ICBL makes a presentation at NATO headquarters
(Thursday 17 October 2002 Brussels)
On 16 October Handicap International-Belgium and Landmine Monitor briefed the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) on the major findings of the Landmine Monitor Report 2002, at the NATO headquarters in Brussels.
The EAPC consists of all NATO members plus 27 other states in Europe and C. Asia (see the EAPC Mine Ban Treaty Fact Sheet which HIB distributed at the meeting).
All 46 EAPC members attended. Observers included military officials, members of delegations and NATO personnel. LM/ICBL personnel involved were Sylvie Brigot, Sheree Bailey, Koen Baetens, Annalisa Formiconi, Stan Brabant and Ian Doucet. Each delegate received a LMR 2002 and a kit with the Executive Summary, Major Findings, EAPC Mine Ban Treaty Fact Sheet, ICBL Open Letter to the EAPC, the Appeal by the Belarus CBL and a plastic pelican made from recycled mines in Ukraine.
NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson chaired the meeting. Stan introduced the LM/ICBL and Ian gave a power-point presentation of the LM2002 main findings, focusing on EAPC countries and what the EAPC can do to encourage universalization and full implementation. This was followed by a brief speech by David Collins, Director of Defence Planning and Operations at NATO, summarizing NATO-PfP mine action activities. Lord Robertson described Ian’s presentation as “hardhitting”, and said that a record number of countries asked to take the floor in response. The presentation ended with a list of EAPC countries not MBT-States Parties, suggestions on preliminary steps that they could take if unable to accede/ratify right away, which the EAPC could actively encourage, and an appeal to NATO to include the mine issue in the final declaration of the Prague Summit in November.
After Ian’s presentation there were 21 interventions including statements, clarifications and questions (from Belgium, Belarus, Albania, France, Ukraine, Italy, Moldova, Switzerland, Turkey, Slovakia, Canada, Armenia, Georgia, U.S., Latvia, Norway, Estonia, Netherlands, Poland, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan.)
Belgium, Italy, Canada, Switzerland and Norway highlighted their engagement in the Ottawa process and implementation of the MBT, and called for the members who are not party to the treaty to accede. Italy hoped that the mine ban issue would be included in the Prague Summit. Switzerland asked for suggestions on how EAPC could help the ICBL and NGOs in their work. Norway called the MBT "one of the most important instruments of International Humanitarian Law".
Belarus and Ukraine said that they inherited huge mines stockpiles from the former Soviet Union and lack of means to destroy their stockpiles was the only obstacle to their accession/ratification to the Treaty. Both countries have already started destruction. Belarus also welcomed cooperation with the Belarus CBL.
Albania referred to the successful EAPC stockpile destruction project and the mine problem in the country. It asked for suggestions to increase mine action funding/clearance.
France stressed that the Trust Fund for Stockpile Destruction gives priority to countries that are States Parties to the MBT. It also said that NATO cannot have a common position on AP mines because two countries (U.S., Turkey) are not States Parties and compared NATO’s position to the “duck” that could not walk properly.
Moldova stated that it planned to finish its stockpile destruction by the end of this year. 60 AP mines were destroyed on 30 September. He mentioned the lack of transparency in the “evacuation” of AP mines in the Transdniestrian region.
Turkey repeated the statement made at the 4MSP and Standing Committees of May 2002 (recent Demining efforts, and that the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee approved the accession).
U.S. stated that like Turkey it has “unique concerns that other countries do not have” due to the presence of U.S. bases in many countries and added that the US had a “worldwide military responsibility”. The delegate referred to the Clinton position on AP mines, but did not mention any new policy. He also said that U.S. “supports the work of ICBL” and the NATO PfP project.
Slovakia offered to help other countries in their stockpile destruction with expertise and materials.
Poland states that it will double its contribution to the Trust Fund for Moldova and Ukraine.
Latvia said that the Explosive Ordnance Center is already operational and training courses have been established in English, Russian and Latvian. They hope this will become a NATO-approved centre.
Estonia said that it’s accession is not timetabled in relation to joining the EU and NATO (but then implied that it is).
The Netherlands asked for the LM/ICBL position on ERW and the opportunity to have a protocol at the CCW.
Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan stressed the regional circumstances and the need for a regional approach to the mine ban issue. Georgia did not deny use and said that AP mines were placed on the border with Abkhazia. These countries all said that their joining the MBT was hindered by the fact that not all territory is under their jurisdiction and control.
Tajikistan called for help to address the landmine problem and the mine ban issue in the country, said that there were minefields on the borders with Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, and mentioned the April 2004 deadline. Tajikistan asked for a meeting with Landmine Monitor and the ICBL.
