ICBL calls on NATO members to support a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel mines
Author/Origin: Sylvie Brigot brigotSPAMFLTER@SPATMFLTERicbl.org |
(Tuesday 05 November 2002 )
In the run-up to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Summit, in Prague, on 21 to 22 November, ICBL members wrote to Heads of Government of the NATO members and partners, urging them to support a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel mines.
In the case of a possible war in Iraq, the ICBL also called on States Parties and signatories to the Mine Ban Treaty to insist that non-signatories do not use antipersonnel mines in any joint military operations, to refuse to take part in any joint operations involving antipersonnel mines, and to make clear to the United States and others that transit of antipersonnel mines across the territory of a State Party for the purpose of warfighting is not acceptable.
All current NATO members are States Parties or signatories to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, with the exception of the United States and Turkey.
Excellency,
On 21 and 22 November 2002 you will participate in the NATO Summit in Prague which will address defence against terrorism and the enlargement of the organization, among other issues. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Nobel Peace Prize winner, would respectfully draw your attention to some related matters.
Final declaration
All current NATO members are States Parties or signatories to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, with the exception of the United States and Turkey. Turkey has committed itself to accession to the treaty in the very near future, and U.S. policy sets a goal of 2006. The ICBL therefore respectfully suggests that members consider including in the Final Declaration of this NATO Summit wording supportive of the goal of an antipersonnel mine-free world and a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel mines through the universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty.
NATO enlargement
During the Summit in Prague, NATO members will continue the process of enlargement by inviting one or more aspirant countries to join the organization. Some aspirant countries are already States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. The ICBL calls upon aspirant countries which have not yet acceded to or ratified the Mine Ban Treaty to now do so, thereby joining the 145 countries globally which are States Parties or signatories to the Mine Ban Treaty. The ICBL also calls upon current NATO members to encourage aspirant countries to ratify or accede to the Mine Ban Treaty as soon as possible.
If early ratification/accession is not possible, aspirant countries may take some preliminary steps to indicate their future intention of joining the Treaty and their commitment to the goal of a mine-free world. These measures could include: establishing a timetable for accession or ratification; voluntary submission to the United Nations of transparency reports under Article 7 of the treaty; participation in treaty’s intersessional work program meeting and annual Meeting of States Parties; voting in favor of the annual U.N. General Assembly resolution supporting the Mine Ban Treaty; declaring the size of stockpiles of antipersonnel mines, as well as making plans for and initiating stockpile destruction; making a formal declaration of no future production, export or import of antipersonnel mines; announcing an immediate and indefinite moratorium on use of antipersonnel mines, or a declaration of no future use except in the most extreme circumstances with explicit authorization at the highest levels.
A few aspirant countries are to be congratulated for having already taken some of these positive preliminary measures. The ICBL urges NATO members to encourage all aspirant countries that are unwilling to join the Mine Ban Treaty now, to take these important steps.
Possible use of antipersonnel mines in Iraq
If there is a war in Iraq, some NATO countries may find themselves engaged in joint military operations involving antipersonnel mines, in possible contravention of their commitments under the Mine Ban Treaty. The treaty prohibits the use of antipersonnel mines and also prohibits assisting others in their use. The ICBL believes that this is a realistic concern, because the United States used antipersonnel mines against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. Therefore, the ICBL calls on States Parties and signatories to the Mine Ban Treaty to insist that non-signatories do not use antipersonnel mines in any joint military operations, and to refuse to take part in any joint operations involving antipersonnel mines.
In the context of potential war in Iraq, there is also concern about the possible transit of antipersonnel mines through Mine Ban Treaty States Parties, in possible contravention of the Mine Ban Treaty. The Mine Ban Treaty prohibits the “transfer” of antipersonnel mines, which many States Parties have indicated includes a prohibition on transit as well. This concern is heightened because the United States has stockpiled antipersonnel mines in five States Parties, including three NATO members (Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom at Diego Garcia, as well as Japan and Qatar). The ICBL urges all Mine Ban Treaty States Parties to make clear to the United States and others that transit of antipersonnel mines across the territory of a State Party for the purpose of warfighting is not acceptable.
We trust that this important NATO Summit will prove fruitful, and thank you for taking into consideration our views.
Sincerely yours,
Elizabeth Bernstein
Coordinator
