|
|
|
 |
HOME RESEARCH NEWS ORDER CONTACTS COMMENTS FACTSHEETS |
|
REPORTS: 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 |
|
Comments Received by Landmine MonitorPages: << | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >> | Sort by: Date / Country Country: Uzbekistan Date Received: 31 Jul 2001 Ambassador of the Republic of Uzbekistan
Ms. Mary Wareham July 31, 2001 Dear Ms. Wareham, Thank you for the letter of July 17, 2001 advising on upcoming publication of the third annual Landmine Monitor Report. Having attentively studied a draft regarding Uzbekistan policy your good offices kindly provided for comments and possible alterations, my authorities noted that along with reference to statements of Uzbek officials on the subject, there are quotations from the both local and international media. Since those cross-references contradict on several occasions, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate an official stance of Uzbekistan on this issue. Although Uzbekistan has not acceded to the Ottawa Convention of 1997 on banning the use, stockpiling, production, distribution and transfer of landmines, the country at the same time de facto implements a number of its provisions, specifically:
The mining of certain areas of the state border by the Armed Forces of Uzbekistan is necessitated by the considerations of national security threatened by the incursions of armed international terrorist groups from outside. The landmining is not aimed against civilians, who according to the norms of international law are due to cross borders at specially assigned places. In this regard, at some border areas passage checkpoints have been established to ensure safe border-passage in accordance with international regulations and to avoid peaceful civilians being injured. I would also like to attract your attention to discrepancy of rather technical nature, specifically in naming Uzbek Minister of Defense once Kadyr Guliamov, then Qodir Pulatov in the draft, while correct one is Kodyr Gulomov. I appreciate your eagerness to prepare report as objectively as possible and hope that afore-mentioned comments and remarks are to be considered for further inclusion into the final text. Please accept Ms. Wareham, my assurances of high considerations.
Sincerely, Country: Sudan Date Received: 29 Jul 2001 Humanitarian Aid Commission - Sudan 29 July 2001 To: Mary WarehamCoordinator - landmine MonitorC/O Human Rights Watch SUB: Landmine monitor report 2001: Towards a Mine-free World
Reference
I hope this will help to put the right and useful information in your 2001 landmine report. Thanks Abdellati AbdelkheirDeputy Commissioner HAC-SudanPerson in charge of landmine file-Sudan Country: Namibia Date Received: 22 Jul 2001 PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
135 East 36th Street 23 July 2001 Dear Ms. Wareham, I have the honour to refer to your letter dated 25 May 2001, addressed to Hon. Dr. Theo-Ben Gouriab, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Namibia. In the said letter, you have indicated that the third annual report of Landmine Monitor - "Landmine Monitor Report 2001: Towards a Mine-Free World," may identify Namibia as "a Government that is alleged to have used or assisted in the use of anti-personnel landmines". In this regard, the Government of the Republic of Namibia wishes to respond as follows: a) Namibia signed the Convention on the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, (The Convention) on 3 December 1997 and subsequently ratified it on 21 July 1998. b) Since the ratification of the said Convention, the Namibian Defence Forces has never used anti-personnel mines or assisted any other forces in the use thereof, both in its internal and international military operations. c) Subsequent to the ratification of the Convention in July 1998, the Namibian Government completed the destruction of all APMs except those retained for training purposes, as permitted by the Convention. d) The commitment of the Namibian Government to the enforcement of, and compliance with the provisions of the Convention, in particular ARTICLE 1 thereof, is further illustrated by the fact that the Government has destroyed all APMs Namibian forces have captured from UNITA arms depots during military operations along Namibia's border with Angola. The media were also invited to witness such destruction earlier this year. The Government of the Republic of Namibia, therefore, for the reasons stated above, denies any use or assistance to use anti-personnel mines by its forces. Such an allegation would thus lack any factual basis. I trust that the above information would be duly considered in the preparation of your report.
Yours Sincerely,
Ms. Mary Wareham Country: Singapore Date Received: 15 Jul 2001
AMBASSADOR OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE July 16, 2001
Ms. Mary Wareham Dear Ms. Wareham Third Annual Report of the Landmine Monitor I refer to your letter dated 25 May 2001 informing us that the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is preparing its 3rd Annual Landmine Monitor Report. We do not condone the indiscriminate use of APL's, especially against civilians. However, we believe that the legitimate security concerns and right of self-defence of states cannot be disregarded. ST Kinetics is the only company in Singapore that produces APLs. The APLs produced are meant solely for use by our armed forces for self-defence purposes only. ST Kinetics does not export APLs as Singapore had, since Feb 1998, declared an indefinite moratorium on the export of all types of APLs. We hope our inputs would be of assistance to you in putting together the 2001 Landmine Monitor Report. Yours sincerely, (Signed) Chan Heng Chee Country: Georgia Date Received: 10 Jul 2001
To: Mrs. Mary Wareham Dear Mrs. Wareham: Let me express our gratitude for your letter concerning preparation of the third annual report of Landmine Monitor. Georgia attaches great importance to the issue of banning antipersonnel mines and considers the above-mentioned report as a very crucial component in achieving such a noble goal as the mine-free world. In reply to your inquiry I would like to state that the governmental structures of Georgia has neither tacitly nor openly supported Georgian partisans in their use of antipersonnel mines. The official position of Georgia in this repsect is widely known to the international society. Since the moratorium declared by President Shevardnadze in 1996 Georgia has been strictly abstaining from use, manufacture and import of antipersonnel mines. In connection with the Landmine Monitor Report 2000 we would like to draw your attention on several issues which are a matter of deep concern for us. First of all, the facts of referring to Georgia and Abkhazia as two independent states and subjects of international law are absolutely inadmissable for Georgian side. The prevalent and only form of mentioning Abkhazia in the official documents of such international organizations as United Nations, OSCE etc. goes as follows - "Abkhazia, Georgia." Moreover, we consider the fact of placing the report from this Abkhazian region separately from the part dedicated to the current situation in Georgia as inadequate and contrary to the position of the international community that remains unambiguous in this respect and does not acknowledge the sovereignty of the separatist regime. With regard to the number of landmine victims during the hostilities in Abkhazia, Georgia, the Head of Science and Technical Research Department of the General Staff of Georgian Armed Forces Colonel Tavadze, who was cited in the report, claims that the information stating 70% of casualties of hostilities being the landmine victims adduced in the report significantly differs from the one he brought indeed. In fact, the mentioned figure of 70% is likely to be quite far from the reality. We would like also to note that according to the information received from the Ministry of Defence of Georgia and the State Department of the State Border Protection there is not any sort of minefields located on the Georgian side of the state border between Georgia and Turkey. In reply to your suggestion, we would like to underline that Georgian side remains open to hold the meetings with the representatives of ICBL. I very much hope that our comments and remarks will be taken into consideration and included in a new version of the report. As a conclusion, let me express the readiness of the Georgian side to aim every effort at enhancing our cooperation in the future. Sincerely,
Giorgi Burduli Country: Chechnya Date Received: 19 Jun 2001 NOÇYUN RESPUBLIKA NOXÇIYÇÖCHECHEN REPUBLIC OF ICHKERIAMINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS June 19, 2001
The Honourable Jody Williams
Ms. Mary Wareham
Ms. Zarema Mazaeva The Position of the Chechen Government on the Problem of Antipersonnel Mines The position of the Chechen government has already been voiced by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1998, an announcement was made expressing support for the Ottawa process and the readiness of the Chechen Republic to sign the Ottawa Convention of 1997 on Prohibition of Use, Accumulation and Manufacture of antipersonnel Mines. But, very regretfully, as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation and the renewal of military actions on the territory of the Chechen Republic, now the active, wide-scale use of antipersonnel mines of various types and other explosive devices by the Russian army is again taking place. All of this is widely applied in the Chechen Republic along with other kinds of arms forbidden by the international conventions including, according to latest reports of American experts, some serious suspicions of the use of bacteriological and chemical weapons. The indiscriminate, wide-scale ground and remote mining of the territory of the Chechen Republic by the Russian armed forces has already had catastrophic and long-term humanitarian consequences. The Chechen Army does not have and has never had antipersonnel mines in its arsenal, although army diversionary groups and guerrilla groups carrying out the struggle against the occupying regime rather frequently use, predominantly against armour, various kinds of self-made explosive devices. However, as a way to improve the efficient use of resources with the goal of defeating the armour of the opponent, all explosive devices used by the Chechen side are radio-controlled and are therefore unable to cause damage to civilians. The Chechen Army, even if it so desired, cannot allow itself the "luxury" of unlimited expenditure of explosives. In addition, the political tasks of the Chechen armed forces include the protection of its own population against a genocide policy of the Russian army, and we simply do not have reason to use antipersonnel mines. As a counterbalance to this, last year the Russian command, several months after the beginning of war, "boasted" about its "achievements", declaring that they planted half a million mines against "the Chechen terrorists " (http: // www.chechenpress.com/news/ru/06_2001/12 _19_06.shtml). It is logical to assume that these "achievements" by the present time should have already at least tripled. According to the Joint Staff of the Chechen Army, there are already approximately 1,800,000 antipersonnel mines on the territory of our small country. We believe that you should take an interest in the supply of explosives on the Chechen side. As mentioned above, the Russian army places mines everywhere in the Chechen territory. Overabundance of these mines and the constant danger of them has compelled the leadership of the Chechen Armed forces to generate special mine-clearing divisions and has thus collected trophies of explosives in self-made shells of the defeated opponent. Similar experience of mine clearing and the production of explosives have found wide application among the governmental and guerrilla divisions all over the Chechen Republic. It can be concluded that this technology resolves both the problem of shortages of ammunition on the Chechen side and how to effectively defeat the armour of the opponent. However, it is necessary to stipulate that this handicraft technology cannot be considered sufficient in a context of the resolution of the problem of mine clearing on the territory of the Chechen Republic because, at best, due to the absence of maps of the mine fields, it promotes the cleanup of mines of only an insignificant part of roads and footpaths. The Chechen Republic has no factories for making mines and consequently it is impossible to call the manufacturing of radio-controlled self-made explosive devices a real industry. The Chechen armed forces and a home guard for the protection of the peaceful population of the Chechen Republic against destruction, mockery, humiliation and plunder, not having military resources equivalent to Russias, must apply self-made explosive devices which are produced directly before usage. We are seriously concerned about the situation in the Chechen Republic regarding the danger of mines to civilians. Moreover, it is a result not only of the present war, but also of military actions in 1994-1996. The Chechen government regards the mine situation in our country as extremely dangerous and as having catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The absence of special services in the Chechen Republic for making records of mine victims does not allow for us to have the exact information about the number of victims, as in the last war and so to the current one. As a result of application of mines in Chechen territory in war of 1994-1996 thousands of people have suffered, especially children. In addition, injured people were deprived of opportunities to receive adequate medical and psychological rehabilitation because of the most difficult economic situation in Chechnya in the post-war period. This situation is aggravated many times over with the continued use of mines in the current war. According to Ministry of Health of the Chechen Republic, 8,000 people now require prosthetics. But taking into account that in recent months the number of traumas were predominantly mine-explosive traumas, it is supposed that prosthetics are needed by 14,000-16,000 people. These people are deprived opportunities to receive basic medical aid. We are sure that without the special attention of international governmental and non-governmental organizations there will be no exit from this catastrophic situation in the Chechen Republic. We believe that international organizations should play a major role in the resolution of this crisis. First is it is necessary to promote an immediate suspension of the war. Only this, in our view, would stop the inhumane process of further mining in territory of the Chechen Republic. The second step is to adopt an international program of humanitarian mine clearing on territory of the Chechen Republic. And, the third step is to provide assistance to innocent victims of this brutal war. The government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is now considering the necessity of preparing a plan for a National program on humanitarian mine clearing in the territory of our country as well as for creating programs to educate children and for the rehabilitation of victims (The Center for the Rehabilitation of the Handicapped). The creation of a special agency for gathering information on victims of mines and other explosive devices is on the working plan for rehabilitation programs for victims and for humanitarian mine clearing. However, as mentioned above, even after the termination of the war we are not capable of coping with a mine problem on our own and we require the help of international organizations in order to implement programs for the destruction of mines, humanitarian mine clearing, and the rehabilitation of victims. In addition, the absence of maps of minefields will inhibit the process of mine clearing on the territory of our country after the end of the war. We see the implementation of such programs as being through the close cooperation of Chechen and international non-governmental organizations. These programs should be commissioned at once after the termination of war, and it is necessary to start developing them right away. In the conclusion, allow me to express hope for the development of our cooperation in a name of building a world free from wars and mines! My contact information: 215 Constitution Ave, NE, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20002. Tel and Fax: 202-544-2871. E-mail: Lyomaus@aol.com Sincerely yours,
Lyoma Usmanov Country: Ethiopia Date Received: 13 Jun 2001
Date: 13 JUN 2001
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Dear Ms. Mary Wareham, I have the honour to refer to your letter dated 25 May 2001 requesting our comments on the forthcoming Third Annual Report of Landmine Monitor, including a confirmation or denial of use by Ethiopia of antipersonnel landmines since May 2000. At the outset, I would like to appreciate your concern to reflect the objective reality regarding the use of antipersonnel landmines in the forthcoming Landmine Monitor Report 2001. As you are probably aware, Ethiopia is a signatory to the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997 Mine Ban Treaty). Ethiopia's active participation throughout the negotiation process of the convention would undoubtedly show the particular attention the Government has given to the issue. In fact, Ethiopia has gone through terrible experiences with the effects of antipersonnel landmines during the Italian colonial invasion of 1936 and the Somali invasion of 1977/78. Similarly, Mengistu's defunct regime massively used antipersonnel landmines on several frontlines in the country from 1974 to 1991. In its unprovoked aggression of Ethiopian territory, the Eritrean invading army planted hundreds of thousands of antipersonnel landmines in an arera that covers more than ten thousand sq. kms. As a result, the ongoing repatriation and rehabilitation of displaced persons in the liberated Ethiopian areas is provoked to be extremely difficult. The planted antipersonnel landmines are causing several casualties of civilians, including children and women. It is unfortunate and regrettable that there has not been significant effort on the part of the international community to put the necessary pressure on Eritrea to restrain itself from this irresponsible conduct and adhere to the established standards set under the Convention. Ethiopia being the victim of Eritrean aggression did not have the need to plant landmines as it was fighting mobile warfare to liberate its occupied territories. It was the Eritrean army that had to mine the fields in order to defend the areas it forcefully occupied. Hence, Ethiopia, the victim of Eritrea's aggression since 6May 1998, did not use antipersonnel landmines throughout the course of the war. In fact, on the contrary, the Ethiopian army was forced to engage in landmine clearance. While this is the fact on the ground, it would not be quite appropriate to wrongfully accuse Ethiopia as using antipersonnel landmines. This, in my opinion, would have the effect of defeating rather than serving the objectives and goals of the Mine Ban Treaty. It has to be noted that a unilateral adherence of a state cannot ensure the proper realization of the spirit of the convention while there are certain other states in the Horn of Africa which have a very high propensity to use antipersonnel landmines as a matter of routine battle strategy instead of adhering to the international-legal norms that ban the use of antipersonnel landmines. The prevalence of this situation in our region poses a serious threat to the national security of my country as well as the stability of the whole region. I, therefore, believe that it would be wise and reasonable to adopt a regional approach whereby the international community would put the necessary pressure on those states in the Horn region to expeditiously adhere to the letter and spirit of the Convention. This is a challenge not only to my Government but to the international community at large. Although I am very much disappointed in your anticipation that Ethiopia will be identified in the Report as a government that has used antipersonnel landmines since May 2000, I am confident that you would reconsider your anticipation in good faith in light of the objective reality of the country during this period. I am indeed pleased with your commitment to reflect our views in the report. I would, therefore, appeal to your conscientious to reconsider your position in view of the above and to come up with a report that reflect the reality on the ground. I appreciate your proposal to engage in constructive dialogue with the Government of Ethiopia. I am confident that it would further augment your endeavor to objectively monitor the proper implementation of the Convention. Please accept, Dear Coordinator, the assurances of my highest regards.
Signed: Country: United Kingdom Date Received: 11 May 2001
United Kingdom
37-39 rue de Vermont
Tel (Direct): (00-41) 22-918-2312 11 May 2001
Landmine Monitor Representative APL MINE STOCKPILES & THEIR DESTRUCTION: A PROGRESS REPORT: LANDMINE MONITOR FACT SHEET We wish to draw your attention to the reference made to the UK in the table on Stockpile Destruction Deadlines on page 8 of your fact sheet. We wish to affirm that US stocks do not fall under out national jurisdiction or control and we do not therefore have any obligations under Article 4 of the Convention on Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction in respect of them. We have fully complied with our obligations in respect of stocks that were under our jurisdiction and control. Any reference to outstanding obligations is inappropriate and should be removed in an amended version of the fact sheet and any subsequent documentation that may go forward to the Landmine Monitor Report for 2001.
(Signed) Letter from John S Duncan (pdf) Country: UNDP Date Received: 14 Nov 2000
United Nations Development Programme 14 November 2000
Mr S. Goose Dear Steve, I am writing to congratulate you, Mary Wareham and the rest of your team on another excellent effort in producing Land Mine Monitor (LMM) Report for 2000. It is a most comprehensive and reliable reference work, and it is very useful to us in our day to day work. UNDP was pleased to assist and contribute to the report, and we are grateful for the opportunity to have the section detailing UNDP's work in mine action included in the Appendixes. I notice in the introduction of the Report that you encourage comments about the LMM, so I would like to pass on a few thoughts. The first is a simple one; I would suggest that some visible change be made to each year's addition, so that it is easier to distinguish each year's report - maybe just a sticker with the year shown clearly. Secondly, in the Executive Summary report, I was disappointed that there was very little mention of the work of the UN, and UNDP in particular, in the chapter on Humanitarian Mine Action. This information was provided in the various UN inputs to the main report. For example, on page 20 you list 19 coordination structures around the world. The UN is providing the principal support to 15 national mine action programmes (see countries receiving UNDP support in the table on page 1016 of the Report, plus Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo). However, the following two sections of the report do not mention the UN role at all. Finally, I am concerned that the chapter on mine awareness in the Executive Summary was not up to the standard of the rest of the report. All other chapters were factual, well researched and reach impassive conclusions. The mine awareness chapter seems highly opinionated, emotive and appears to follow a personal opinion. The UNICEF guidelines on mine awareness are quite comprehensive, and were the result of a very inclusive process, yet they only receive scant attention in the second last paragraph. Why should the ICBL be challenging UNMAS to "act speedily" in one matter - the LMM does not seem the place for this type of language. Also, there are a number of factual errors in this section. For example: a) on page 29 (Country Coverage) a number of countries, including Vietnam, are identified as possibly needing their awareness education. On page 30, there is reference to the "school based focus of the programmes in Croatia, and similarly Lao and Vietnam". b) On page 31, with regard mapping and input to prioritization, MAG was conducting community mapping within several of their integrated mine action projects as far back as 1996. c) On page 31, reference is made to the use of the US Army Psychological Operations personnel involvement in training of mine awareness teams. This was one element of the training; with the mine awareness programme coordinated by UXO LAO, and with technical support/on-the-job training, also provided by UNICEF, MAG and Norwegian People's Aid. It should also be noted that while the US Army personnel did play a role in training (and as a result also provided valuable resources for the programme), the National staff recruited were non-military, and selection criteria stressed issues such as communication skills and knowledge of ethnic languages. Once again, I would like to congratulate you on the LMM 2000 Report, and to assure you that UNDP remains ready to contribute and assist in the future.
Yours sincerely, Country: Syria Date Received: 27 Sep 2000
MISSION PERMANENTE DE LA No. 437/00 Geneva, 27th of September 2000 Dear Mrs. Jackie Hansen, Reviewing Landmine Monitor Report 2000, and admiring the valuable information and the great humanitarian efforts of the coalition of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, I was surprised to find out that you detached the "Golan Heights" from Syria and put it under "other", taking by that, political position in full contradiction with International legality, which is harmful to the credibility of the humanitarian attitude of the non-governmental organizations parties to the Coalition. The occupied Syrian Golan is an integral part of the national territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, it is beyond dispute, and it is always the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. Security council resolution N.497 of 17 December 1981 decided in clear terms that Israeli's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void. Foreign occupation contradicts all the way with the principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. We regret the embarking of your "campaign" on grave distortion of the Syrian national identity of the Occupied Syrian Golan and we request a correction which insures that the text relating to the Golan Heights will be included in the text on Syria. Please accept, Mrs. Jackie Hansen, our best regards.
Taher AL-HUSSAMI
Mrs Jackie HANSEN |
|