| <GABON | GHANA> |
Key developments since May 2001: In 2001, Germany provided about €13.7 million ($12.3 million) in mine action funding. For 2002, it has budgeted more than €17 million ($15.3 million) for mine action. Germany has clarified its positions on joint military operations with non-signatories to the Mine Ban Treaty, and on US stockpiling and transit of antipersonnel mines in Germany. Initiatives and actions regarding a ban or restrictions on antivehicle mines are increasing.
The Federal Republic of Germany signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 23 July 1998, becoming 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]
Germany attended the Third Meeting of States Parties in September 2001 in Managua, Nicaragua. At the meeting, Germany was named co-chair of the intersessional Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies. During discussion of whether Article 2 of the treaty defines antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes or antihandling devices as antipersonnel mines, the German delegation supported concerns expressed by France about the possible negative effect on universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty of such an interpretation. According to the delegation, the treaty bans one type of weapon, and doubt should not be cast on its scope.[2]
Germany participated actively in the Standing Committee meetings in January and May 2002. In May 2002, the delegation presented Germany’s interpretation of Article 1 of the treaty with respect to the obligations on States Parties engaged in joint military operations with non-States Parties:
Germany is very mindful of her obligations under the Ottawa Treaty. Therefore, Germany, as a State Party to the Ottawa Convention will not support planning or use of antipersonnel mines in a joint operation. Germany prohibits the planned or actual use of antipersonnel mines in any military operation whatsoever by her military personnel. With this in mind, all German Armed Forces personnel receive detailed information outlining their obligations with respect to the Convention.[3]
Previously, on 8 January 2002, the Ministry of Defense had informed the German Initiative to Ban Landmines (GIBL) that there is no evidence that the United States has used antipersonnel mines during the military operations in Afghanistan, and confirmed that the Federal Armed Forces would in all military operations act in compliance with the obligations of the Mine Ban Treaty.[4] On 18 April 2002, Jürgen Chrobog, State Secretary of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, speaking to the European Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Berlin, said, “The standards which we have set for ourselves should not undermined—not even when we are facing murderous threats like terrorism.” [5]
With regard to the stockpiling or transit of foreign antipersonnel mines in Germany, the delegation to the May 2002 Standing Committees noted:
Another question that has been raised with respect to Art. 1 concerns the issue of stockpiling and transit of foreign antipersonnel mines. The relevant provisions of the German War Weapons Control Act clearly stipulate that it is prohibited to manufacture, acquire, import, export or transfer anti-personnel mines.... Failure to comply with this regulation is punishable by long terms of imprisonment. Germany therefore is not of the opinion that transit of anti-personnel mines is permitted under the Ottawa Treaty except under the provisions of Art. 3.... However, Germany considers the Ottawa Treaty - per se - not applicable to allied forces, which in accordance with the 1954 Convention on the Presence of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany are permanently stationed in Germany, unless a sending state itself is party to the Treaty. Therefore any weaponry of allied stationed forces covered by this Convention is not under German jurisdiction or control within the meaning of Art. 1 of the Ottawa Treaty. Therefore, Germany will not comment on transit or storage of weaponry belonging to and for the equipment of such allied stationed forces nor will she report on stockpiles of Non-Signatories on her territory. Germany has, nevertheless, fully complied with her obligations in respect to stocks that were under her jurisdiction and control.[6]
The German delegation also described the four-year deadline for completion of stockpile destruction by States Parties under Article 4 as a very important “test case” in the implementation of the treaty. It remarked that any States Parties expecting difficulties in meeting the deadline would be well advised to join the informal contact group on stockpile destruction, and that Germany was willing to offer assistance.[7]
The transparency report for the calendar year 2001 as required by Article 7 of the Mine Ban Treaty was submitted on 16 April 2002. It includes the voluntary Form J, on which is noted three victim assistance projects supported by Germany in 2001. Previous Article 7 Reports were submitted on 31 August 1999, 30 April 2000, and 30 April 2001.[8]
On 29 November 2001, Germany cosponsored and voted in favor of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 56/24M in support of the Mine Ban Treaty.
Germany is a party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Amended Protocol II. It submitted the annual report as required by Article 13 of Amended Protocol II on 15 October 2001.[9] Germany attended the Third Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II and the Second CCW Review Conference in December 2001. The delegation co-sponsored a proposal by Denmark and the US to prohibit use of non-detectable antivehicle mines and remotely delivered antivehicle mines without self-destruct/neutralization and self-deactivation mechanisms. Germany welcomed the establishment of an expert group to consider the possibility of amending the CCW to deal with explosive remnants of war and mines other than antipersonnel mines.[10] In May 2002, Germany produced the draft European Union “Food-for-Thought Paper on Mines Other Than Antipersonnel Mines.”[11]
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 confirmed in February 2002.[12]
Since starting its campaign in 2001 to ban all landmines, the GIBL reports success in gaining popular support and media attention. In 2002, two parliamentary appeals were made by political parties to ban certain types of antivehicle mines.
In the first appeal, on 20 March 2002, the opposition parties CDU and FDP called for a ban on all landmines which are not detectable and which do not self-destruct. According to the appeal document, the ban would include the DM-21 antivehicle mine held by the German Army. The appeal also called for further consultation within the CCW process with the aim of banning antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes that can be detonated by the unintentional act of a person.[13]
In a second appeal, on 24 April 2000, the government parties SPD and the Green Party called for a national step-by-step approach banning all antivehicle mines that can pose a threat to civilians.[14] With respect to the CCW process, the parties call for the banning of mines which are not detectable and which do not self-destruct, and antivehicle mines that can be detonated by an unintentional act. The parties asked the government to strengthen the Ottawa Process by including all sensitive antivehicle mines that can be detonated by a person, and to undertake this initiative in preparation for the Review Conference to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2004.[15]
During discussion in the Committee for Foreign Affairs this appeal was amended to call on the government to work with the States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty to establish the understanding that antivehicle mines which can be detonated by persons due to the design of their fuzing system are banned by the treaty. The original appeal did not include the phrase “due to the design.” The defense spokesperson for the Green Party complained that the Ministry of Defense had attempted to break up political compromises and consensus. [16]
On 13 June 2002, in the second reading in the parliamentary plenary, the appeal of the opposition parties (CDU and FDP) was rejected and the updated appeal of the governmental parties (SPD and the Green Party) was adopted by the governmental parties and the socialist opposition party PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism), with the abstention of the CDU and FDP.[17]
Stockpile destruction was completed in December 1997.[18] Additionally, in June 2001 the Ministry of Defense confirmed that the DM-39 (variously described as an anti-lift device or explosive charge, used to protect antivehicle mines) is no longer in the inventory of the Federal Armed Forces.[19]
Germany’s April 2002 Article 7 Report records the transfer for destruction, and actual destruction, of 78,144 mines in 2001. These include: 2,834 M58 mines (transferred to EBV GmbH in Vogelgesang, destruction completed on 3 June 2001); 38,959 M18A1 mines (transferred to Spreewerk Lübben, “destruction completed”); and 36,351 M74 mines (transferred to Spreewerk Lübben, “destruction completed”).[20]
The German Article 7 Report does not identify the origin of these mines.[21] However, Denmark has reported transferring the M58 mines to Germany for the purpose of destruction as part of its program to reduce the quantity of mines it retains under Article 3 of the treaty.[22] The M18A1 and M74 mines are known to be in US stockpiles, so it is possible that they have been transferred from US stockpiles in Germany or elsewhere.[23] Italy has also reported transferring antipersonnel mines to Germany for the purposes of destruction, without identifying the type.[24]
Germany reported retaining a total of 2,574 antipersonnel mines under Article 3 of the Mine Ban Treaty at the end of 2001. This compares to 2,753 at the end of 2000, and 2,983 at the end of 1999. The April 2002 Article 7 Report does not identify the specific purposes for which the 179 retained mines were used in 2001. Of those being retained, it has indicated 46 DM11 mines will be used for testing the Rhino mine clearance machine, but has not reported the intended uses of other mines.
One of the institutions authorized to hold retained mines in 2000 is not included in the Article 7 Report for calendar year 2001 (Rheinbach Ammunition Depot), while two new institutions are included (Bundeswehr School of Dog Handling, and Deutsch-franzosisches Forschungsinstitut St Louis in Weil am Rhein).[25]
The German Initiative to Ban Landmines has for a number of years identified several antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes or antihandling devices 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.[26]
In April 2002, former Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel accused Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping of violating the Mine Ban Treaty, alleging that the Air Force was still keeping 80,000 antipersonnel mines.[27] It is likely that Mr. Kinkel was referring to the MUSPA device, which has been classified by the United States and Italy as an antipersonnel mine. It is one the mines of concern listed by GIBL.[28]
The CDU and FDP appeal calls for a ban on the DM-21 mine. It is one of the oldest German antivehicle mines; 150,000 were procured from 1980 to 1982.[29] According to German military authorities, the detonator of the DM-21 has been replaced to avoid unintentional ignition, because the old, corroded detonators caused the pressure fuze to set off the mine below the standard pressure of 180 kilograms.[30]
It appears that Germany is adapting another mine of concern, the DM-31. Budget documents show that DM44 million (US$20 million) was requested to improve an antivehicle mine, replacing the mine fuse to avoid unintentional activation of the mine.[31] Internal information from the Federal audit division identified this as the DM-31 antivehicle mine, which is equipped with a magnetic fuze suspected of being liable to be activated by the presence or proximity of any metal-containing material.
The DM-31 is also owned by the armed forces of the Netherlands and Sweden (designated as the FFV 028). In response to concerns that the DM-31 may explode when a standard metal detector is swept over it, the Netherlands in November 2001 gave assurances that its 80,000 mines will be adapted to prevent detonation “when detected with regular devices.... If adaptation is not feasible or too expensive the mines will be replaced by types that fully comply with CCW regulations. As long as they are not adapted, DM-31 mines will not be used.”[32] The Dutch DM-31 mines were reported in 2001 as having “a number of technical and operational drawbacks.”[33]
These serious issues about antivehicle mines and the scope of the mine ban in Germany is also being discussed in the so-called Lew Kopelew process, which started in April 2001 and which held a second roundtable in September 2001.[34] It is also notable that in 2001, the Federal audit division criticized the German Army’s strategic concept regarding landmines as generally outdated and not appropriate to current security policy.[35]
Between 1992 and 2001 the German government provided a total of €83.1 million ($74.6 million) for mine action projects in 32 countries.[36] The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for the allocation of mine action funding, and provides over 90 percent of the funds. The Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development also supports demining, but only if it is part of a broader development project. The Ministry of Defense provides military experts and training, surplus equipment and information from its mine documentation center.[37]
In 2001, mine action funding totaled about €13.7 million ($12.3 million). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had a budget of €12.7 million ($11.4 million) for humanitarian mine action activities, including €2 million for the Stability Pact for South East Europe. In addition, the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development supported projects (survivor assistance) with approximately €1 million. Spending on mine action in 2001 is slightly less than the previous year (DM 26.8 million in 2001 and DM 27.5 million in 2000).
In 2001, mine action was funded in 20 countries. Mine action funding by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (including in-kind assistance) in 2001 is shown in the table below.[38]
Since 1995, the member organizations of the GIBL have provided approximately €18 million ($16.2 million) for mine action in 20 countries.[40] Their activities range from mine clearance and mine risk education projects to emergency aid and physical, psychological and socio-economic rehabilitation of mine victims, their families and communities as described in the Guidelines for Mine Action from a Development-Oriented Point of View.[41] Member organizations of GIBL played a decisive role in developing the Guidelines, whose fundamental principle is that humanitarian mine action and development require the combination of mine clearance, mine risk education, and mine victim rehabilitation with reconstruction, reconciliation, and peacekeeping/building activities.
In 2001, GIBL member organizations allocated €2.7 million ($2.4 million) for humanitarian mine action in 11 countries. Mine action funding by these NGOs is shown in the table below.[42]
Comparison of governmental and non-governmental funding of mine action shows that between 1992 and 2001, 62 percent of governmental funding went to mine clearance and mine risk education activities, while 36 percent went to humanitarian mine action accompanied by development, reconstruction, resettlement or peace-building activities and/or victim assistance (two percent was allocated to advocacy and miscellaneous). In contrast, between 1992 and 2001, 80 percent of the mine action funding by German NGOs went to activities which connect mine clearance and victim assistance with development, reconstruction, resettlement and/or peace-building measures while 18 percent went into mine clearance and mine risk education activities (two percent to advocacy and miscellaneous).
On 28 September 2001, GIBL re-launched its campaign to ban all landmines. This gained the support of popular figures, including Wolfgang Thierse (President of Parliament), Anne Will (TV anchor woman for ARD-Tagesthemen), and Marius Müller-Westenhagen (musician). On 1 March 2002, the GIBL presented campaign advertising which showed well-known Germans posing as mine survivors; radio spots with the famous supporters were broadcast daily by the major radio stations in June and July 2002.
Since the re-launch, the GIBL and its member organizations have collected about 25,000 signatures calling for a total ban on all landmines. On 16 March 2002, Misereor organized a protest march for a ban on all landmines in Munich. The ICBL Ambassador Tun Chanareth joined the protest march with 10,000 students.[43] On 17 May 2002, the GIBL sent a public letter to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer calling for a total ban on all landmines at the G8 summit in Canada on 26/27 June 2002. On 11-15 June 2002, member organizations of the GIBL organized nationwide action days for a ban on all mines. .
On 9 May 2002, a German and an Italian member of the NATO peacekeeping force in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were killed when a German KFOR vehicle carrying a mine clearance team hit an antivehicle mine near the northwestern village of Lesnica, close to the border with Kosovo.[44]
Although the government announced in December 1995 that all mine-affected areas on the old east-west divide had been cleared, mine are still found occasionally. On 11 July 2001, it was reported that significantly more explosives were discovered in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2000 than in previous years. According to the Ministry for Internal Affairs of North Rhine-Westphalia, 71,000 bombs, grenades, mines and other explosives were cleared, without any incidents. The costs amounted to €40.39 million (approx. $36.3 million).[45] On 26 September 2001, during reconstruction work at Söder castle in Lower Saxony approximately 15 antivehicle mines from World War II were found in the moat.[46] In Munich, six high-explosive bombs, ten incendiary bombs, 31 grenades, 12 fuzes and mines, as well as 8,030 rounds of munitions, were cleared in 2001.[47] On 23 May 2002, five antivehicle mines from World War II were blown up in situ near the train station of Gramzow in Brandenburg.[48]
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.[49] In Brandenburg, experts assume that 4,000 square kilometers are polluted by bombs, grenades, and mines from World War II. An additional 2,000 square kilometers may be polluted by explosives and munitions of the armed forces of the former German Democratic Republic and the Soviet Union. In 2001, 2,323 mines, 122,000 grenades, 2,300 bombs, and 3,800 missiles were found in Brandenburg. Costs are estimated at €51,000 ($45,798) per bomb plus additional costs for transport and further handling at €26,000 ($23,348).[50] No injuries or deaths have been reported as a result of these explosive remnants of war.
| <GABON | GHANA> |
[1] For details, see the full version of the 1999 German report, available at: www.landmine.de.
[2] Landmine Monitor notes, Third Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Managua, Nicaragua, 18-21 September 2001.
[3] Statement on Article 1 by Germany to the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 27 May 2002.
[4] Letter from the Ministry of Defense to the German Initiative to Ban Landmines, 8 January 2002.
[5] Speech of Jürgen Chrobog, State Secretary of the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs, at the Sixth Regional Conference of the European Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Berlin, 18 April 2002. Translated by Landmine Monitor researcher. Original text: “Die Wertmaßstäbe, die wir uns selbst gesetzt haben, dürfen in Krisenzeiten - auch nicht angesichts einer mörderischen Bedrohung wie der des Terrorismus - aufgeweicht werden.” (original emphasis).
[6] Statement on Article 1 by Germany to the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 27 May 2002.
[7] Landmine Monitor notes, Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction, Geneva, 30 May 2002.
[8] Article 7 Reports, submitted on 31 August 1999 for the period 1 March-27 August 1999; submitted on 30 April 2000 for calendar year 1999; submitted on 30 April 2001 for calendar year 2000; and submitted on 16 April 2002 for calendar year 2001.
[9] Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, submitted on 15 October 2001. This summarizes practical assistance to mine action programs worldwide, gives details of German mine action funding in 2000, and lists German companies involved in humanitarian demining.
[10] “Die internationale Antwort auf das Landminenproblem: Das Ottawa Übereinkommen, Stand: April 2002,” (“The international response to the landmine problem. The Ottawa Convention, Update: April 2002”), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, available at: www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/aussenpolitik/friedenspolitik/.
[11] European Union, Draft EU Food-for-Thought Paper on Mines Other Than Antipersonnel Mines, dated 25 April 2002 (UN doc. CCW/GGE/WP.1).
[12] “Conference on Disarmament pays tribute to its secretary-General Vladimir Petrovsky who is retiring. Four Countries Recall Importance of Ottawa Convention After it Entered into Force,” Press Release, United Nations Office, Geneva, 28 February 2002, available at: www.unog.ch/new2/documents/nesen/dc0208e.htm.
[13] Deutscher Bundestag (German Parliament) Document 14/8654, Joint Appeal by the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) and FDP (Free Democratic Party), 20 March 2002.
[14] Deutscher Bundestag (German Parliament) Document 14/8858, 24 April 2002, Joint appeal by the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party, 24 April 2002.
[15] Deutscher Bundestag (German Parliament), Document 14/8858 (Social Democratic Party/Green Party), in: Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 14/9438 [German Parliament, document 14/9438], 12 June 2002.
[16] “Beer wirft Verteidigungsministerium Blockade vor” (“Beer blames the Ministry of Defense for blocking”), Berliner Zeitung (daily newspaper), 14 June 2002.
[17] Plenarprotokoll des Deutschen Bundestages; 242. Sitzung [Plenary Protocol of the German Parliament; 242. Session], 13 June 2002.
[18] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 620-621.
[19] Letter from Ministry of Defense, Berlin, 15 May 2000; telephone interview with representative of the Ministry of Defense, 1 June 2001.
[20] Article 7 Report, Form D, 16 April 2002. The report does not give any of the required details of the destruction of these mines. Institutions permitted to hold stocks of antipersonnel mines are obliged to inform the Bundesausfuhramt (Federal Department for Exports) of types and quantities of antipersonnel mines possessed or under their control.
[21] In previous German Article 7 Reports, these mines were not recorded as being in German stockpiles, nor retained under Article 3.
[22] Denmark, Article 7 Report, Form D, 29 April 2002.
[23] The M18A1 is a directional fragmentation mine commonly known as the Claymore. The M74 mines are used in the U.S. GEMSS remotely delivered mine system. No other country is known to have GEMSS.
[24] Landmine Monitor Italy interview with Col. Giuseppe Cornacchia, General Staff, Ministry of Defense, Rome, 11 March 2002.
[25] Article 7 Report, Form D, 16 April 2002.
[26] For information on German antivehicle mines and other devices identified by the GIBL as having antipersonnel capabilities, and the Ministry of Defense’s comments about those mines, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 701. See also, www.landmine.de.
[27] “Scharping gerät wegen Airbus-Kaufs stärker unter Druck” (“Scharping is getting more and more pressure for the Airbus purchase”), Die Welt (daily newspaper), 26 April 2002.
[28] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 647, and Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp. 699-702. GIBL has reported a German stockpile of 90,000 MUSPA mines.
[29] Thomas Küchenmeister and Otfried Nassauer, “‘Gute Mine’ zum bösen Spiel: Landminen made in Germany” (“‘Good mines’, bad games? Landmines made in Germany”) (Idstein: KOMZI-Verlag, 1995).
[30] Telephone interview by Thomas Küchenmeister, GIBL, with the Ministry of Defense, May 2002.
[31] Bundesrechnungshof [Federal Audit Divsion], Bemerkungen zur Haushalts- und Wirtschaftsführung des Bundes [remarks on budgeting and auditing issues], 2001, p. 166.
[32] The Netherlands, CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form C, 14 November 2001.
[33] “Netherlands to plan landmine order,” Jane’s International Defense Review, March 2001, p. 6.
[34] For details of the Lew Kopelew process, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp. 697-698.
[35] “Bundesrechnungshof , Bemerkungen zur Haushalts- und Wirtschaftsführung des Bundes” (“Federal Audit Division, remarks on budgeting and auditing issues”), 2001, pp. 164-165.
[36] Exchange rate at 29 April 2002: €1 = US$0.898, used throughout. The 32 countries are: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Egypt, Georgia (Abkhazia), Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Russian Federation (Chechnya), Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia (Kosovo), and Zimbabwe.
[37] Email from Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the GIBL, 24 May 2002.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo), Germany, Liberia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Vietnam. This report concentrates on the activities of GIBL member organizations. Some of these programs are co-financed by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Cooperation and Development; their contributions are subtracted from the total in order to show the public donation contribution.
[41] See: “Mine Action Programs From A Development-Oriented Point Of View – The Bad Honnef Framework,” GIBL, revised version, 1999, available at: www.landmine.de.
[42] GIBL Questionnaire 2001 to member organizations, Markus Haake, Berlin, May 2002.
[43] “Über 10.000 Schüler/innen demonstrierten in München für Verbote der Landminen und der Einsätze von Kindersoldaten” (“More than 10,000 students protested in Munich for a ban on landmines and on the use of child soldiers”), Frankfurter Rundschau, 16 March 2002.
[44] “Peacekeeper killed in Macedonia landmine blast,” Agence France Presse, 9 May 2002.
[45] “Kriegs-Sprengsätze belasten NRW” (“Remnants of War Pollute North Rhine-Westphalia”), Lippische Landes-Zeitung (daily newspaper), 11 July 2001; “Mehr Munition im vergangenen Jahr in NRW gefunden” (More munitions Found in North Rhine-Westphalia in the Last Year], Aachener Zeitung (daily newspaper), 11 July 2001.
[46] “Minen im Schlossgraben” (“Mines in the moat”), Nordwest-online (daily newspaper – online edition), 27 September 2001; “Wie kamen die Waffen in den Schlossgraben?” (“How did the mines get into the moat?”), Hildesheimer Allgemeine Zeitung (daily newspaper), 28 September 2001.
[47] “München bleibt Pulverfass” (“Munich Remains a Powder Keg”), Süddeutsche Zeitung (daily newspaper), 22 April 2002.
[48] “Vier Explosionen erschüttern Gramzow” (“Four Explosions Shook Gramzow”), Nordkurier-Online (daily newspaper – online edition), 24 May 2002.
[49] “Die Idylle von Königsbrück täuscht” (“The deceptive paradise of Königsbrück”), Lausitzer Rundschau-online (daily newspaper – online edition), 19 April 2001, www.lr-online.de.
[50] “Explosives Erbe” (“Explosive Remnants”), Märkische Allgemeine (daily newspaper), 11 January 2002.
