Comments Received by Landmine Monitor

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

Country: Sudan
Date Received: 13 Sep 2000

STATEMENT BY SUDAN DELEGATION TO THE SECOND MEETING OF STATES PARTY TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF, THE USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION

Sudan has earnestly and consciously signed the Convention on The Prohibition of, The Use, Stockpiling Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their destruction that signed the landmark step in the history of the disarmament and a historic victory for the weak and vulnerable of our world. Sudan is therefore committed to the letter and sprit of this important instrument and of its provisions. Since Ottawa, Sudan has keenly and effectively participated in most Regional and International Conferences in this regard with the view of advancing the cause. Sudan sponsored and voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54(B) supporting the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999. It has supported similar UN General Assembly resolutions in 1996/1997/1998. These efforts are clear testimony for the high importance that Sudan attaches to the Convention. The unfounded allegations that Sudan is producing or using mines will not detract the country from fulfilling its obligations and honouring its commitments under this instrument.

Subsequently, Sudan identified the Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC) as a national focal point designated with the responsibilities of supervision, coordination and fund raising needed for the activities in relations to the implementation of the Convention. To realize this HAC had immediately sensitized the national NGOs and Government institutions to actively participate in the formulation of the national policies and mine action programs. After that Sudan tabled its plans to the International community to seriously engage in the demining process. Surprisingly the UN Assessment Team recommended that "until there is a peace and stability, large-scale mine clearance should not be undertaken". This had a demoralizing effect and seriously worked against the implementation of the mine action programme. Despite this alarming fact the government mobilized locally minimal resources, required to start the Implementation.

The Government takes this opportunity to commend the effort of the international NGOs and other organizations that has continuously put resources in favor of the Convention implementation. ICRC is providing all the inputs required for production of amputated limbs of mine victims. It is planning to establish limb production factories in other parts of the Sudan to cope with the situation. OXFAM and Rada Bernen are mobilizing resources in the field of awareness.

Current Activities

The National NGOS forum for mine action called Sudan Campaign to Ban Land Mines "SCBL" is established since three years. It had solicited the support of many international NGOs like ICBL, OXFAM, Rada Bernen and ICRC. They have doubled their efforts in the areas of awareness, victim assistance and Training of Trainers (TOT). HAC is encouraging and supporting these efforts strongly.
In coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Relations, HAC is following the process of ratification at departmental consultations level, which will be followed by formulation of national laws in the Ministry of Justice.
HAC is embarked on the process of national capacity building which includes data collection, training, development of policies and programmes.
A Committee for formulation of national standards is underway.

Impediments

The armed conflict in the country is the major obstacle to the implementation of the Convention. It obstructs surveys, encourages the rebel to use, transfer and stockpile anti personnel mines and anti tank. The conflict also discouraged donors from financing Mine Action Programme. The Government had signed the Khartoum Peace Agreement with six rebel factions in 1997. It also signed similar agreements, during last year with Nuba faction. Political declaration with Umma Party was also signed in Djibouti in November 1999. These Agreements had brought calm and tranquility to several places in the country and will bear a positive impact on mine use in the Sudan.
Financing mine action programme in most parts of the Southern Sudan and those states of the Northern Sudan is feasible. It will enjoy full support of the people and the Government. The remaining areas can be dealt with within the Humanitarian Corridors Agreements. The Government will push for clearing all the roads despite the fact that rebels may not easily accept the idea because they fear that the Humanitarian Clearance may endanger their defence position. The international community must do its best for engaging the armed groups in this process.

Conclusion

We hence call for immediate and direct finance of Mine Action Programmes in the peaceful area.
Peace efforts in the Sudan must be given a chance to succeed and the humanitarian cease fire must be established.
Sudan also calls for taking the mine action in the broad humanitarian spectrum. In this regard, providing development assistance to reduce tensions and enforce stability in the developing countries is paramount and unavoidable.

Finally, I thank the Swiss People and Government for making this event possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Country: Sudan
Date Received: 31 Jul 2000

Republic of the Sudan
Permanent Mission to the United Nations
New York

Date: July 31, 2000
Human Rights Watch
Attention /Mr. Stephen D. Goose

Dear Sir,

Reference your letter dated June 26, 2000 regarding your annual report of landmines, I have the honour to clarify the following points:

Sudan as a signatory State to the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of landmines, is very keen to implement the provisions of the said convention. Sudan's signing of the Convention despite its security concerns which are well known to all, stems from its deep conviction and its strong belief that humanity should get rid of such dangerous weapons which threaten the lives of innocent population. Moreover, it reflects Sudan's genuine desire to put an end to the war in the southern part of the country. The UN General Assembly has commended Sudan for the signing of the Convention.
The Government of the Sudan is committed to the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Convention. It does not produce landmines, nor use it. The statistics have shown that the rebel movement is the party which has used and continue to use landmines in the southern and eastern part of the country, a matter which has led to the killing of innocent population and continues to pose great security risks in those regions.
The Government is fully engaged with the UN concerned agencies in programs and strategies aimed at coordinating mine awareness activities in order to enhance the capacity of local implementing agencies for mine Action.
While conveying this information, the Government requests Human Rights Watch Organization to reflect this position in its annual report and expresses its readiness to answer any quires from the esteemed Organization.

Sincerely,
Signed: Mubarak H. Rahamtalla
Ambassadors, Deputy Permanent Representative

Country: Sudan
Date Received: 22 Sep 2003

The Republic of Sudan
Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs

This is an update and the reply to the landmine update of 2003. There are bullet points that discuss the updates.

2) This is in response to the questions asked by those who wanted information about mines.

a) The corps of engineers of Sudan is obliged to comply by what they signed in Ottawa in December 1997, which was an agreement to ensure that no landmines of any type have been put to place. Since this agreement, Sudan has not exported mines and it has very few mines in storage, and the ones in storage are used for practice only.

b) All the mines planted around oil fields were planted by rebel factions.

c) The agreement was signed, and despite the Geneva agreements in 2001 which banned the use of landmines, it didnï¿½t stop rebel factions from planting the mines in rural areas and along main roads. These mines hurt the shepherds, farmers and impaired humanitarian aid efforts.

3) After the cease fire agreement in the Nuba Mountains with the UN and the JMC, a program was point into place to clear the main roads.

4) They have also started a program (with the cooperation of civil groups) to educate people about the mines.

5) Sudan has also started a joint program to teach in the area of Um Suwaidah with the help of Jismar ( a government organization) , Awsal from the movement to ban mines and the DCA under the surviellence of the UN and the humanitarian aid sector. This program lasted for three months and had 40 people involved and this program was very successful.

6) There have also been arrangements with the center to take care of mine and with the UN to plan a strategic plan completely for mines in Sudan.

7) In Sudan, there is a Sudani group that works on removing the mines and it is inclusive of national efforts by arranging programs and exchanges of programs.

Summary of the Report on Landmines for the year 2003 in Sudan

The governmentï¿½s involvement with land mines
-Sudan signed an agreement forbidding mines on December 4, 1997
-In 2003, the minister of foreign affairs said that the house of ministers agreed on banning the mines and they allowed for the Parliament to ratify the agreement
-An agreement for the Nuba Mountains and Mashakoos to ban the land mines
-The Southern Separatists also signed the agreement to ban landmines twice
-Sudan joined in an effort to resolve the land mine issue at a fourth gathering of countries against landmines in September 2002.
Production, trading, and storage of mines
-Sudan assures that it does not have an inventory of mines, as apposed to the accusations in the report that it does.
-The person responsible for JMC confirmed that the mines found in the Nuba mountains was planted by rebels.
-The militias that fight alongside the government feel that they are not obligated by the agreements signed by the government and the movement, and therefore they use the mines and enjoy the support and financial backing of the government.
-Landmines were found near the oil fields, Al anir, Yai, Wat, and Akwubar.
Use of the mines and the movement.
-In March 2003, an official in the movement confirmed in a meeting with the observatory that they use mines in specific means.
-The officers of the movement are ignorant of the fact that the use of landmines is prohibited.
-The movement agreed to reduce the mines around the area of the Nuba Mountains however they have a particular way of addressing the mines because of the fear of government forces attacking.
The problem of landmines-the removal
-There has not been a complete removal of mines in Sudan.
-In general, there arenï¿½t many landmines but rather few mines and they are usually located in the entrances of roads and areas.
-Most of the mines are in the Nouba region as well as Lukoshiko to Jowiya through Kuwailana, Troit, and Rumbilia. Humanitarian aid to these areas have been arranged through air.
-In the middle of this year, the government and the movement sent information regarding the landmine fields to the JMC however the information sent was not detailed information.
Procedures of the removal
-[unsure]
-It is inclusive of the countries how want it: Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Denmark, England, Luxembourg, Canada, Japan and the program of the UN.
-In 2001, 2.2 million dollars [sorry unsure/unclear]
Organizing and planning the procedures for removal
-In March 2002, the UN ( UNMAS division) assigned an advisor to Khartoum for organizing and planning the removal of the mines.
-In September 2002, the UN along with the ministers of the humanitarian affairs, started a center for mines in Khartoum and another office in Yirmeek in Febuary of 2003.
-In April 2003, the United States sent experts to remove the mines in the Nouba region based on the agreement between the movement and the government.
-the DCA organization sent a team of dogs from South Africa for Um Suwaida in January 2003.
-[unsure] something about how many people died.

Country: Syria
Date Received: 27 Sep 2000

MISSION PERMANENTE DE LA
REPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE
GENEVE

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
Acting Permanent Representative

Mrs Jackie HANSEN
Programme Assistant
International Campaign to Ban Landmines
11, avenue de Joli-Mont
GENEVA

Country: Turkey
Date Received: 04 May 1999

THE TEXT OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE HEAD OF THE TURKISH DELEGATION

MR. VURAL ALTAY,

AT THE FIREST MEETING OF THE STATE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION

MAPUTO, MAY 4 1999

Mr. President,

Having made my official statement, if you allow me, I now would like to say couple of words about the Land Mine Monitor Report 1999 and its executive summary which were prepared by the Landmine Core Group and distributed here yesterday. As you might imagine, due to time constraints, I was not in a position to read the whole report last night. However, I found the time to have a quick look at the relevant sections concerning my country. I feel compelled to bring to your attention and to the attention of the distinguished delegates here today that the report contains incorrect, inaccurate and misleading information with regard to my country. It is not my intention to take the valuable time of the Plenary with this issue. I will rather choose to take up this with the editors of the report. However, above all, I must underline here that, in contrary to what has been written in the report and in its executive summary under my countyï¿½s section, new anti personnel mines were not laid by my government, more precisely by the Turkish Army, between December 1997 to early 1999 as alleged in the report. In contrary, a de-mining program has been launched during that period.

I am sure that the editors of the above-mentioned report would take into consideration my remarks and make the necessary corrections and changes in due time.

Country: Turkey
Date Received: 30 Nov 2004

Dear Ms. Wareham,

Thank you very much for your letter dated 11 November 2004, attached to which was an advance copy of the Landmine Monitor Report 2004. The report is a valuable contribution to the disarmament literature and an indispensable source of reference for the international community in its endeavours to prevent the use of anti-personnel landmines, and rid the world from this scourge which causes widespread and indiscriminate human suffering.

There is, however, an issue that I believe must be raised not only for the purpose of accuracy but also for the sake of fairness and objectivity.

In the section on Turkey, namely line 30 on page 826 of the 2004 Report, a reference is made to a "...occupation of Northern Cyprus..." Furthermore, there are three references of similar nature made under the section entitled "Cyprus."

These references neither accurately reflect the events of 1974 nor do they do justice to the sufferings of Turkish Cypriots between 1963 and 1974 that prompted Turkey to intervene as a "guarantor power", acting within its treaty obligations and responsibilities under the 1959 and 1960 London and Zurich Agreements.

Moreover, there is no resolution of the United Nations Security Council that describes the legitimate and justified intervention of Turkey in 1974 either as "aggression", "invasion" or "occupation" Most recently, in the Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus (No: S/2004/756) dated 24 September 2004, reference is made to the "events of 1974."

A recent paper entitled Cyprus: Myths, Objective Realities and the Way Forward by Mr. Ergn OLGUN, Undersecretary to the President of the Turkish Cypriot Republic of Northern Cyprus is enclosed herewith. I feel that you may find it of interest. I sincerely hope that, in general, the views expressed in the enclosed paper and, in particular, the point underlined above is taken on board in the next Landmine Monitor Report.

In any case, since the ICBL solicits contributions, as well as any clarifications and comments, I request that this letter be included in the next Landmine Update on the ICBL website for the sake of fairness, objectivity and accuracy, all of which I am confident are upheld by the ICBL.

I thank you in advance for your sensitivity to the matter. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Murat S. ESENLI
Deputy Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of Turkey to the UN Office at Geneva

Country: Turkey
Date Received: 29 Jan 2003

The views of the relevant Turkish authorities on the ICBL's 2002 Report are provided here below:

a) On page 757, 3rd paragraph, for the first time since 1999 (the first publication of ICBL's annual report), the PKK terrorist organization is accurately referred to as a "terrorist organization". However, one month prior to the inclusion of the PKK terrorist organization in the EU's list of terrorist persons or groups (the date of the decision of the Council of the EU is 2 May 2002 No: 2002/334/EC), this terrorist organization conveniently changed its name to KADEK (Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress) with the aim of sustaining its relationship with the international organizations and NGO's by disguising itself as a legitimate group. The U.S. government has taken notice of this duplicity and declared KADEK as a terrorist organization in the same year. We hope that this nominal change which is only in the name but not in tactiques nor objectives would also be recognized by the ICBL.

b) ICBL report has been providing information on the number of landmine casualties in Turkey based on monthly publications or annual reports of the Turkish Human Rights Association and the Turkish Human Rights Foundation as well as the report issued by the US Department of State.

Mainly, the figures on landmine accidents included in the 2001 and 2002 reports of the Turkish Human Rights Organization do not correspond to the numbers that the Turkish authorities have. It has been noticed that the aforementioned sources only provided number of civilian casualties (Page 755, 1st paragraph). It would be fair to say that the figures on landmine casualties should reflect the actual state by incorporating the number of soldiers along with the civilians, who were maimed or killed by the landmines, in an accurate and indiscriminate manner.

In this respect, the accurate statistics on landmine related accidents for the year 2001 are as follows:

Death:	Injured:
5 soldiers	37 soldiers
6 civilians	10 civilians

For the year 2002:

Death:	Injured:
1 soldiers	9 soldiers
3 civilians	6 civilians

c) In the report (page 758, 1st paragraph) it is stated that "mine contamination is concentrated on Turkey's borders" with Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

First of all, all the landmines on the Turkish side of the border with Bulgaria have been cleared. This particular situation has been communicated to the Bulgarian authorities on 1st August 2002 in compliance with the bilateral agreement signed between the two countries on 22 March 1999 and ratified on 1st May 2002.

Secondly, at certain sections along the common borders with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Iraq and Syria, landmines exist to deter illegal passages. However, the removal of these mines from the aforementioned border areas is in some cases at a planning stage, and in others actual work is underway.

d) In the report (page 758, 3rd paragraph) it is argued that there were also mines in the South Eastern provinces of Turkey, away from the borders, and that the extent of such mines as well as the degree to which such areas were adequately marked and fenced was unknown. Furthermore, it is stated that ( page 759, 2nd paragraph), no demining activity was taking place in Sirnak, Hakkari, Diyarbakir, Siirt, Mardin, Bingol, Van and Tunceli provinces of Turkey and that such activity was expected to commence in mid 2000's.

In the Southeastern part of Turkey, within the framework of fight against terrorism and solely for security reasons, land mines are used around security installations. However, since 1998 those mines are being cleared according to a plan. These mines are in clearly marked areas. In addition mine clearance around the security installations is expected to be completed by 2008 after the collection of roughly 40,000 mines.

The ICBL is reminded that the unmarked areas which are polluted with landmines are the doings of the terrorist organization PKK-KADEK to inflict losses to the security forces and intimidate the civilian population. These mines are laid by PKK-KADEK terrorists around the areas which are of strategic importance for them. The mines which are laid by this terrorist group and the booby traps that are set by them cause death and injury in the region.

e) In the report (page 759, 1stparagraph) it is argued that along the 877 km Syrian border of Turkey, 300-700 meters wide strip of land was mined. It is also suggested that the mined land mass is equal to 3, 5 million "dnms" (a land measure of 1,000 square meters) or twice as big as the island of Cyprus. On this subject, the report also argues that the whole operation is expected to take five years and that it could cost as much as 36 million US Dollars in total.

Along the 877 km long Turkish Syrian border 300-450 meter wide strip of land contains landmines. The mined area is equivalent to 360,000,000 square meters. In order to clear these mines 5 years and 50 million US Dollars would be needed.

f) In the report (page 760, 1st, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) it is argued that mine casualties would be treated at hospitals in towns or small sized provinces. Those who would have the financial means would be given necessary care at private hospitals. The report presents the Dicle University Prosthesis and Rehabilitations Center as the only establishment which has the capacity to perform amputations and that it was set up with assistance of the US based NGO named Physician for Peace Foundation. It is also stated that military survivors were often treated at the Glhane Military Medical Academy in Istanbul.

No distinction is made with regards to the status of a mine casualty. The landmine casualties either civilian or member of the military are given the proper care also at the Turkish Armed Forces Rehabilitation and Care Center free of charge. Many hospitals in Turkey have fully functional prosthesis and rehabilitation centers.

g) In the report (Page 756, 4th paragraph) it is stated that Turkey attended neither the Third Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II nor the Second CCW Review Conference in December 2001.

Turkish delegations have attended both meetings. This may be attested by referring to the lists of participants of the said meetings.

Murat S. Esenli
Deputy Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations
Geneva

Country: Turkey
Date Received: 15 Dec 2005

Geneva, 15 December 2005
Dear Mr. Doucet,
I have carefully read various sections of the “Landmine Monitor Report 2005” which has been recently released. Since you are a member of the Editorial Board and have provided the final editing of this report from July to September 2005, I would like to share with you some observations about the report.

I notice that in the introduction to the report, the terrorist organization PKK is referred to as “non-state armed groups” (page 8) or “PKK rebels” (page 9). The same reference appears also in other sections of the report.

As I am sure you are well aware, the PKK is neither a “rebel group” nor simply an “armed non-state actor” as allegedly presented in the introduction to the report. Footnote number 25 on page 585 of the report specifies that “the PKK, KADEK and Kongra-Gel were declared terrorist groups by the European Union in May 2002 and April 2004”. Furthermore on page 588 of the report, our letter dated 31 August 2005 sent in reply to the Landmine Questionnaire is quoted and PKK/KONGRA-GEL is mentioned as a terrorist organization. On the same page of the report there is also a quotation from a statement made by our representative to the Ottawa Treaty Intersessional meeting where PKK/KONGRA-GEL is referred to as a terrorist organization.

This being the case, the reader needs to wait until page 585 and 588 of the report before getting to know that the PKK is a terrorist organization either from a footnote or a quotation. However, the report does not contain a qualification by the Editorial Board of the PKK as a terrorist organization. The recurrent denial of referring directly to the PKK as a terrorist organization raises some questions about the accuracy and consistency of the report. The use of terms such as “rebels” or “armed non-state actors” gives the reader a wrong indication about the real nature of a terrorist organization.

./..

Our Permanent Mission has duly responded to the various questionnaires sent by members of your staff. Our replies clearly make reference to the PKK as a terrorist organization.

Presently, the PKK is included in the foreign terrorist organizations list in Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Japan, Kazakhstan, USA, NATO and the European Union. The PKK and its aliases KADEK (Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress) and KONGRA-GEL (Kurdistan Peoples Congress) have been declared as terrorist groups according to the European Union Council Decision No: 2004/306/EC and Council Common Position No. 2004/309/CFSP both dated 2 April 2004. Please find enclosed a copy of the Council Common Position No. 2004/309/CFSP and of the EU press release dated 30 April 2004 containing the list of countries which also share the objectives of this Common Position. The "Landmine Report 2005" makes reference to this EU decision taken in 2004 (footnote number 25, page 588) which has been the object of a review in 2005. Copies of Common Position 2005/427/CFSP dated 6 June 2005 and the related EU press release dated 29 July 2005 are enclosed herewith.

I hope that the Editorial Board will adopt a constructive approach to address this issue with due consideration and will be able to call spade a spade.

In this regard, I expect that the above-mentioned references to the right characterization of the PKK as labeled by various states and organizations will be taken into consideration by the Editorial Board in future editions of the "Landmine Monitor Report" and at least a corrigendum be issued on the ICBL website from where the report can be downloaded.

Please accept, Mr. Doucet, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Türkekul KURTTEK?N
Ambassador
Permanent Representative

Download: Turkey Comments LM2005.pdf (331.53 kB)

Country: Turkmenistan
Date Received: 13 Feb 2004

Letter from the Embassy of Turkmenistan to the Kingdom of Belgium to the Secretariat of the European Commission regarding their stockpile destruction.

Download: turkmenistan2004.pdf (352.06 kB)

Country: UNDP
Date Received: 14 Nov 2000

United Nations Development Programme
Sustainable human development

14 November 2000

Mr S. Goose
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Ave., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20009 USA

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,
Ian Mansfield
Team Leader Mine Action
Emergency Response Division