Pages:
<<
|
1
| 2
| 3
| 4
| 5
| 6
| 7
|
>>
| Sort by:
Date / Country
Country:
Canada
Date Received: 17 Jun 2010
Please open the PDF file to viewCanada's comments on the Canada report from Banning cluster Munitions: Government Policy and Practice.
Download:
Canada_Response_to_Banning_Cluster_Munitions.pdf (85.28 kB)
Country:
Azerbaijan
Date Received: 04 Jun 2009
Download PDF of comments.
Download:
Azerbaijan_Response_Banning_Cluster_Munitions.pdf (35.26 kB)
Country:
Ecuador
Date Received: 01 Dec 2008
Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines regarding the Ecuador chapter of the Landmine Monitor Report 2008
Download:
EcuadorLetterReyes.pdf (401.19 kB)
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:
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:
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:
Moldova
Date Received: 05 Feb 2004
Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Moldova to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines regarding the Moldova chapter of the Landmine Monitor Report 2003
Download:
moldova2004.pdf (61.86 kB)
Country:
India
Date Received: 05 Nov 2003
PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA
TO THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
9, RUE DU VALAIS
1202 GENEVA
TELEPHONE: (022) 906 86 86
FAX: (022) 906 86 96
T.P.Seetharam
Minister(Disarmament)
No.GEN/PMI/254/41/2003
July 19, 2003
Dear Ms. Wareham
Thank you for the fax dated 14 July 2003 addressed to Ambassador Rakesh Sood attaching the draft India country update from your forthcoming report: Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine Free World. In particular you had sought to know whether he has been quoted correctly from his meeting with ICBL on 14 May 2003. I have consulted my notes and would indicate the following:
a) Ambassador Sood did not state that "several million mines" were laid by Indian forces. What he did say was that The references to the attributed quote: "several million" in the introductory paragraph and in the paragraph subtitled 'Use' need therefore, to be corrected.
b) Ambassador Sood also said that the This was indeed corroborated by Mr. Om Prakash Bhadrecha, the landmine survivor, who had accompanied Ms. Jody Williams to the meeting, when he indicated that the Indian Army had taken all precautions for mapping, fencing and informing the local people through mine awareness programmes. The inclusion of these points made by Ambassador Sood and by the landmine survivors who were brought to that meeting by ICBL, would ensure a balanced picture from emerging in the Landmine Monitor Report, which is a respected and widely cited publication.
Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi will be separately sending detailed comments on other aspects of the report directly to you. Meanwhile, I will appreciate your confirmation that the draft will be corrected to reflect Ambassador Sood's comments accurately.
Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi will be separately sending detailed comments on other aspects of the report directly to you. Meanwhile, I will appreciate your confirmation that the draft will be corrected to reflect Ambassador Sood's comments accurately.
Yours Sincerely,
(T.P. Seetharam)
Ms. Mary Wareham
Global Research Coordinator, Landmine Monitor
C/o Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Ave NW #500
(Fax: 00-1-202-612-4333)
Country:
India
Date Received: 05 Nov 2003
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI
Dr. Sheel Kant Sharma
Additional Secretary
Disarmament & International Security Affairs
Tel: 91-11-2301 15 68
Fax: 91-11-2301 28 89
28 July 2003
106/5/2003
Dear Ms. Wareham
Thank you for your communications addressed to the External Affairs Minister of India regarding the forthcoming edition of the Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World and seeking Government of India's views on the draft India country update enclosed therewith.
2. As you are aware, India remains committed to the pursuit of the ultimate objective of a non-discriminatory, universal and global ban on anti-personnel mines in a manner that addresses the legitimate defense requirement of States. India is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and is fully committed to the Amended Protocol-II of the Convention which deals with anti- personnel landmines.
3. The recent laying of mines by the Indian forces along the Western border was done as part of our operational plans. Minefields were laid, recorded and marked in consonance with well-established Standard Operating Procedures, and in conformity with Amended Protocol-II. In addition, all village headmen were personally informed about the location of the minefields in order to ensure that local inhabitants were adequately sensitized. Mine awareness programmes were also conducted at the sub-district/village level. All efforts were made to ensure that the markings remained visible, legible, durable and resistant to environmental effects.
4. Recovery of the mines emplaced as part of the military operations continues to be under way, with 85% of the mines having been retrieved so far. The objective is 100% retrieval. Mine clearance operations were halted only once during February 2003 and not on two separate occasions as indicated in the draft under the section sub-titled 'Mine Clearance'. This was done to provide rest and relief to the parties involved in the de-mining process, and not for want of proper equipment and safety gear as also indicated in the draft.
5. You would have also received a communication from our Mission in Geneva requesting that the reference to "several million" mines in the introductory paragraph and in the paragraph subtitled 'Use' be corrected to accurately reflect Ambassador Rakish Sod�s comments made during a meeting with Nobel Peace Laureate Ms. Jody Williams.
6. During the mine-laying operations, land was temporarily expropriated to prevent untoward casualties to civilians. This will be returned once 100% recovery is achieved. Compensation is being paid for the period of expropriation and for any adverse impact on both the winter and the summer crops. There is no standard figure for acreage-wise compensation as indicated in your draft under the section subtitled 'The Landmine Problem'. Instead, the compensation rates are based on various factors including the crop pattern of the area and the cultivable land that has been utilized by the Armed forces. A Board of officials, including representatives from the respective State Governments, has been specially instituted to look into these matters.
7. All efforts are made by the Government to provide free, expeditious and quality medical and other assistance to landmine victims. The figures for monetary compensation indicated in the draft under section 'Disability Policy and Practice' are incorrect. Depending upon the nature of the injury and than extent of disability, compensation in the range of Rupees one lakh to ten lakhs is being provided to the victims. In addition, facilities such as assistance in securing employment and provision of artificial limbs are also extended by the Government. With reference to the section on 'Mine Risk Education', it may be noted that formal mine risk education is also being provided. at the field level by field force commanders.
8. As also indicated in your draft update, India has been a victim for decades of the indiscriminate use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) by non-state actors and terrorist groups which continue to cause considerable harm to the life and property of innocent civilians. Despite this grave provocation, Indian armed forces continue to exercise restraint and desist from using landmines except as part of military operations. It is in this context that I would like to clarify that the reference in the section subtitled 'Use' to an Army Officer having reportedly stated that "the mines had been planted mainly as a deterrent for infiltrators" is incorrect. No mines have been laid as a deterrent for infiltrators. However, it is indeed time that we paid more attention to issues related to transfers and employment of IEDs.
9. I would appreciate if the above comments are incorporated and the necessary corrections are made in the section on India in the forthcoming edition of the Landmine Monitor Report to ensure that the Government of India�s position is accurately reflected in your widely respected publication. We would be grateful for a line in confirmation.
Yours sincerely,
(Sheel Kant Sharma)
Ms. Mary Wareham
Global research Coordinator,
Landmine Monitor
C/o Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Ave NW #500
(Fax: 00-1-202-612 43 33)
Copy to:
(i) Ambassador Rakesh Sood,
Permanent Mission of India to the Conference of Disarmament
Geneva
(ii) Shri Alok Prasad,
Deputy Chief of Mission,
Embassy of India.
Washington D.C.
Country:
Pakistan
Date Received: 04 Nov 2003
EMBASSY OF PAKISTAN
3517 International Court, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008
Tel: (202) 243-6500
No. Pol-1/12/2003
July 7, 2003
Ms. Wareham,
Kindly refer to your letter of June 6, 2003, addressed to Mian Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, Foreign Minister of Pakistan, regarding the forthcoming Landmine Monitor Report 2003.
I am enclosing herewith a copy of letter No. Dsmt- 1/9/03, dated 15 July 2003 addressed to you by Mr. Arif Ayub, Director General (UN & Disarmament), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad which is in response to your letter.
Regards,
(Syed Zulfiqar Gardezi) First Secretary (111)
Ms. Mary Wareham,
Global Research Coordinator,
Landmine Monitor,
C/o Human Rights Watch,
1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, # 500,
Washington, DC, 20009
Fax: (202)-6124333
About Us
Our Research Products
