Comments Received by Landmine Monitor

Pages: << | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >> | Sort by: Date / Country

Country: China
Date Received: 10 Apr 2000

April 10, 2000

Dear Ms. Yukika Sohma and Yukie Osa,

We have received your letter requesting our comments on your last edition of Landmine Monitor 1999 as well as detailed information on China's efforts on mine clearance activities and assistance to landmine casualties. We have given serious consideration to your letter and would like to make the following comments and response.

It is obvious that you attached importance to reflecting China's policy and position on the issue of landmines in your report. For that purpose, you must have done a lot of work and consulted relevant sources. We are grateful for your efforts in this regard. We appreciate the responsible attitude you adopted by quoting the exact statements made by Chinese officials in various occasions and the relevant section from the White Paper on China's National Defense. Meanwhile, we also noted that Landmine Monitor 1999 quoted some remarks of assessment or speculation by agencies from other countries or individuals on China's production, transfer, stockpiling and use of anti-personnel landmines (APLs). It is our view that such an approach is not appropriate. We can not but feel regretful for that. We strongly hope that you exclude such groundless views or statistics out of speculation in Landmine Monitor 2000 in a responsible manner.

We understand that the objective of Landmine Monitor 2000 is to accurately reflect the policy and position on the issue of landmines of all countries, including China. China's policy on the issue of landmines is as follows:

"China has always attached great importance to accidental injury to civilians caused by landmines. It supports proper and rational restrictions placed on the use and transfer of landmines. At the same time, the Chinese government holds that, in addressing the problem of landmines, especially that of APLs, due regard should be given to both humanitarian concerns and legitimate military means, including the use of APLs, according to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. As a developing country with long borders, China has to reserve the right to use APLs for self-defense on its own territory pending an alternative to replace APLs and the presence of security and defense capability."

After outlining the above-mentioned policy, your report may then proceed to enumerate the actions taken by China based on that policy, including the activities cited in Landmine Monitor 1999. For example, in April 1996, China announced a moratorium on the export of APLs which are prohibited by the Amended Landmine Protocol annexed to the CCW Convention. In 1998, China ratified the Amended Landmine Protocol. In that same year, China donated US$100,000 to the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Mine Clearance and sponsored an international mine clearance training course in China in cooperation with the UN. It has also decided to contribute some equipment for mine detection and clearance to the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Mine Clearance, earmarked to some mine-affected countries. It has successfully launched two large-scale demining operations in Sino-Vietnamese border areas. China is not a State Party to the Ottawa Convention.

You also requested us to provide detailed information on China's mine clearance activities in Yunnan Province and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. Therefore, we attach herewith Postwar Demining Operations in China (1992-1999) and China's National Report to the First Annual Conference of the States Parties to the Amended Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices Annexed to the CCW. These two reports contain detailed information on China's mine clearance activities and mine clearance assistance. Please draw the relevant information from these two reports into the Landmine Monitor 2000.

China attached importance to assistance to mine victims and has made tremendous efforts in this area. However, we have been engaged only in actual assistance work so far instead of making them known to other countries. We are yet to conduct a comprehensive compiling of the statistics in this regard. The departments concerned in the Chinese government are trying to gather relevant information. Once available, the information will be publicized in due time.

WANG Xiaolin
Third Secretary
Department of Arms Control and Disarmament
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
People's Republic of China

Country: Colombia
Date Received: 22 Jul 1999

EMBAJADA DE COLOMBIA

Washington, DC

July 22nd, 1999

Ms. Mary Wareham
Senior Advocate, Arms Division
Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Avenue NW #500
Washington D.C. 20009

Dear Ms. Wareham:

I really appreciate your sending me a copy of the Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World and its Executive Summary wich, I am sure, will provide an important means to indicate the global effectiveness on landmine banning.

Cordially,

Luis Alberto Moreno

Ambassador

Country: Colombia
Date Received: 22 Sep 2003

English (Spanish below):

DM/DPM No. 29088

Bogotá D.C., July 30, 2003

Mrs. MARY WAREHAM
Coordinator of Global Research
Land Mines Monitor
Washington, DC

Dear Coordinator:

This is pertaining to your note on the 15th of this month, related to the mining of Munchique Hill by the National Army. While reiterating the Government of Colombia’s undeclinable commitment to the full application of the Ottawa Convention, most attentively I would like to inform you that the type of mine used in this mining operation was the Claymore mine; the utilization is controlled by command and not by a traction fuse. According to the definitions contained in Article 2 of the Convention these mines are not considered anti-personnel mines and thus their use is not prohibited.

In addition, I would like to point out that the mined fields of Munchique Hill have been perfectly demarcated and marked, in order to avoid any danger to the civilian population.

Cordially,

CAROLINA BARCO
Minister of Foreign Relations
________________________________________

Spanish:

DM/DPM No. 29088

Bogotá D.C., 30 de julio de 2003

Señora
MARY WAREHAM
Coordinadora de Investigación Global
Monitor de Minas Terrestres
Washington, D.C.

Señora Coordinadora:

En atención a su nota del 15 de los corrientes, relacionada con el minado del Cerro Munchique, por parte del Ejercito Nacional, y al reiterar el indeclinable compromiso del Gobierno de Colombia con la plena aplicación de la Convención de Ottawa, muy atentamente me permito informar a usted que en dicha operación de minado se utilizaron minas tipo Claymore, de utilización controlada por medio de comando y no por espoleta de tracción, las cuales, de acuerdo con las definiciones contenidas en el Artículo 2 de la Convención, no son consideradas como minas antipersonales y, por lo tanto, no son de uso prohibido.

Adicionalmente, me permito señalar que los campos minados en el Cerro Munchique han sido perfectamente demarcados y señalizados, buscando así evitar cualquier peligro para la población civil.

Cordialmente,

CAROLINA BARCO
Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores

Country: Cuba
Date Received: 19 Jun 2000

Statement of the Directorate of Multilateral Affairs of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Landmine Monitor researcher, sent by email, 19 June 2000.

ATT.NOEL STTOT.
VERSION EN INGLES
INTRODUCTION

Cuba is not a State Party to the Convention on the Prohibition of Antipersonnel Landmines because, for the time being, it is not possible for it to fulfill the responsibilities deriving from that international legal instrument and mainly because the possession and use of antipersonnel landmines form part of the country's defense doctrine called "Peoples War".

The defense concept of the Republic of Cuba is the result of the Cuban people's willingness to defend its sovereignty and independence constantly threaten by the manifest hostility of nine Administrations of the United States of America, which have planned, promoted, encourage, supported, and carried out a vast number of aggressive and subversive actions against the Cuban people and Government.

However, on several occasions, the Cuban Government has publicly expressed that it understands and shares the humanitarian concerns caused by the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of antipersonnel landmines.

Likewise, Cuba has expressed its full support to the humanitarian efforts made by the international community to prevent or mitigate the effects of the indiscriminate use of this kind of weapons.

Although anonymously at times, Cuba has contributed in an actual and effective fashion to these humanitarian efforts: hundreds of Cuban volunteer doctors have provided and continue to provide medical assistance and treatment for thousands of persons injured by antipersonnel landmines in various parts of the world, including areas devastated by internal armed conflicts.

At present, just to cite an example, thousands of Cuban medical doctors are serving in 14 countries located in different geographical zones, such as Central America, the Caribbean and Africa as part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Delivery Program, whereby Cuba provides these nations with solidary medical cooperation.

INFORMATION ON SOME LEGAL REGULATIONS APPLIED IN CUBA TO CONTROL CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS

In Cuba, there are national regulations to control the use of antipersonnel landmines and of all the other kinds of weapon the country has.

Decree Law No. 52 on the Control of Firearms and License Procedures has been enacted since 1982. The licenses are issued to those persons meeting the established requirements, mainly those engaged in crime prevention duties.

The weapons intended for the protection and security of the State-owned economic entities are given on the basis of the values to be protected.

On 17 June 1998, the Council of State of the Republic of Cuba passed Decree Law No. 186 on Work Safety and Security Systems that, in accordance with its Article 1: ".... is aimed at establishing and monitoring Work Safety and Security Systems and related services".

Chapter VII of the aforementioned Decree Law establishes the following regulations, among others, for firearms and equipment of the members of the Service for Security and Protection:

Article 37: Security Enterprises and Groups are authorized to possess, use and custody firearms and personal equipment for their intended purposes, seeking prior approval from the Ministry of Interior and in accordance with standing legal provisions and regulations.
Article 38: Firearms are used only for the protection of the objectives and services they are intended to; thus prohibiting any kind of transfer, change of location or use for purposes other than the ones for which they were authorized, without prior approval from the Ministry of Interior.

More recently, on 16 February 1999, with the passing of Law No. 87, which modified the Penal Code, the national legislation regarding the illegal trafficking in arms, among many other issues, has been reinforced.

Article 11 of the aforementioned Law amends Articles 211 and 212 of the Penal Code sentencing any person who -- without legal authorization -- acquires, carries or possess a firearm to 2-5 year prison terms and to 3-8 year imprisonment if the person manufactures, sells or in any way facilitates another the possession of a firearm.

Article 11 also includes penalties ranging from three to eight-year prison terms for the first case and four to ten-years imprisonment for the second crime, if it is about a type of firearm for which no license is granted.

Chapter 2, Article 346 of the same Law, when referring to money laundering, provides from five to twelve years imprisonment to any person who acquires, exchanges or transfers any of his/her resources, properties or rights, or to any person pretending to carry out the aforementioned operations knowingly or not, or rationally supposing -- based on the occasion or circumstance in which the operation is conducted -- that these resources, properties or rights directly or indirectly derive from activities related to the illegal trafficking in drugs, weapons or persons or organized crime.

There is no a retail network in Cuba for weapons sale, including antipersonnel landmines, to legal or natural persons.

Cuba has neither exported nor is exporting mines and it has publicly expressed it. In 1996, United Nations Secretary General published a Report (A/51/313), dated 28 August 1996, under the provisions of Resolution 50/70 O of the United Nations General Assembly, entitled "Moratorium on the Export of Antipersonnel Landmines". This Report contains information provided by the Cuban Government expressing that Cuba has neither exported nor is exporting mines.

The Cuban Government has given convincing evidence of its readiness to participate actively in international negotiations for the implementation of a regime for the comprehensive ban on exports of all kinds of mines.

REASONS FOR THE LAYING OF MINES IN THE PERIMETER SURROUNDING THE GUANTANAMO NAVAL BASE, ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

It is well known that there are mines planted in the perimeter surrounding the illegally occupied Guantnamo Naval Base; these mines were laid after the United States of America had deployed its own landmines in this illegally occupied area.

Little is known, however, about the real reasons compelling Cuba to lay and maintain those mines.

The international community has information on the hostile and aggressive actions the Government of the United States of America has carried out against Cuba for more than 30 years. Nevertheless, we consider there is still a lot to be said about such actions.

Between July 5-20, 1999, in the Civil and Administrative Court of Law at the Provincial People's Court in the City of Havana, there were public hearings of the compensation lawsuit for damages filed by the Cuban people against the Government of the United States of America.

Tens of witnesses and a number of evidence were presented in the hearings. The Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces was in charge of giving expert opinions about two of the principal allegations made in the Lawsuit. One of them was related to the use of the Guantnamo Naval Base as an instrument of the United States Government's aggressive policy towards the Cuban Government and people. (1)

Below are some excerpts of the aforementioned expert opinion that illustrate how the Guantnamo Naval Base of the United States of America, located in the Bay of Guantnamo has been used as an instrument of the aggressive policy of the United States towards Cuba and how from this place they it has caused irreparable harm to the Cuban people.

"The agreement for the establishment of the Guantnamo Naval Base, ever since it was signed, took an entirely illegal nature. The shameful Platt Amendment, imposed to Cubans and accepted only under penalty that U.S. intervention troops would not leave the country, caused that still effective Treaty to be signed under blatant and arrogant pressure, giving it an illegal nature and fully justifying the our peoples claim for the usurped territory. "

" the troops stationed in this U.S. military facility were used by the previous governments more than once as instruments for internal repression. In 1912, the troops billeted in the base overstepped their limits to quench the uprising of the Color Independent Party. Five years later, on the occasion of the uprising of the Liberal Party, several groups of US marines took positions outside the base, under the pretext of protecting the water supply lines from the free Cuban territory."

The establishment of new relations between both countries 1st January 1959 marks the moment when the contradictions accumulated for many years regarding the illegal presence of the Guantnamo Naval Base became fully evident. These new relations polarized the increasingly aggressive policy by US Administrations and the determined Cuban stance vis-a-vis the challenge posed by the North."

Later on, the expert opinion states that just before 1959 when the last stage of the Cuban Revolution led by actual President, Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz, was being waged up in the Eastern mountains, " the Guantnamo Naval BASE was used by the United States to clandestinely supply weapons and munitions to Batista's Army in its last waning days (2) even though it had been prohibited by the U.S. Congress..."

"After the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in January 1959 and as part of the US-launched offensive to increase its presence in its overseas territories, the Base was a choice scenario for the increase of US interference... a historical average of 15 US ships, over 50% of them war ships, performing military exercises and maneuvers everyday inside the bay or near its service areas located to the South of that facility, even using live munitions with the corresponding risk for sea transportation."

"Ground troops were gradually increased and, under the questionable designation of defensive forces, their number rose to around 2,500 troops in peacetime, because its reinforcement have been always planned for times of conflict, as it happened in the days of the Missile Crisis in 1962, when the total troops ready for action reached 5,800."

"For instance, on May 1980 during the military exercise Solid Shield, a scheduled reinforcements in the Base was around 1,200 marines; in 1984, as part of Ocean Venture-84, around 600-strong military personnel was transferred to the Base. In October 1991, for defense exercise DEFEX 2/91, the facility received around 600 additional marines."

"Traditionally, the US military leadership was bent on demonstrating that the training of its troops inside the Base had an eminently defensive nature. They even called their main military exercises Defense Exercise - DEFEX.

However, there is clear evidence revealing the real nature the military training inside the Base. One of the pages in the US Marines Field Regulations (Staff Action, FMFM 3-1, DE 1979) for the training of Staffs in Combat, shows a representative diagram with the idea of training inside the Guantnamo Naval BASE."

"The systematic acts of provocation from the Base, mainly by US military personnel, were part and parcel of US aggressions against Cuba since 1st January 1959."

"After the mercenary invasion in Bay of Pigs (April 1961), US military planners dedicated their time to find new aggressive options against Cuba. On 9 March 1962 they submitted to the consideration of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, a broad catalogue of "Reasons to Justify a US Military Invasion in Cuba."

This catalogue is part of a large group of documents declassified by the American government relative to the investigation of President Kennedys assassination. These files are called "Select Documents on Cuba" and contain a vast volume of information on actions planned by the United States with the purpose of fabricating a pretext to militarily intervene in Cuba.

We will make reference to those documents directly related to the Guantnamo Naval Base:

Incidents credibly simulating an attack:

Circulate (many) rumors. Use clandestine radio broadcast.
Land Cuban troops in uniform, "on the U.S. side of the fence", to simulate an attack on the Base.
Capture alleged Cuban saboteurs inside the Base.
Start riots (by alleged Cubans) near the main entrance to the Base.
Blow up explosive devices inside the Base and damage some of its facilities.
Burn aircraft inside the Base and make it look a sabotage act.
Fire mortar shells at the Base and damage some facilities.
Capture alleged storm troops approaching the Base from the sea or the city of Guantnamo.
Capture groups of militia harassing the Base.
Sabotage a vessel docked in port causing great fire.
Sink a vessel near the entrance to the port. Stage funeral of the victims. They could be around 10.

PRINCIPAL ACTS OF PROVOCATION FROM GUANTANAMO NAVAL BASE SINCE 1962

PRINCIPAL ACTS OF PROVOCATION	TOTAL
Throwing objects	1 376
Shots fired at our territory	783
Aiming weapons at our territory	725
Verbal offenses and lewd gestures	1 555
Other acts of provocation	797
TOTAL	5 236

PRINCIPAL VIOLATIONS FROM GUANTANAMO NAVAL BASE SINCE 1962.

TYPES OF VIOLATION	TOTAL
Violations of ground limits	610
Violations of air space	6 330
Violations of jurisdictional waters	1 322
TOTAL	8 262

The Cuban Government has denounced these acts in an opportune and systematic manner to the Government of the United States of America.

"In a Note Verbale dated 20 March 1962, the U.S. Government was notified of the occurrence of 12 acts of provocation taking place just from 3-5 March in the Guantnamo Naval Base. Those acts included firing shots and directing verbal offenses against the Cuban personnel."

"The Cuban Government, in a Note Verbale to the Swiss Embassy, dated 4 April 1961, denounced the perpetration of 48 violations of our air space near the Guantnamo Naval Base taking place between 15 February and 15 March 1961."

"In a Note Verbale addressed to the Czech Embassy, dated 2 January 1962, the U.S. authorities were given a summary of 101 violations of Cuban air space and jurisdictional waters between June and November 1962, most of them originating from the Guantnamo Naval Base."

It is necessary to point out that we have not made use of all the data contained in the Evidence Report because it would make this work too long. However, we consider that the information made public herein sheds some clear light as to why Cuba has been compelled to adopt defensive measures to protect the territory and people near the Guantnamo Naval Base.

In a separate Evidence Report submitted for the purpose of the same Judicial Proceeding by the Ministry of Interior of Cuba, it is clearly shown how the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America encouraged and directed the activities of terrorist groups and individuals in the Cuban territory in the 1960s, occasionally giving them shelter in the Guantnamo Naval Base.

We should highlight that the Cuban landmines sowed in the perimeter surrounding the Guantnamo Naval Base have an exclusively defensive nature. They are intended to prevent violations and acts of provocation, as well as to guarantee peace and safety in the areas adjacent to the Base. These mines also serve the military purpose of preventing U.S. troops from expanding with impunity the perimeter they occupy illegally and from launching offensive actions into the Cuban territory.

Cuban mine fields are duly marked, fenced and guarded to ensure the protection of civilians, as stipulated by Protocol II (Amended) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Several diplomats accredited to Cuba as well as other foreign personalities have been able to visit on various occasions the surroundings of the Guantnamo Naval Base and observe the area occupied by the Base and the defensive measures adopted by the Cuban side.

Lastly, we should note that the alleged removal of U.S. landmines from the Guantnamo Naval Base completed by the end of 1999, as announced by the U.S. Government, is a measure of relative importance since that country has the necessary troops and means to quickly restore the deactivated minefields if it so wishes or deems it appropriate. They can even use more high-tech mines having a greater destructive power than the ones formerly planted around Guantnamo Naval Base.

On the other hand, there is the U.S. war arsenal that could be used against Cuba in the event of a military invasion, wreaking infinitely more havoc than anti-personnel landmines.

CUBAS HEALTHCARE POLICY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

In Cuba, there is a free and universal healthcare system and the gains accomplished by the Cuban medicine enjoy worldwide renown.

The Cuban Revolution has built new hospitals and 21 medical schools to train thousands of high-skilled physicians. Only in the last few years, despite the financial constraints facing our country, the number of medical graduates has increased to 30,000.

In spite the economic, financial and trade blockade imposed by the United States of America on Cuba, preventing among other things the sales of medicines and the transference of medical technologies to our country, Cuba has been able to keep its infant mortality rates down reaching an all-time low (7.4 per 1000 live births) in 1999, one of the lowest rates in the world.

In the 1960s policies to address the handicapped were implemented, reaching important goals in 1983-1993 in the fields of prevention, rehabilitation, social integration and equal opportunities for the disabled.

The care for this social group has been a constant concern of the Cuban government since 1 January 1959. The National Plan of Action for the Care of the Disabled has been outlined on a yearly basis, and a strict control for its compliance is observed by State institutions.

The financial support that the Cuban government has provided for the purchase of devices to assist in the patients social reinsertion and rehabilitation has increased dramatically.

For instance, financing grew threefold between 1996 and 1997 for the purchase of orthopedic devices. In 1998, that figure increased five times. Likewise, assistance for the visually, hearing and mentally impaired has grown significantly.

At present, a nationwide survey is being conducted for the care of deaf and blind patients.

It is important to note that the aforementioned expenses have been made in hard currency, albeit one of the characteristics of the Cuban economy during these years of crisis has been the lack of this type of currency.

Below are some figures illustrating the care of disabled patients in two specialized institutions in Havana between 1995 and 1998:

National Rehabilitation Center, "Julio Daz" Hospital

OUTPATIENT TOTAL	92 990
INPATIENT TOTAL	6 618

National Center for Neurologic Restoration (CIREN)

YEARS	NUMBER OF PATIENTS TREATED
1995	423
1996	361
1997	487
1998	560

CUBAN PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND CONVENTIONS ON DISARMAMENT

The Republic of Cuba is State Party to 11 of the 18 International Instruments relative to Disarmament applicable to it.

Cuba has taken part in the UN Registry of Conventional Weapons since the establishment of this specialized forum, reporting every year that it has not imported or exported none of the types of weapons included in the 7 categories contained in the Registry.

Cuba is currently considering, according to effective constitutional provisions, the possibility to ratify Protocol II (Amended) to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

(1)-Evidence Report submitted bythe Revolutionary Armed Forced. The Cuban People Files Lawsuit againstthe Government of the United States of America for Damages. EdicionesVERDE OLIVO, Havana, Cuba, 1999.

(2)-General FulgencioBatista led a military coup on 10 March 1952 establishing adictatorship in Cuba that lasted until 1 January 1959 when the CubanRevolution triumphed

Country: Dominican Republic
Date Received: 26 Sep 2001

The following text was included in the Dominican Republic's MBT Article 7 transparency report, submitted 26 September 2001.

COMENTARIOS SOBRE EL INFORME MONITOR DE MINAS 2000

Si se acepta como válida la idea de que el Monitor de Minas no es un Sistema de verificación técnica ni un mecanismo de inspección oficial del Tratado para la Prohibición de las Minas de 1997, no hay dudas de que es un poderoso instrumento para pedir cuentas a los Gobiernos en relación con sus obligaciones sobre las Minas Antipersonal.

Esta importante iniciativa, especialmente de los actores no gubernamentales, constituye una valiosa guía complementaria a los informes de los Estados Parte, que nos permite contar con la más amplia información posible por países y regiones en todo el planeta tras el objetivo de un mundo sin minas.

Uno de los grandes aportes del Monitor de minas, entre otras cosas, es que no sólo facilita la transparencia y la cooperación, que de por si son variables esenciales para lograr el citado objetivo, sino que promueve y facilita el debate de la mayor parte de la comunidad internacional organizada en relación con la Política de cada Estado sobre la Prohibición, Empleo, Producción, Transferencia, Almacenamiento, remoción, así como la orientación y asistencia a los supervivientes de las Minas.

Otras de las bondades del Monitor de las Minas 2000, es que logra superar las posibles lagunas habidas en el primer informe anual de la Primera Reunión de los Estados parte de la Convención de OTTAWA, como también evaluar y sistematizar las informaciones inicialmente recopiladas a fin de garantizar métodos de investigación y mecanismos de información comunes para el Monitor.

En conclusión, podemos señalar que este último informe Monitor de Minas Terrestres es la expresión de un extraordinario esfuerzo colectivo que permite exponer ante la opinión pública mundial con objetiva profundidad y detalles los peligros que rigurosas estadísticas por país y región.

Asimismo, entendemos que el Monitor de Minas, a pesar de los éxitos obtenidos respecto de su primera edición, es un proceso dinámico que tendrá que actualizarse permanentemente, corrigiendo y mejorando, tal y como se expresa en la parte introductoria del mismo.

Country: Eritrea
Date Received: 30 Aug 2001

The State of Eritrea
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

31 August 2001

MFA/Ai/128/01

The Ministry of Foriegn Affairs of the State of Eritrea presents its compliments to the Landmine Monitor Unit, Human Rights Watch, and has the honor to acknowledge receipt of its faxed communication, dated 17 July 2001. While regretting the delay, due to circumstances beyond its control, of a response to its previous communication, the Ministry wishes to inform Eritrea's position on the matter as follows:

It has been confirmed by all interested third parties that Eritrea, although not a signatory t othe Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and On their Destruction, had scrupulously adhered to its provisions and had not used land mines during the first two (2) stages of the Ethiopian aggression.
It has been verified and confirmed by the third parties, that Ethiopia, a signatory to the Convention, had systematically and massively used land mies not only during its aggression but also after the signing of the Cessation of Hostilities and Comprehensive Peace Agreement
Eritrea started using ant-personnel mines only during the thrid aggression in mid-2000 to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity after it became evident that it would be futile to respect the convention when Ethiopia, a signatory, was cynically violating it.
Eritrea has already fulfilled its obligations under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by submitting to the United Nations Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) all the necessary maps and information on landmines, on the other hand, Ethiopia has been using all pretexts and excuses to not submit complete information as it is requested to do by the Peace Agreement with a view to obstucting the return of Eritrean peasants to their lands in time for the sowing and planting season.
Eritrea has now signed the Convention but wishes to remind the Landmines Monitor, Human Rights Watch, and other well-meaning groups, that is now evident that the convention shall be still-born if severe mandatory sanctions are not taken against first violators like Ethiopia which render the principle Pacta Sunt Servanda meaningless. Since other states will be forced to protect themselves against such first violators.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Eritrea avails itself of this opportunity to extend to the Landmine Monitor and Human Rights Watch the assurances of its highest consideration.

Country: Ethiopia
Date Received: 13 Jun 2001

Date: 13 JUN 2001
No. 3-2/35h/29/01

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

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:
Seyoum Mesfin
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Country: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Date Received: 14 Jan 2000

PERMANENT MISSION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
854 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10021 TEL: (212) 879-8700 FAX: (212) 879-8705

no. 09/2000

14 January 2000

Dear Mrs. Bernstein,

I have the honour to trasmit, enclosed herewith, a copy of the letter of HE Mr. Miroslav Milosevic, Assistant Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, addressed to you.

Please accept, Mrs. Bernstein, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Signed: Dragana Ivanovic
Minister-Counsellor

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Belgrade, 11 January 2000

Dear Mrs. Bernstein,

Regarding your letter of 24 November 1999, addressed to the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Zivadin Jovanovic and the interest you expressed in having the FR of Yugoslavia join the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, I would like to inform you of the following:

I appreciate very much your involvement in the matter as a Campaign to Ban Landmines Coordinator. You are surely aware that in spite of the expressed interest of the FR of Yugoslavia to take part in the preparatory stage for the Convention, it has not been given the opportunity to do so from the very outset. Having joined the negotiations at a later stage, it was not possible for the FR of Yugoslavia to make all necessary preparations related to its possible accession to the Convention before the Ottawa Conference, held in December 1997.

The NATO aggression against the FR of Yugoslavia in March-June 1999 has raised completely new questions about the use of inhumane weapons, among which anti-personnel landmines represent but only one category. As it is known, the FR of Yugoslavia was exposed to large-scale destruction as a result of the use of the most hazardous types of inhumane weapons such as cluster bombs, depleted uranium bombs, thermal bombs, etc. which caused the death of a large number of civilians, children in particular as well as the destruction of plants, infrastructure, schools, hospitals and numerous civilian properties. Additionally, the civilian population in Kosovo and Metohija was also a victim of anti-personnel landmines planted by the terrorist organization of the so-called KLA. The deployment of KFOR has not helped the situation at all. The overall location and the number of inhumane weapons used.

In view of the long-lasting commitment of the FR of Yugoslavia to the process of disarmament and arms control, I wish to assure you that we stand ready to continue to participate actively in the efforts towards the elimination of all types of weapons, inhumane weapons in particular and will make our concrete contribution to this as soon as appropriate conditions have been created to this effect.

I sincerely hope that you will, for your part, as Campaign Ban Landmines Coordinator, soon launch a campaign to ban other types of mines, like those used by NATO in its aggression against the FR of Yugoslavia.

Yours sincerely,
(signed) Miroslav Milosovic
Assistant Federal Minister

Country: Gabon
Date Received: 17 Feb 2000

L'Ambassadeur Haut Representant de la Republique Gabonaise en France

17 February 2000 Madame,

J'ai I'honneur d'accuser reception de votre lettre du 26 janvier relative a la Campagne Internationale pour l'Interdiction des Mines Antipersonnel et pour leur Destruction, document dont j'ai pris connaissance avec la plus grande attention.

Je transmets votre correspondence a notre Gouvemement a Libreville et je ne doute pas qu'elle sera prise en consideration en vue d'une ratification rapide du Traite International d'Interdiction des Mines Antipersonnel, mais si vous le desirez, j'accepterais volontiers de vous recevoir, A une date que nous devrons fixer d'un commun accord, en fonction de mes obligations diplomatiques actuelles.

Avec mes sentiments les meilleurs, je vous prie d'agreer, Madame, 1'expression de ma consideration la plus distinguee.

Honorine Dossou-Naki
Madame Sylvie BRIGOT
Coordinatrice de la Campagne Franqaise Pour Interdire les Mines
Handicap International
104/106, rue Oberkampf
75011 PARIS

Country: Georgia
Date Received: 22 Sep 2003

Letter to:
Georgian Armed Forces
Head of General Staff
Lieutenant general
Mr.Joni Pirtskhalaishvili

#1-05/2.05.2003

In newspaper “Akhali Taoba” (New Generation) of 17 March 2003 (N74, p.7) was published the interview with Mr.Emzar Kvitciani, representative of President in Kodori gorge, in which he announced that “Georgian side, for the avoidance of unexpectedness, is permanently mining the main direction of Kodori gorge”. The fact of mining contrarys to the moratorium on the use of antipersonnel mines of the president of Georgia, Mr.Eduard Shevardnadze, announced in 1996.

We are interested in verity of this fact, and if it is truth – what are the means conducted by Georgian Armed Forces to implement the moratorium announced by the president of Georgia.

Sincerely,

Narine Berikashvili
Informational Manager
ICBL Georgian Committee

*****************************************************************************

Letter to:
Narine Berikashvili
Informational Manager
ICBL Georgian Committee

#3-11/814 30.05.2003

Answering on your letter of 2 May 2003 (#1-05), we would like to inform you that Georgian Armed Forces always completely carries out orders of president of Georgia. Hence the elements of armed Forces of Ministry of Defense of Georgia have never used forbidden military weapon. Concerning the interview of Mr. Emzar Kvitciani, in our conversation was revealed that the correspondent of the newspaper, maybe, understood in wrong way, the information of Mr. Kvitciani, what caused the mistaken enlightening of materials on “permanent mining”.

Mr. Loria
Major general
Head of Logistics Management Center
Ministry of Defense of Georgia

*****************************************************************************

Letter to:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia
Deputy minister
Mr.Merab Antadze

#1-05/2.05.2003

We are interested in verity of this fact, and if it is truth – what are the means conducted by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia to implement the moratorium announced by the president of Georgia.

Sincerely,

Narine Berikashvili
Informational Manager
ICBL Georgian Committee

*****************************************************************************

Letter to:
Narine Berikashvili
Informational Manager
ICBL Georgian Committee

#8-14/621 23.05.2003

Answering on your letter of 2 May 2003, concerning the information disseminated by the means of mass media on the fact of antipersonnel mines usage on the controlled territory in Kodori gorge by the Georgian central authorities, we want to inform you that there was conducted the meeting in Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia with Mr.Emzar Kvitciani, representative of President in Kodori gorge.

During this meeting, Mr.Kvitciani categorically denied the disseminated information on antipersonnel mines usage in Kodori gorge by Georgian governmental foundations. Due to the explanation of representative of President, the correspondent of “Akhali Taoba” (New Generation) made the wrong interpretation of his announcement on the implemented activities on liquidation of territories mined in the result of conflict.

In accordance with the information of Mr.Kvitciani, in Kodori gorge, both on controlled by Abkhaz separatists as well as on territories controlled by Georgian central authorities really exists the territory mined by Georgian side left since active military operations’ period. At the same time, Abkhaz separatists still continue to mine the territory controlled by them.

The Georgian central authorities are interested in neutralization of the mentioned territories, though, from this turn, there are problems of political, financial, technical and expert character.

On the assumption of above written, we inform you, that, in Kodori gorge, there was not the fact of violation of the moratorium of president of Georgian, announced in 1996, and ask you to take into consideration the checked by us information in your materials for “Landmine Monitor”.

Sincerely,

Mr.Shota Dogonadze
Deputy Minister
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia