| <Previous | Next> |
| <Previous | Next> |
Key developments since May 2000: In 2000, Germany increased its financial support for mine action from $11.4 million in 1999 to approximately $14.5 million. Initiatives are underway in the government and the Parliament aimed at a ban or increased restrictions on antivehicle mines.
The Federal Republic of Germany 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 implementation legislation was previously enacted on 9 July 1998. Germany was an early supporter of a ban on antipersonnel mines, adopting an export moratorium in 1994, banning use of antipersonnel mines in 1996, and completing stockpile destruction in December 1997.[1]
At the Second Meeting of States Parties in Geneva on 11-15 September 2000 the German delegation included members of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense and Germany’s representative to the Conference on Disarmament. At the Second Meeting of States Parties, Germany became co-rapporteur of the intersessional Standing Committee on Mine Clearance and Related Technologies. Germany attended the Standing Committee meetings in December 2000 and May 2001.
Germany submitted the transparency reports required by Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 on 31 August 1999, 30 April 2000 and 30 April 2001.[2]
On 20 November 2000, at the UN General Assembly, Germany voted in favor of Resolution 55/33V, which calls for universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Indeed, universalization and effective implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty remains a priority for German foreign policy, and many efforts have been made to promote the Mine Ban Treaty. For example, in November 2000 at the Southern Africa Development Community-European Union conference of foreign ministers in Gaborone, Botswana, the German State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ludger Volmer, urged that the landmines issue be put on the agenda.[3] In March 2001, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs updated its policy strategy on Southern Africa, aiming “to involve the States and their regional organizations in the debate on serious global problems such as drugs, environmental pollution, the spread of small arms, landmines.”[4] Opening a conference on disarmament and development in October 2000, the Minister for Development and the State Minister for Foreign Affairs described the mine ban as a milestone, and called for its universalization and strict observance.[5] In November 2000, at a Council meeting of Development Ministers in Brussels the German Minister for Development Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul emphasized that “the close co-operation of the international community, of engaged governments, and of non-governmental organizations is key for the successful implementation of the Ottawa Convention.”[6]
The President of the Federal Republic, Johannes Rau, and the President of the German Parliament, Wolfgang Thierse, have also encouraged universalization. In November 2000, at a meeting with Army commanders, Federal President Rau described the Mine Ban Treaty as a milestone in cooperative security policy and urged non-member states to accede to it.[7] In April 2001, on the occasion of the awarding of the Lew Kopelew Friedenspreis (Lew Kopelew Peace Prize) Parliamentary President Thierse strongly criticized China, Russia, and the United States for not yet having acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty.[8]
In October 2000, Germany and Japan agreed on seven “pillars of co-operation,” which included the necessity of “the full and rapid implementation of the Ottawa Convention on banning anti-personnel mines.”[9]
Germany is a party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Amended Protocol II. It submitted its annual report as required by Article 13 of Amended Protocol II on 8 November 2000.[10] At the Second Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II in Geneva on 11-14 December 2000, the German delegation co-sponsored a proposal by the Netherlands to consider the possibility of amending the CCW to deal with “explosive remnants of war.” Germany also welcomed proposals by the US to increase the technical standards for detectability and self-destruction of antivehicle mines but said that these would need detailed consideration,[11] and wants to add self-neutralization to achieve 99.99 per cent reliability.[12]
The established German policy that any developments on the antipersonnel mine issue in the Conference on Disarmament must not “fall behind the achievements of the Ottawa Convention” was reconfirmed in December 2000.[13]
In April 2001, the scope of the mine ban was discussed at a conference on landmines organized by the Lew Kopelew Forum. The participants, including Walther Stützle, State Secretary of the Ministry of Defense, Angelika Beer, defense spokesperson of the Green Party, former Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel (FDP – Liberal Party), Rupert Neudeck (humanitarian relief organization, Cap Anamur), and Thomas Gebauer (Medico International), agreed that Germany should ban all types of landmines. Angelika Beer confirmed, that according to the Green Party “antivehicle mines which can be triggered by a person are in contradiction to the spirit” of the Mine Ban Treaty.[14] Mr. Kinkel said that his party has agreed to take a parliamentary initiative to urge the government to ban antivehicle mines.[15] Minister Stützle indicated the government’s willingness to introduce a proposal to ban antivehicle mines at the CCW Review Conference in December 2001.[16] He said, “If one wants to eliminate devilish things, then one mustn’t allow any exceptions. If one assesses mines as devilish things – and one can’t argue against that - then one must prohibit mines without any exception. Then one must introduce such a position to the negotiations. If one wants to support that process, then indeed the possibility exists, to go in advance with a unilateral concession. For this year exists a possibility [with the CCW].”[17]
However, this appears to have been a spontaneous statement by Minister Stützle, as the government has not followed up on the issue since that time. The German Initiative to Ban Landmines (GIBL) believes that the Ministry of Defense wants to avoid discussing a ban on antivehicle mines. The government’s report on disarmament, submitted to parliament on 9 May 2001, refers only to efforts “to reduce the humanitarian dangers caused by long-living and non-detectable mines,” implying that German policy goals are limited to “a ban on non-detectable mines as well as an introduction of effective activity limits for remotely delivered antivehicle mines.”[18]
At a press conference on 26 June 2001, Mr. Kinkel made an appeal of the Liberal Party to the German Parliament requesting a ban on all landmines without self-destruction/self-neutralization features. GIBL welcomed this initiative, but said the appeal is insufficient, since landmines with self-destruction/self neutralization features do not guarantee the safety of civilians. [19] In reaction to the Liberal Party initiative, Angelika Beer of the Green Party called for a unilateral ban on all antivehicle mines.[20]
Previous Landmine Monitor Reports have detailed German production and export of antipersonnel mines.[21] Stockpile destruction was completed in December 1997.[22] In May 2000, the Ministry of Defense confirmed that the DM-39 anti-lift device was no longer in use and scheduled for destruction, to be completed in December 2000. In June 2001, the Ministry of Defense confirmed that the DM-39 is no longer in the inventory of the Federal Armed Forces.[23]
The most recent Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report gives technical characteristics of antipersonnel mines previously produced and of those currently retained as permitted by Article 3. Mines retained at the end of 2000 totaled 2,753 (down from 2,983 at the end of 1999).[24]
US antipersonnel mines stocked in Germany are also not included in the German Article 7 reports. The government takes the view that under the prevailing Status of Forces Agreement, US mines do not fall under German jurisdiction or control.[25]
The current German government position is that antivehicle mines with antihandling devices do not fall within the scope of the Mine Ban Treaty, due to the definitions in Article 2.[26] Germany attended the Technical Expert Meeting on Anti-vehicle Mines with Sensitive Fuzes or with Sensitive Anti-handling Devices hosted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on 13-14 March 2001, but did not provide any technical information on the issue. The experts recommended further research to determine if antihandling devices can discriminate between intentional and unintentional contact of a person and that States review the sensitivities of their mines with antihandling devices.[27] When the results of this meeting were discussed at the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention on 11 May 2001, Germany made no statement or intervention.
During 2000, the German Initiative to Ban Landmines identified several antivehicle mines with antihandling devices and/or sensitive fuzes that might be capable of being detonated by the unintentional act of a person, and which therefore would be prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty.[28] In a letter dated 21 September 2000, the Ministry of Defense commented on the types of antivehicle mines identified:[29]
AT 1 has not been in the Bundeswehr inventory for many years;
AT 2 does not have a magnetic detonator;
DM-21 only has a pressure-operated detonator;
DM-31 does not have an anti-handling-device;
PM 60/K1: The German army never took over mines belonging to former East Germany for its own use.[30] According to our regulations, a Statement of Functional and Operational Safety would be necessary for this purpose; this statement was not made;
COBRA is neither under development nor in production;[31]
SMART[32] does not have a fragmentation warhead.
The Ministry of Defense also restated its “contrary understanding” regarding
MUSPA and MIFF.
A recent study jointly published by GIBL and the British campaign, Landmine Action, continued to assert the antipersonnel capabilities of the AT 2/DM-1233, DM-21, DM-31/FFV 028, PARM 1/DM-12, MIFF, and MUSPA.[33]
Mines With Antipersonnel Capabilities as assessed by GIBL[34]
|
Type
|
Estimated Quantities
|
Antipersonnel Capabilities
|
|---|---|---|
|
AT 2/
DM-1233 |
1.2 million
|
Yes, due to capability for antihandling/antidisturbance devices and
integrated magnetic influence fuze.
|
|
DM-21
|
150,000
|
It is believed that the mine has pressure-operated fuze, initiated by
180-350 kilograms.
|
|
DM-31 AT/
FFV 028 |
125,000
|
Yes, due to magnetic fuze, reportedly capable of being detonated by the
presence of metallic objects.
|
|
PARM 1/
DM-12 |
12,000
|
Yes, due to incorporated fibre optic sensor cable (breakwire)
|
|
MUSPA
|
90,000
|
Yes (classified antipersonnel by Italy and the US Department of
Defense)
|
|
MIFF
|
125,000
|
Probably, due to magnetic fuze and antihandling/antidisturbance
device
|
Apparently, MUSPA and MIFF were both offered for sale at the Eurosatory 2000 in Paris.[35] It is noteworthy that Italy decided to destroy its MUSPA and MIFF stocks due to their antipersonnel effects.[36]
At the April 2001 landmine conference organized by the Lew Kopelew Forum, Thomas Gebauer of Medico International presented an internal document of Dynamit Nobel, which appears to indicate that the DM-31/FFV 028 antitank mine, produced by Dynamit Nobel and Bofors AB and currently in the service of the Bundeswehr, is not in compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty. In the document, Dynamit Nobel estimated the modernization costs of the DM-31/FFV 028 mine as DM40-50 million in order “to achieve the obligations of the Ottawa Convention.”[37]
Also, according to a press account, a spokesperson for Dynamit Nobel admitted that the mine’s fuze could be triggered not only by a tank but also “unintentionally” by a motorized bicycle passing near to the mine.[38] Moreover, there is question as to whether the DM-31/FFV 028 can be set off by sweeping a metal detector over the mine.[39] CCW Amended Protocol II prohibits the use of mines specifically designed to detonate a munition by the presence of commonly available metal detectors. A Canadian Forces landmine database says that “sweeping a detector which contains metal components over the mine may cause the FFV 028 to function.”[40] Neither the Army nor Dynamit Nobel has commented on this.
Dynamit Nobel subsequently sent an email, dated 7 May 2001, to parliamentarians stating that the DM-31/FVV 028 is in compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty.[41] Other sources indicate that the DM-31/FFV 028 is equipped with a very sensitive fuzing system.[42]
The leader of the Mine Documentation and Training Center of the Federal Armed Forces, when asked whether there is in practice nowadays any difference between antipersonnel mines and antivehicle mines, responded: “I personally believe – no. One can separate only in respect of the pressure activation, since antitank mines of course react on a considerable higher activation pressure than must be the case with people. However, people can also cause the explosion of such mines through unhappy conditions – for example, driving in a vehicle. Of course, a tank mine will also be effective against civilians then. The only difference I can see, is actually the size and the effect itself and, of course, the purpose, why this mine has been laid.”[43]
Germany is engaged in research into alternatives to antipersonnel mines, which has been reported in detail by a number of sources.[44]
Since 1993, the German government has bilaterally provided a total of DM132 million (approx. US$69 million)[45] for mine action projects in twenty-eight different countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia (Eastern Slavonia), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia (Abkhazia), Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Russian Federation (Chechnya), Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia (Kosovo).
In 2000, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) had a budget of approximately DM21.6 million (US$11.4 million) for humanitarian mine action activities.[46] An additional DM3 million (US$1.57 million) was provided for mine action programs from a separate budget under the Stability Pact for South East Europe. Final funding data for 2000 was not available from the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development as this report was going to press, but it appears to have been some DM2.86 million (US$1.5 million).[47] Germany’s contribution to European Union mine action funding in 2000 is not yet known.
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs is primarily concerned with humanitarian mine clearance. The Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development selects its projects according to development policy priorities, so its mine clearance activities are part of an integrated approach to promoting the development of a region. The projects are mainly implemented in rural areas and involve a considerable amount of victim assistance.[48] The Ministry of Defense does not carry out its own mine clearance programs, but supports Ministry of Foreign Affairs projects by providing military experts and training, and making available equipment from army stocks, as well as information from its mine documentation center.[49]
In 2000, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs continued to support the testing of mechanical mine clearance equipment.[50] The GIBL has complained that this included machines such as the Minebreaker 2000, which has been widely criticized for being too costly and inappropriate for many mine-affected countries,[51] and the earth tiller Rhino, which has been reported to be non-operational in conditions common to mine-affected countries.[52] In June 2000, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs published an update of its humanitarian mine action equipment catalogue 1998/1999, which showcases state-of-the-art equipment.[53]
MFA mine action funding (including in-kind assistance) in 2000[54]
|
Country
|
Type of Assistance
|
Total (DM)
|
|---|---|---|
|
Afghanistan
|
Support to the Mine Dog Centers in training and deploying sniffer dogs,
under the auspices of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Assistance;
Funding the OMAR Female and Children Mine Awareness program, and a mechanical demining project; In-kind support (trucks) to OMAR and mine detectors to the Mine Action Programme Afghanistan. |
4.45 million
(US$2,342,104) |
|
Albania
|
Funding of a demining project by the German NGO HELP in the area bordering
Kosovo.
|
260,000
(US$136,842) |
|
Angola
|
Funding for Menschen gegen Minen (MgM) demining program for emergency
humanitarian assistance (run in cooperation with Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and
the World Food Program);
Funding of emergency demining project by Medico International and Mines Advisory Group in Luena. |
700,000
(US$368,421) |
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Funding of demining projects by Handicap International (HI) and
Kölnische Franziskaner;
Funding HI mine awareness program; Funding a HELP demining project by the children’s village Selo Mira; Funding six mine-dog teams of Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) and training of sniffer dogs; Funding integrated mechanical mine clearance in Vidovice. |
2 million
(US$1,052,632) |
|
Cambodia
|
Funding Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC) demining project in Siem Reap
province;
Funding the Rhino demining system introduced in 1999, in cooperation with CMAC manual demining teams and CARE; Funding extension/improvement of the GPC database. |
3.3 million
(US$ 1,736,842) |
|
Chad
|
Supply of mine detectors and support for a UXO clearance project by
HELP.
|
875,000
(US$460,526) |
|
Croatia
|
Provision of a German army expert and technical instruments to the Western
European Union Demining Mission in Croatia;
Supply of mine marking material to the Croatian Mine Action Center (CROMAC); Funding for UN Mine Action Assistance Program through UN Development Program (UNDP). |
290,000
(US$152,632) |
|
Ethiopia/
Eritrea |
Secondment of German army expert to UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) demining
mission.
|
100,000
(US$52,632) |
|
Georgia (Abkhazia)
|
Funding a mine and unexploded ordnance clearance project by the HALO
Trust.
|
320,000
(US$168,421) |
|
Guinea-Bissau
|
Supply of protective clothing to the national mine clearance program.
|
5,000
(US$2,632) |
|
Jordan
|
Supply of demining equipment.
|
125,000
(US$65,789) |
|
Kosovo
|
Secondment of German army experts to UN Mine Action Coordination Center;
Funding of CARE/MineTech demining project via the International Trust Fund; Funding of HELP mine border clearance; Funding of HI mine awareness program. |
767,000
(US$403,684) |
|
Laos
|
Funding of explosive ordnance disposal project by the Gerbera company, due
to urgent humanitarian needs.
|
1.9 million
(US$1 million) |
|
Lebanon
|
Funding and supply of demining material for establishment of Mine Action
Center by UNMAS.
|
337,000
(US$177,368) |
|
Mozambique
|
Funding and supply of equipment to National Demining
Institute;
Emergency relief to the UN “floods” program; Secondment of a technical adviser and doctor for local demining teams of the Accelerated Demining Program; Funding of a mechanical demining project run by MgM. |
2,120,000
(US$1,115,789) |
|
Somalia
|
Funding survey and mine clearance project in Somaliland by Stiftung Sankt
Barbara, within the scope of UNDP programs;
Funding to the Georadar project run by Tricon in cooperation with MineTech. |
1.5 million
(US$789,474) |
|
Vietnam
|
Funding for UXO clearance projects by Solidaritätsdienst-International
and Potsdam Kommunikation, in Quang Tri and Hue provinces.
|
1.275 million
(US$671,053) |
|
Yemen
|
Funding of survey by the Survey Action Center and providing expert help for
the National Demining Authority.
|
395,000
(US$207,895) |
|
Zimbabwe
|
Funding mine clearance project by Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit and MineTech in the border area.
|
200,000
(US$105,263) |
|
Other
|
Expo 2000 conference, exhibition, presentation on humanitarian mine action;
support of translating the Bad Honnef framework (mine action programs from a
development-oriented point of view); support of UNDP study of socio-economic
approaches to mine action, publishing brochures on eradicating landmines and on
mine clearance equipment; support for ICBL Landmine Monitor 2000.
|
722,000
(US$380,000) |
|
Total
|
21,641,000
(US$11,390,000) |
|
NGO Funding of Humanitarian Mine Action and related activities in 2000[55]
|
Country
|
Activities Supported
|
Amount (DM)
|
|---|---|---|
|
Afghanistan/
Pakistan |
Noor Eye Hospital in Kabul: in the course of medical treatment of blind
people also treatment of landmine victims;
Peshawar: support services and rehabilitation for people blinded by landmines. |
150,325
(US$79,118) |
|
Angola
|
Cuene: resettlement of refugees and internally displaced people
particularly in heavily mined areas; vocational reintegration of underprivileged
people (unemployed, demobilized soldiers); education of four local mine action
teams;
Luena: integrated mine action program; education program for mine victims. |
384,273
(US$202,249) |
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Support of demining activities of local NGO APM; mine awareness; orthopedic
workshop in Zavidovici; orthopedic treatment for war-disabled persons;
prostheses, rehabilitation and economic support of traumatized people in
Sarajevo.
|
771,721
(US$406,169) |
|
Cambodia
|
Medical treatment and socio-economic rehabilitation; victim assistance for
blind and other disabled people, trauma work, socio-economic rehabilitation;
support of wheelchair production, prostheses, rehabilitation; mine awareness,
victim assistance, rehabilitation of newly resettled mine-affected communities,
advocacy, public information.
|
3,038,482
(US$1,599,201) |
|
Chad
|
Support of associations of disabled people and other initiatives
(consulting, training, vocational training, advocacy, rehabilitation).
|
168,000
(US$88,421) |
|
El Salvador
|
Support for Center for Rehabilitation of War Disabled People.
|
160,514
(US$84,481) |
|
Ethiopia
|
Development program in rural area of the Adigrat diocese.
|
2 million
(US$1,052,632) |
|
Kosovo
|
Mine awareness.
|
600,000
(US$315,789) |
|
Nicaragua
|
Pilot project for avoiding child mine accidents, in Madriz
Department.
|
15,000
(US$7,895) |
|
South Sudan
|
Support for peace conference in southern Sudan.
|
50,000
(US$26,316) |
|
Sri Lanka
|
Development and food program (emergency aid, disabilities program, aid for
war victims).
|
700,000
(US$368,421) |
|
Vietnam
|
Integrated mine action program, mine clearance and resettlement of
internally displaced people.
|
163,332
(US$85,964) |
|
Germany
|
Mine awareness and advocacy for refugees from Kosovo; advocacy and
campaigning in Germany.
|
323,021
(US$170,011) |
|
Total
|
8,524,668
(US$4,486,667) |
|
NGO Funding of Humanitarian Mine Action and related activities 1995-2000[56]
|
1995
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
1995-2000
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total amount in DM
|
1,095,301
|
1,181,483
|
3,886,554
|
4,813,733
|
10,524,916
|
8,524,668
|
30,026,655
|
|
Percentage
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Mine clearance and mine awareness activities
|
Nil
|
2,250
|
295,826
|
1,024,600
|
2,606,195
|
1,243,749
|
5,172,620
|
|
Percentage
|
|
0.19%
|
7.61%
|
21.28%
|
24.76%
|
14.59%
|
17.23%
|
|
Victim assistance (medical treatment, physical rehabilitation)
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
95,200
|
Nil
|
2,340,794
|
160,977
|
2,596,971
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
2.45%
|
|
22.24%
|
1.89%
|
8.65%
|
|
Victim assistance (psychological and socio-economic rehabilitation)
|
972,125
|
1,069,586
|
2,719,550
|
1,541,949
|
1,604,639
|
782,504
|
8,690,353
|
|
In percentage
|
88.75%
|
90.53%
|
69.97%
|
32.03%
|
15.25%
|
9.18%
|
28.94%
|
|
Development/food/reconstruction/resettlement/ peace-keeping activities
|
55,176
|
18,447
|
651,978
|
56,250
|
913,600
|
2,750,000
|
4,445,451
|
|
Percentage
|
5.04%
|
1.56%
|
16.78%
|
1.17%
|
8.68%
|
32.26%
|
14.81%
|
|
Victim assistance (support of political advocacy)
|
68,000
|
91,200
|
124,000
|
246,934
|
457,071
|
321,021
|
1,308,226
|
|
Percentage
|
6.21%
|
7.72%
|
3.19%
|
5.13%
|
4.34%
|
3.77%
|
4.36%
|
|
Integrated Mine Action Program (mine clearance, mine awareness, physical
and psychosocial rehabilitation, socio-economic and cultural rehabilitation,
political advocacy)
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
1,944,000
|
2,602,617
|
3,266,417
|
7,813,034
|
|
Percentage
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
40.38%
|
24.73%
|
38.32%
|
26.02%
|
GIBL has observed that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs continues to favor a technical rather than a development-oriented approach, in contrast to its declared aim of integrating mine action into a broader development context. The fundamental principle of a development-oriented approach is that humanitarian mine action and development require the combination of mine clearance, mine awareness, and mine victim rehabilitation with reconstruction, reconciliation, and peacekeeping/building activities, as described in the NGO-developed Bad Honnef guidelines.[57] NGO funding and in-kind assistance has the effect of counterbalancing, to some degree, the lack of development orientation in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.[58]
On 5 December 1995, the German government announced that all mine-affected areas on the old east-west divide had been cleared and the last zone, near the Bavarian town of Hof, was reopened to the public.[59] Incidents, though, do still occur occasionally. On 16 March 2000, a landmine was found at the former frontier.[60] On 24 April 2001, it was reported that three mines had been discovered in the last year on the former border. It is assumed that even more mines could be hidden close to the former border, because mines could have shifted over time.[61] On 20 May 2001, unspecified munitions from World War II were found in the river Lenne near Ohle, a town in Westfalia.[62] A mine problem also exists in former military training areas. In Königsbrück (Lower Saxony) three live grenades and mines were cleared in a former training area that became a nature reserve in 1996.[63]
German soldiers serving in peacekeeping operations are also at risk. On 22 September 1999, five German soldiers, part of the NATO-led KFOR peacekeeping force, strayed into a minefield near the Albanian border. Three of the soldiers suffered minor injuries while the other two were seriously injured.[64]
| <Previous | Next> |
[1] For details, see the full version of the 1999 German report, available at: <www.landmine.de>. The German Initiative to Ban Landmines (GIBL) prefers the term “Ottawa Convention on banning anti-personnel mines.”
[2] Article 7 reports, submitted 31 August 1999, for the period 1 March-27 August 1999; 30 April 2000, for calendar year 1999; 30 April 2001, for calendar year 2000.
[3] “Staatsminister Volmer reist zur SADC-EU-Außenministerkonferenz nach Gaborone” [State Minister Volmer travels to the SADC-EU conference of ministers for foreign affairs in Garbone], press release, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 28 November 2000.
[4] Summary of Foreign Policy Strategy on Southern Africa, available at: <www.auswaertiges-amt.de>.
[5] Opening Address by Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development , and Opening Address by Ludger Volmer, Minister of State, Federal Foreign Office, available at: <www.dse.de/ef/disarmnt>.
[6] “Europäische Entwicklungspolitik schärft Profil – Ratstagung der EU-Entwicklungsminister und -ministerinnen am 10. November 2000 in Brüssel” [The European Development policy improves its profile – meeting of the council of EU minister for development in Brussels on 10 November 2000], press release, Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development, undated, available at: <www.bmz.de/presse/presse/0221.html>. Translated from original in German.
[7] “Rede von Bundespräsident Johannes Rau anlässlich der 38. Kommandeurtagung der Bundeswehr” [Speech of the German President Johannes Rau on the occasion of the 38th meeting of commanders of the Federal Armed Forces], Leipzig, 14 November 2000.
[8] “Lew-Kopelew-Preis für Minengegner von HALO Trust. Thierse kritisiert Großmächte USA, Russland und China” [Lew-Kopelew Peace Prize awarded to mine opponent HALO Trust. Thierse criticizes major powers US, Russia, and China], WDR-online, 8 April 2001; also reports in Associated Press, 8 April 2001, die Tageszeitung; 9 April 2001, and Kölnische Rundschau, 9 April 2001.
[9] “Japan und Deutschland im 21. Jahrhundert. Sieben Säulen der Kooperation” [Japan and Germany in the 21st century. Seven pillars of cooperation], Tokyo, 30 October 2000, published in: Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung [Notes for Security Policy, Media and Information Department of the German Government], October 2000.
[10] CCW Protocol II Article 13 report, submitted 15 October 2000, for the period 1 August 1999-15 October 2000.
[11] Landmine Monitor notes, Second Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II of the CCW, Geneva, 14 December 2000.
[12] Interviews with the German delegation, Geneva, 11-13 December 2000.
[13] Report of the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 15 December 2000; see also Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 646.
[14] See: Parliamentary Party of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, “Anti-Panzerminen mit dem Geist von Ottawa nicht vereinbar ” [Anti-tank mines are not compatible with the spirit of Ottawa], press release, 20 February 2001. See also, Phoenix broadcasting, 7 April 2001.
[15] “Millionen Minen lauern in der Erde” [Millions of mines lurk in the ground], Kölner Stadtanzeiger, 9 April 2001; also reports in Kölner Rundschau, 9 April 2001 and WDR-online, 8 April 2001.
[16] “Lew-Kopelew-Preis für Minengegner von HALO Trust. Thierse kritisiert Großmächte USA, Russland und China” [Lew-Kopelew Peace Prize awarded to mine opponent HALO Trust. Thierse criticizes major powers US, Russia, and China], WDR-online, 8 April 2001.
[17] Phoenix broadcasting, Lew Kopelew Forum: Landminen – das Ende einer Waffengattung [Landmines – the end of an arm], 7 April 2001 (Original in German: Stützle: “Wenn man Teufelszeug beseitigen will, dann darf man keine Ausnahmen zulassen. Wenn man Minen für Teufelszeug hält – und darüber kann man, glaube ich, nicht streiten -, dann muß man Minen ohne Ausnahmen verbieten. Dann muß man mit einer solchen Position in die Verhandlungen rein gehen. Wenn man diesen Prozeß befördern will, dann gibt es in der Tat die Möglichkeit, durch einen einseitigen Verzicht eine Vorleistung zu machen. Dazu gibt es dieses Jahr eine Möglichkeit.“).
[18] Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/5986 [German Parliament, Document 14/5986], p. 16.
[19] “FDP will Minen ächten” [FDP wants to ban mines], Südwest Presse online, 27 June 2001; Parliamentary Party of FDP, “Kinkel: Alle Landminen ohne Wirkzeitbegrenzung international ächten” [Kinkel: Ban internationally all landmines without activity limits], press release No. 979, 26 June 2001; GIBL press release, 26 June 2001; Reutlinger General-Anzeiger, 27 June 2001; die tageszeitung, 27 June 2001; Berliner Zeitung, 27 June 2001.
[20] Parliamentary Party of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, “Ächtung von Landminen: FDP bleibt auf halben Weg stehen” [Ban on landmines: FDP takes only a half step], press release No. 0387/2001, 26 June 2001.
[21] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 611-613, 618-620.
[22] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 620-621.
[23] Letter from Ministry of Defense, Berlin, 15 May 2000; telephone interview with representative of the Ministry of Defense, 1 June 2001.
[24] Article 7 reports, submitted 30 April 2000 for calendar year 1999, and 30 April 2001 for calendar year 2000, Forms D and H. No information is given on other institutions permitted to hold stocks of antipersonnel mines, which are obliged to inform the Bundesausfuhramt (Federal Department for Exports) on types and quantities of antipersonnel mines possessed or under their control. No information is available on how this legal obligation is monitored. “Verordnung über Meldepflichten für bestimmte Kriegswaffen (Kriegswaffenmeldeverordnung – KWMV) vom 24. Januar 1995 (BGB1, IS. 92, geändert durch die Erste Verordnung zur Änderung der Kriegswaffenmeldeverordung vom 9. Juni 1999, BGB1, IS. 1266)” [Ordinance on obligation of notification for certain weapons of war, 24 January 1995, BGB1, I p. 92, altered through the first amendment of the Ordinance on obligation of notification for certain weapons of war on 9 June 1999, BGB1, I p. 1266], para. 3(1).
[25] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 648.
[26] Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/2339 [German Parliament, Document 14/2339], 10 December 1999.
[27] Robert Gravett, “Report on the Technical Expert Meeting on anti-vehicle mines with sensitive fuses or with sensitive anti-handling devices, hosted by the ICRC in Geneva, 13-14 March 2001,” April 2001.
[28] For details of mines identified by GIBL, see Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 647.
[29] Letter from Ministry of Defense to GIBL, 21 September 2000.
[30] According to research by Thomas Küchenmeister and Otfried Nassauer, the German army has taken over from the inventory of the former Nationale Volksarmee (Armed forces of the former GDR) about 33,000 DM-51, similar to the Claymore-type PM 60/K1 mine. See Thomas Küchenmeister/Otfried Nassauer, “‘Gute Mine’ zum bösen Spiel? Landminen made in Germany” [Good mines, bad games? Landmines made in Germany], p. 46; see also Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 13/1473 [German Parliament, document 13/1473], 22 May 1995.
[31] Government sources indicate projected expenditure of DM 310 million (US$163.1 million) on the system over the next few years, of which DM45 million has already been spent. Letter from the Federal Ministry of Defense, Bonn, undated, but December 1997. According to an interview with representatives of the Federal Ministry of Defense, Berlin, 9 March 2000, these funds are suspended; however, whether this suspension will become permanent or is the interim result of recent budgetary limits is not known.
[32] Though the German Ministry of Defense denies the existence of this scatterable mine/munitions system, the arms producer GIWS (Diehl/Rheinmetall) advertised it at Eurosatory 2000 in Paris (“Sub-munitions for airborne dispensers and ground-to-ground rockets and dispenser,” RTG Euromunition, company brochure).
[33] “Alternative Anti-personnel Mines – The Next Generations,” published by GIBL and Landmine Action (UK), March 2001, p. 71; see also the more exhaustive table available at: <www.landmine.de>.
[34] Sources for Table: Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/2339 [German Parliament, Document 14/2339]; “Alternative Anti-personnel Mines–The Next Generations”, March 2001; <www.landmine.de>; Federal Ministry of Defense, Bonn, 14 February 1997; US Department of Defense: <www.demining.brtrc.com>; Italy, MBT Article 7 report, submitted 29 March 2000, Form B-1.
[35] “Sub-munitions for airborne dispensers and ground-to-ground rockets and dispenser,” RTG Euromunition, company brochure.
[36] Italy, Article 7 report, submitted March 2000, Form G-1. Acknowledged and confirmed by the German Ministry of Defense in a letter to Angelika Beer/MdB, 27 December 1999.
[37] Dynamit Nobel, Sperren ohne Landminen [Area denial without landmines], Troisdorf/Berlin, February 2000. (Original in German: “Eine Modernisierung der vorhandenen PzAbwVMi DM 31 zwecks Erfüllung des Ottawa-Übereinkommens würde Kosten zwischen 40 und 50 Mio DM verursachen.”).
[38] “Gute Mine, böses Spiel” [Good mines, bad game], Spiegel, 7 May 2001.
[39] See landmine database at <www.landmine.de>.
[40] Canadian Forces Mine Awareness Database 99.
[41] Email from Dynamit Nobel (Dr. Heinemann) to Angelika Beer, MdB; Paul Breuer, MdB; Manfred Opel, MdB; Peter Zumkley, MdB, 7 May 2001.
[42] “Alternative Anti-personnel Mines–The Next Generations,” GIBL and Landmine Action (UK), March 2001, p. 23; see also, Colonel E.S. Fitch, Director of Military Engineering, Canadian Nation Defense Headquarters, letter to Mines Action Canada, 24 August 1998; Canadian Forces Mine Awareness Database 99; Mary Foster, “Mines and mine-like weapons in Canada,” Discussion paper, December 1999.
[43] Südwestrundfunk, Report Mainz, 19 February 2001 (transcript available at: <www.swr.de/report>). Original in German: “Bertram Hacker, Oberstleutnant, Leiter Minen-Dokumentationszentrum der Bundeswehr: Ich persönlich glaube - nein. Man kann nur insofern trennen, als bei den Anti-Panzerminen natürlich der Auslösedruck zum Beispiel erheblich höher sein muss wie bei Personen. Allerdings können auch Personen durch unglückliche Zustände solche Minen auslösen - zum Beispiel in einem Fahrzeug fahrend. Natürlich wird dann auch eine Panzermine auch gegen Zivilisten wirken. Der einzige Unterschied den ich sehe, ist tatsächlich die Größe und die Wirkung an sich und natürlich der Zweck, warum diese Mine verlegt worden ist.”
[44] See: Altmann/Hornig/Krallmann/Span/Vega Laso/Wüster, “‘Nichttödliche Waffen’ – Hirngespinst oder Chance für humanere Gewaltanwendung” [Non-lethal weapons’ – fantasy or chance for a more human use of force?], in: Informationsstelle Wissenschaft & Frieden, Dossier No. 17, 1994; K.-D. Thiel, “Non-lethal Weapon Activities at ICT,” Paper presented at Non Lethal Defense III Conference, US, 1998. GIBL/LAUK,“Alternative Anti-personnel Mines – the Next Generations,” March 2001.
[45] Exchange rate used throughout this report: US$1 = DM 1.9.
[46] Email from Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2001.
[47] Fax from Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 17 May 2001. According to the government’s annual report on disarmament for 2000, the overall spending on humanitarian mine action amounts to approximately DM24.5 million (US$12.9 million), not including the Stability Pact funds. Subtracting the total mine action funds of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in 2000 of DM21.64 million (US$11.39 million) it appears that the total mine action funding of the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development amounted to some DM2.86 million (US$1.5 million) in 2000. See Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/5986 [German Parliament, document 14/5986], pp. 16-17.
[48] Mine-related activities funded by the Ministry are mostly implemented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) in accordance with policies set out in its handbook Development-oriented Emergency Aid – Integrated Demining. This includes support for demining, but other developmental assistance, such as medical and social rehabilitation, receives only limited support, for instance through the collection of data on mine victims. This approach – Integrated Humanitarian Demining for Development – was confirmed by GTZ in 2000. Fritz Mamier, Chris Pearce, Ulrich Weyl, “Die Vergessenen Minenfelder” [Forgotten Minefields], Wiesbaden 2000.
[49] Email from Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2001.
[50] For past funding details of mechanical mine clearance technology, see Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 649-655.
[51] Peter Thorsten, “Performance Report – The Minebreaker 2000,” Journal Of Mine Action, Vol. 3, No. 1; Maj. Frank Akins and Maj. Arthur Tulak, (undated), <call.army.mil/call/trngqtr/tq1-99/akins.htm>; Deonna Kelli, Landmines: Costly Aftermath Of War In Afghanistan (Washington D.C.: Islam Online, undated): <www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/special-7/nrep2.aps>; Al Venter, “New Mines In Angola,” Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, Vol. 55, No. 3 (May/June 1999), p. 14: <bullatomsci.org/issues/1999/mj99/mj99venter.html>.
[52] Maj. H. Petetin, Field Technical Advisor “Rhino Mechanical Mine Clearance Program, Final Report,” p. 17.
[53] Auswärtiges Amt/German Federal Foreign Office, Humanitarian Mine Action Equipment Catalogue, Second Edition, June 2000.
[54] Email from Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2001.
[55] GIBL Questionnaire 2000 to member organizations, Markus Haake, Berlin, May 2001.
[56] Sources: Misereor Questionnaire to member organizations of GIBL, 1995-1998; Email from Hein Winnubst, Aachen, 25 November 1999; GIBL Questionnaire 1999 to member organizations, Markus Haake, Berlin, June 2000; GIBL Questionnaire 2000 to member organizations, Markus Haake, Berlin, May 2001. The table corrects data on NGO funding in Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 655.
[57] “Mine Action Programs From A Development-Oriented Point Of View” (“The Bad Honnef Framework”), GIBL, revised version, 1999, available at: <www.landmine.de>.
[58] This report concentrates on the activities of GIBL member organizations: Bread for the World, Christoffel Mission for the Blind, German Justitia et Pax Commission, German Committee for Freedom from Hunger, German Caritas, Social Service Agency of the Evangelical Church in Germany, EIRENE International, Handicap International Germany, Jesuit Refugee Service, Kindernothilfe (Help for Children in Need), Medico International, Misereor, OXFAM Germany, Pax Christi, Solidarity Service International, Terre Des Hommes, UNICEF Germany. Their activities range from restricted mine clearance and mine awareness projects to emergency aid and physical, psychological and socio-economic rehabilitation of mine victims, their families and communities (as described in the Bad Honnef framework). Some of these programs are cofinanced by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Co-operation and Development; their contributions are subtracted from the total in order to show the NGO contribution.
[59] Press release, Federal Ministry of Defense, 5 December 1995. For more information, see Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 624-625.
[60] “Unscheinbar versteckt im Boden” [Inconspicuously hidden in the ground], Volksblatt-Mellrichstadt (daily newspaper), 18 March 2000.
[61] “Minengefahr im ehemaligen Grenzstreifen” [Mine threat on the former border], Volksblatt-Mellrichstadt, 23 April 2001.
[62] “Munitionsfund in Lenne: Zufall stand Pate” [Chance discovery of munitions in Lenne], Westfälische Rundschau (daily newspaper), 28 May 2001.
[63] “Die Idylle von Königsbrück täuscht” [The deceptive paradise of Königsbrück], Lausitzter Rundschau-online, 19 April 2001, <www.lr-online.de>.
[64] Robert H. Reid, “One peacekeeper killed, five injured, in Kosovo,” Associated Press, 23 September 1999; also reported in: Reuters, 23 September 1999 and Spiegel-online, 23 September 1999.
