivehicle mines as very different from antipersonnel mines, and said that legitimate humanitarian concerns could be answered if antivehicle mines were properly used, marked and later removed. He stated that only members of “hi-tech armies” had attended the ICRC seminar, and that other States Parties should now be involved, including “local specificities.”[25]
The CNEMA report mentions the possibility of French manufacturers licensing the production of mines prior to 1995, but the Mine Action Ambassador stated on 12 February 2001 that research by the Ministry of Defense indicated that no contract for licensed production of mines or mine components has been signed since 1975.[26]
Regarding the possibility of another State transferring antipersonnel mines through French territory, the Ministry of Defense has previously stated that transfer or transit operations for any other purpose than those authorized under Article 3 of the Mine Ban Treaty would be considered illicit.[27]
With respect to the possibility of joint military operations with States not yet members of the Mine Ban Treaty, the Minister of Defense had already declared in 1998 that France “would unreservedly enforce the Ottawa Treaty. France will prohibit the planned or actual use of antipersonnel mines in any military operation whatsoever by its military personnel. Furthermore, France will refuse to agree to rules of engagement in any military operation calling for the use of antipersonnel mines.”[28] In October 1999, the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to directives forbidding French military personnel to use antipersonnel mines, to participate in planning operations employing use of antipersonnel mines, or to give their agreement to any document mentioning possible use.[29]
In France’s second Article 7 report, it was noted that there is a suspected mined area in the military storage area of La Doudah, a French military zone on the territory of Djibouti.
French mine action policy is described as being in favor of reinforcing local and national capacities for action, and aimed at creating conditions for the return to normal economic and social life. Mine action is considered as an element of development and a means of reinforcing the sovereignty of the mine-affected countries.[30]
In 2000, the total French contribution to mine action programs was about FF47.5 million (US$6.77 million).[31] This included funding through the Fund for Aid for Cooperation (FAC), Title IV (via the UN Mine Action Service, UN Development Program and Slovenia International Trust Fund) and France’s contribution to European Union mine action. The EU contribution is estimated at FF39.4 million (US$5.6 million), including research and development.
This represents an increase on total funding in 1999, which has been re-estimated at about US$5.5 million.[32]
Bilateral Funding of mine action programs in 2000-2001[33]
|
Country
|
Amount in Francs
|
Beneficiary
|
Allocation
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Mozambique
|
5 million (US$713,367) 2000-2001
|
HI
|
Mine Clearance
|
|
Cambodia
|
5.3 million (US$756,063) 2000-2001
1.5 million (US$213,980) |
UNDP Trust Fund
HI |
Mine Clearance
Victim assistance |
Multilateral Funding of mine action programs in 2000-2001[34]
|
Country
|
Amount in Francs
|
Beneficiary
|
Allocation
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Nicaragua
|
500,000 (US$98,000)
|
OAS
|
Mine Clearance
|
|
South-Lebanon
|
900,000 (US$128,388)
|
UNMAS
|
Mine Clearance
|
|
Bosnia
|
600,000 (US$85,592)
|
ITF Slovenia
|
Mine Clearance
|
|
Cambodia
|
200,000 (US$28,530)
|
UNDP
|
Mine Detection
|
The Fund for Aid for Cooperation has a total of FF20 million (US$2.85 million) funding over three years, January 2000 - December 2002. As of May 2001, FF11.8 million (US$1.68 million) has been spent. FAC has allocated FF10 million (US$1.43 million) to demining, and FF1.8 million (US$256,776) to victim assistance and mine awareness.[35]
In March 2001, in a letter sent to French parliamentarians Handicap International criticized the reduction of the French contribution to mine action programs.[36] In 1999, the French contribution was equivalent to 35 centimes (5 US cents) per capita, placing France last among the seventeen main donor countries in per capita terms (and fourteenth in overall mine action funding). HI encouraged the government and parliamentarians to create a budget line devoted to mine action and victim assistance, replacing the FAC with more substantial and better targeted funding. Currently, a new general plan for mine action is being considered, with specific plans for certain countries.
Under FAC, mine action projects must be in a country that is either a signatory or State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty, with an exception for humanitarian considerations, and the beneficiary must be a priority in French foreign policy. At present, only Mozambique and Cambodia have received a contribution via this fund. In Mozambique, Handicap International will carry out demining in the north of Inhambane using a two-year grant of FF5 million (US$713,270). In Cambodia, the Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC) will be supported via the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Trust Fund with FF5.3 million (US$756,060) over two years in order to demine the Koh Ker and Preah Vihear temples. France will also help create “dialogue” structures and a center to assist disabled people, in collaboration with HI. This project amounts to FF1.5 million (US$213,980); the remaining FF300,000 of the total allocation to victim assistance and mine awareness has not yet been applied to a specific project.
Since 1993 France has contributed significant funds to R&D in mine clearance technologies, although, as the CNEMA has pointed out, these have few possible applications for humanitarian demining.[37] Research programs are mainly focused on mine-affected area identification, mine detection, mine neutralization, mine clearance, the development of multi-function demining systems and management in the framework of military operations.[38]
Survivor assistance has not previously been a priority, but in the framework of the CNEMA a working group on victims’ rights has been created, which includes the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The first meeting took place in March 2001.
Handicap International has continued its efforts to gain greater recognition of the rights of mine victims. In September 2000, HI organized the sixth shoe pyramid in 26 cities across France, and called on the government to promote the rights of mine victims as part of the full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. HI held a seminar on this issue in June 2000, and will hold another, “Towards the Development of the Rights of Landmine Victims,” in Lyon in July 2001.
| <Previous | Next> |
[1] Article 9, Law No. 98-564, 8 July 1998; see also Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 587-588.
[2] Commission nationale pour l’élimination des mines antipersonnel, Rapport 1999, (Paris: La Documentation française, 2000).
[3] Statement of Brigitte Stern to the Standing Committee on General Operation and Status of the Convention, Geneva, 11 May 2001.
[4] Letter from Ambassador de Beauvais to Philippe Chabasse, Director of Handicap International, 12 February 2001.
[5] Article 7 reports, submitted on 26 August 1999 for the period 1 March-31 July 1999; submitted on 3 May 2000 for 1 August 1999-31 March 2000; and submitted 11 June 2000 for 1 April.2000-1March 2001.
[6] “Despite ‘Real Victories’ in Landmine Action, Assembly Acknowledges Magnitude of Remaining Challenges,” UN press release GA/9833, 28 November 2000.
[7] Landmine Monitor Regional Coordinator notes, Second Annual Conference of States Parties to CCW Amended Protocol II, Geneva, 11-14 December 2000.
[8] Ecole supérieure et d’application du Génie d’Angers. CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 report, 11 December 2000.
[9] Fax from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Handicap International, 25 February 2000.
[10] Handicap International notes, Bamako, Mali, 15-16 February 2001.
[11] Operational Conclusions released by the Malian Delegation, Bamako, Mali, 15-16 February 2001.
[12] Statement of Ambassador de Beauvais at the Standing Committee on General Operation and Status of the Convention, Geneva, 11 May 2001.
[13] Letter from Ambassador de Beauvais, 12 February 2001.
[14] Statement of Ambassador de Beauvais at the Standing Committee on General Operation and Status of the Convention, Geneva, 11 May 2001.
[15] Letter from Ambassador de Beauvais, 12 February 2001.
[16] Exchange rate on 2 March 2001, used throughout this report: FF7.01 = US$1.
[17] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 636.
[18] Email from Mikaël Griffon, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 March 2001.
[19] Article 7 report, submitted 3 May 2000, for the period 1 August 1999-31 March 2000.
[20] Commission nationale pour l’élimination des mines antipersonnel, Rapport 1999, (Paris: La Documentation française, 2000).
[21] Letter from Ambassador de Beauvais, 12 February 2001.
[22] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 636-638.
[23] Letter from Ambassador de Beauvais, 12 February 2001. “Les mines HPD F2 et MIAC Disp F1 détenues par les armées françaises n’entrent pas dans le champ d’application de la Convention d'interdiction des mines antipersonnel. Ces mines ne sont, d’autre part, pas munies de dispositifs spécifiquement conçus en qualité de système anti-relevage. La doctrine d’emploi de ces armes ne prévoit leur utilisation planifiée que dans le cadre d’un combat de haute intensité contre un ennemi blindé identifié (chars, véhicules de combat d’infanterie)... Mine HPD F2 : mise en place selon une procédure qui permet un relevé très précis du plan de pose, la mine HPD F2 s’autoneutralise à la fin de sa durée de programmation. Le pourcentage d’échec de ce système est inférieur ou égal à 2 x 10-8 à la fin de la durée de vie de la mine. Compte tenu de son mode de pose (enterrée) toute action visant à la sortir de terre pendant son temps d'activité (période incluse dans la durée des hostilités) doit être considérée comme un acte hostile et ne peut être assimilée à un acte fortuit. Leur mode d’autoneutralisation ou d’autodestruction... démontre que la mine HPD F2 et la MIAC Disp F1 font partie des mines les plus sûres actuellement en activité. Leurs caractéristiques techniques font qu’elles ne sont pas un obstable aux opérations de déminage humanitaire entreprises à la fin des hostilités.”
[24] Email from Marcel Quirion, Demining Technical Advisor, Handicap International, 20 April 2001.
[25] Statement of the French Delegation to the Standing Committee on General Operation and Status of the Convention, Geneva, 11 May 2001.
[26] Letter from Ambassador de Beauvais, 12 February 2001.
[27] Letter from Christian Lechervy, Ministry of Defense, 15 May 2000.
[28] Extract from speech by Minister of Defense, Parliamentary Debate, Official Journal of the French Republic, unabridged report of Parliamentary sessions of Thursday, 25 June 1998, pp. 5402-5403.
[29] Letter to ICBL from Hubert Védrine, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 15 October 1999
[30] Email from Mikaël Griffon, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 March 2001.
[31] Letter from Ambassador M. De Beauvais, 12 February 2001. In some cases, project totals were only given for the two year period 2000-2001. In these instances, Landmine Monitor allocated half the funds to each year.
[32] The increased re-estimation is due to new, larger figures for EU mine action funding in 2000, and hence a larger contribution from France (which provides 17.2% of EU funding).
[33] Letter from Ambassador M. De Beauvais, 12 February 2001.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Letter sent by Handicap International to French Parliamentarians, 30 March 2001.
[37] Commission nationale pour l’élimination des mines antipersonnel, Rapport 1999, (Paris: La Documentation française, 2000).
[38] For R&D investment 1993-2003, see Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 643.
