Comments Received by Landmine Monitor

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

Country: Central African Republic
Date Received: 22 Sep 2003

Letterhead of Head of State, Central African Republic

Dated 1 August 2003

Madame,

It is with great interest that we received your 28 July 2003 message related to antitank and antipersonnel mines.

The military devices/ordnance mentioned above have never been acquired and used by the Central African Armed forces (FACA) or by the patriotic forces who put an end to the dictatorial and blood-thirsty regime of Mr. Ange Flix Patasse on 15 March 2003.

In any case, no accident caused by antitank mines or antipersonnel mines, were reported or registered at Bangui or in the rural zones of the Central African Republic.

Therefore, we also have the pleasure to reaffirm the Central African Republic adhesion to the Mine Ban Treaty.

Major General Franois Bozize President and Head of State

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: 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: Germany
Date Received: 10 Oct 2002

Berlin, 10, Oktober 2002
Telefon 0188 17-0 / Fax: 17-3402
Referat: 241, Verfasser: LRI Morgenstern
Durchwahl: 17 1465 / Fax. 17 51465
Fax Sekretariat: 01888 17-

International Campaign to Ban Landmines
(ICBL)

Mrs. Susan Walker

Geneva
By email

Retr.: ICBL Landmine Monitor/Executive Summary 2002

Dear Mrs. Walker,

May I draw your attention to some information contained in the "Landmine Monitor-Executive Summary 2002", page 20, that needs rectification.

Germany is mentioned as a country still retaining stocks of Claymore Landmines. This information is incorrect. Germany destroyed all Claymore Mines and does not retain any stocks of this type of mine, also not those of the command detonated mode.

With regard to the provenance of the 38959 M18A1 Claymore Mines that Germany has received for the purpose of destruction this information you might refer to the interpretation offered by the chapter on Germany in the current issue of the LM..

Sincerely,
p.o.
gez.
Berthold James
Head of Division of Arms Control
(Name des Zeichnenden in Maschinenschrift ohne Klammern)

Country: Iran
Date Received: 06 Sep 2002

PERMANENT MISSIONOF
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
TO THE UNITED NATIONS
622 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

No. 574

September 6, 2002

Dear Madam,

I have the honor to convey to you the official statement of the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the production of anti-personnel landmines as follows:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran, since the termination of its war, has not produced anti-personnel landmines."

I would appreciate it if this position would be appropriately reflected in the ICBL documents and publishing reports.

Sincerely,

Morteza Ramndi
Press Section

Mrs. Mary Wareham
Coordinator, Landmine Monitor
c/o Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Ave. NW #500
Washington, DC 2009

Country: United States
Date Received: 30 Nov 2001

United States Department of State

Assistant Secretary of State
for Political-Military Affairs

Washington, D.C. 20520

Ms. Mary Wareham
Coordinator, Landmine Monitor
c/o Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Ave NW #500
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Ms. Wareham:

Thank you for sending the Landmine Monitor Report 2001: Toward a Mine-Free World. As the previous two reports, this report represents a tremendous research effort and brings together in one place relevant information on landmines from almost every country in the world. My staff and I frequently consult the Landmine Monitor Reports. You and your colleagues are to be congratulated on your hard work.

As you know, the U.S. Government, and the State Department in particular, is committed to addressing the humanitarian threat posed by landmines worldwide. The magnitude of our humanitarian action program is evidence of our concern for the thousands of innocent men, women and children who lose their lives and limbs to landmines each year. Indeed, the United States is a world leader in humanitarian mine action eforts. U.S. Government assistance has supported mine action programs in over 40 countries with eduation, training, equipment, and support to landmine survivors. Since 1993, the United States has contributed more than $500 million to humanitarian mine action efforts. We are determined to maintain both our leadership role and financial support for global humanitarian demining in the years to come.

Sincerely,
Lincoln P. Bloomfield. Jr

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: Russia
Date Received: 16 Aug 2001

Response to Landmine Monitor by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation. Sent by Faxed to Landmine Monitor Coordinator by Vassily V. Boriak, Counsellor, Embassy of the Russian Federation to the United States, 16 August 2001. Original in Russian, translated by Global Communications, LLC, Washington DC.

From May 2000 to date the Russian Federation has employed anti-personnel mines (hereinafter "APMs") in the Chechen Republic and on the Tajik-Afghan border but APMs have not been emplaced in Abkhasia (Georgia).

Mine barriers have been laid to blockade specific base areas used by [rebel] units and to close movement routes and convoy paths across the state border, using fragmentation-action anti-personnel mines with self-destruction mechanisms and control options that comply with requirements in the supplemented Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on 'inhumane' weaponry. Emplacement of mines in those areas is necessitated by the complexity of the situation in the North Caucasus and the Tajik-Afghan border, the severe deterioration of that situation and the rise of extremism and terrorism, particularly in the summertime.

An analysis of the strategic situation in areas where APMs are used shows that, given that sectors of the state border are located in complex physical and geographical conditions that render it impossible to technically equip them adequately and, in many cases, to equip them at all, the use of APMs is the only course of action and that it reduces attacks by fighter groups by 7-8 times and saves the lives of many Russian soldiers and officers.

In the course of its service and military action in these areas (the border is in total more than 2800 km long), the Border Service of the Russian Federation has intercepted 176 armed attempts to breach the border by fighter groups, contrabandists, drug-smugglers and parties illegally crossing the border, 223 items of small arms, more than 47,000 items of various types of ammunition and more than 3000 kg of narcotics.

Mines are emplaced primarily on sectors of the border where difficult physical and geographical conditions do not permit other forces or methods to be employed effectively, where there are virtually no local inhabitants and to protect and guard positions and places where border divisions are stationed.

Mines are emplaced in observance of requirements to prohibit or restrict the use of anti-personnel mines, booby-traps and other devices as set forth in the supplemented 'mine' Protocol II, with the exception of requirements in point 2a of Article 5 Restrictions on the use of anti-personnel mines other than remotely-delivered mines in that part relating to perimeter-marked areas: anti-personnel mines are marked and fenced along the entire perimeter of the area except the part of the perimeter on the side of the state border.

In light of the above it would not be in the interests of stable border protection in emergency areas for Russia to sign the Ottawa Convention at this stage and it is therefore not possible for it to do so.

Country: Israel
Date Received: 31 Jul 2001

July 31, 2001

Mrs. Mary Wareham
Coordinator, Landmine Monitor
c/o Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Ave. NW #500
Washington, DC 20009, USA

With regard to your letter of July 17, 2001, I have been requested by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Shimon Peres, to respond to the draft of the Third Landmine Monitor Report, as it pertains to Israel.

At the outset, Israel wishes to express its regret that the draft report was sent to it only on July 17th, 2001 when-according to your accompanying letter- the report "goes to print on August 1st, 2001." Clearly, such a short time-frame does not permit serious investigation into all allegations made in the report or their reference to the relevant authorities in Israel.

Notwithstanding the above, Israel is of the view that the draft report is unbalanced and biased, a fact which is manifested by the heavy reliance on statements and propoganda originating from politically motivated bodies and entities (such as the Al-Haq organization), that are known to have repeatedly made in the past false and baseless allegations against Israel. Such baseless allegations affect the credibility of the draft report and we believe that it would be innappropriate to include them.

The following are a few examples of the erroneous and one-sided reporting:

On May 10th, 2001, a brutal terror attack was committed by a Palestinian terrorist group with a view of harming Israelis. In the attack a bomb, hidden in a bush, was detonated by remote control when a civilian tractor approached. "Hizbullah Palestine" claimed responsibility for the attack, which resulted in the killing of two workers (of Romanian nationality) and the injuring of a third. This vicious attack in Kisufim was referred to in your report as the explosion of "...some type of explosive device or mine," without any indication to the perpetrators of this violent attack. Furthermore, the information was placed under the heading of "Israel/Use", thus suggesting that the incident was somehow connected or planned by Israel.

The report quotes the Palestinian National Security Information Center which claims that "since September 2000 the IDF has laid antipersonnel landmines in areas within "Zone A" in the Gaza Strip, and in areas adjacent to Israeli settlements and military sites." This allegation is completely untrue and unfounded and is nothing more than propaganda.

Israel is highly aware of the grave humanitarian consequences caused by the indiscriminate use of land mines. Accordingly, the Government of Israel, attaches particular importance to actions, aimed at preventing and minimizing human suffering in this regard, which are compatible with accepted international norms and standards.

Minefields laid by the IDF are, as a matter of routine, fenced and warning signs in Hebrew, Arabic and English, are placed. Additionally, the IDF conducts safety inspections on a regular basis and transfers the appropriate information to civilian authorities. In accordance with this policy, minefield information was indeed handed over to the Palestinians when territories were transferred to their control.

As previously stipulated, the short time-frame allocated by the ICBL for the Israeli response does not allow for a complete and thorough response, Israel expects to see a final report which reflects an objective and professional approach, and a correction of basic factual elements such as the accurate date of the entry into force of the Amended Protocol II for Israel and the name of the Israeli-Navy commander.

As you are well aware, Israel has decided to become party to the Amended Mines Protocol II despite the unique circumstances prevailing in the Middle East. Having decided to join this instrument, Israel fulfills its obligations to the fullest extent, and strongly rejects allegations to the contrary which appear in the ICBL draft report.

We look forward to improved cooperation in the future between the ICBL and the Government of Israel.

Sincerely,

Meir Itzchaki
Arms Control Division
Regional Security and Arms Control Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Jerusalem