Pages:
<<
|
1
| 2
| 3
| 4
| 5
| 6
| 7
| 8
|
>>
| Sort by:
Date / Country
Country:
Colombia
Date Received: 10 Dec 2012
English (spanish below):
DCHONU NO. 1373
Geneva, December 04 of 2012
Ms
MARY WAREHAM
Final Editor
Cluster Munition Monitor
Geneva
SUBJECT: Memorando DAMP/GDNP No79477-Cluster Munition Report
Ms. Mary Wareham:
I write to you to in order to submit the response of the Government of Colombia to your communication of the 19 November 2012 related to the Cluster Munition Monitor 2012 and the Fact Sheet “Victim Assistance since the entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munition”.
In this response, the Government of Colombia expresses its appreciation for your kind response and your suggestion to modify the references contained in the Cluster Munition Monitor and the Fact Sheet “Victim Assistance since the entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munition”, which alleged Cluster Munition victims in Colombia. However we consider that this drafting does not clarify the country’s situation, nor attends the comments exposed in our initial answer.
To give the more transparency to the reader about the national situation, the Government of Colombia appreciates that the letter send to Kasia Derlicka, Director of the International Campaign for the Cluster Munitions Prohibition, is included in the annexes. In order to give more clarity about the statement made in both publications.
It is important to stress that in the past editions the Cluster Munitions Monitor recognized that in the Santo Domingo’s case, Cluster munitions were not used and there is not any study or statement of an authority referring to the use of this armament.
Sincerely,
Carlos Enrique Valencia Muñoz
Encargado de Negocios, a.i.
___________________________________________
Spanish:
DAPM/GDNP No. 7913
Bogotá, D.C., 26 noviembre de 2012
Señora
MARY WAREHAM
Editora Final
Cluster Munition Monitor
Ginebra
Asunto: Cluster Munition Monitor 2012 y la Fact Sheet “Victim Assistance since the entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munition”.
Señora Editora:
En relación con su comunicación del 19 de noviembre de 2012, agradecemos su respuesta y sugerencia de modificación a las referencias contenidas en el Cluster Munition Monitor 2012 y la Fact Sheet “Victim Assistance since the entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munition” sobre las presuntas victimas de municiones en racimo en Colombia. Sin embargo, consideramos que esta redacción no aclara la situación del país ni atiende los argumentos expuestos en nuestra respuesta inicial.
En este sentido, y con el fin de dar claridad al lector sobre la situación nacional, el Gobierno de Colombia agradecería que la carta que le dirigimos a la Directora de al Campaña Internacional para la Prohibición de las Minas Antipersonal (ICBL), Kasia Derlicka, haciendo claridad frente a las aseveraciones hechas en ambas publicaciones, sea incluida como anexo a las mismas.
Es importante destacar que en pasadas ediciones el Cluster Munition Monitor había reconocido que en el caso de Santo Domingo no se usaron municiones en racimo y que no hay un estudio ni pronunciamiento de una autoridad señalando que se trató de ese armamento.
De Usted, muy atentamente,
SONIA MATILDE EL JACH POLO
Directora de Asuntos Políticos Multilaterales
Country:
Colombia
Date Received: 05 Nov 2012
English (Spanish below):
MPC No. 1224
Geneva, November 2nd 2012
KASIA DERLICKA
ICBL Director
International Campaign to Ban Landmines
Dear Ms Director:
Attached you will find the Colombian Government’s answer to particular observations included in the Cluster Munitions Monitor 2012 and the Fact Sheet “Victim Assistance since entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions”. A courtesy translation is also enclosed.
Cordially,
Alicia Arango Olmos
Ambassador
_____________________________________
DAPM/GDS NO. 85623
Bogota, D.C., October 25th 2012
KASIA DERLICKA
Executive Director
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
Geneva
Subject: Comments to the “Cluster Munitions Monitor 2012” and the Fact Sheer “Victim Assistance since Entry into Force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions”
Ms. Director:
Allow me to refer to the publication Cluster Munitions Monitor 2012 that mentions Colombia in the following terms:
“Of the 30 states with casualties that therefore have responsibility for cluster munitions victims, ten are States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Guinea-Bissau, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Montenegro, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone) and sic have signed, but not yet ratified the convention (Angola, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iraq and Uganda). Compared to 29 states with casualties reported in 2011, this is an increase of one country (Colombia).”
And the reference published in the Fact Sheet “Victim Assistance since Entry into Force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions” of September 2012, in which express that Colombia and other 30 States have reported to have victims of Cluster Munitions.
In this regard, I want to reiterate that Colombia does not report victims of this kind of weapons, according with the Convention provisions and the information of the use of cluster munitions in our country. Therefore, it is not accurate to mention that there has been an increase of the number of counties with victims of cluster munitions in 2012, if this reference is due to Colombia.
We will briefly mention the following precisions in regard to this issue:
- The Santo Domingo case is the only event that is being called to have used Cluster munitions. However, as the Cluster Munitions Monitor declared in 2009:
“There are reports that a Colombian helicopter used a World War II-ear dispenser of United States origin, more akin to a weapons rack that a modern cluster bomb, to drop several 20lb (9kg) fragmentation bombs during an attack on the village of Santo Domingo in 1998. These weapons are not considered cluster munitions under the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The CMC has received information from Colombian military sources that Colombia stockpiles four types of cluster munitions:… and, AN-M41 “cluster adapter” (the weapon delivery system used in the attack on Santo Domingo mentioned above.) [10]…
[10]:CMC meeting with the Colombian delegation to th Regional Conference on Cluster Munitions, Quito, 7 November 2008. Notes by CMC. Human Rights Watch and Land mine Action are unfamiliar with the ARC 32 bombs, and are not aware of any of the technical details about them. It is unclear is these weapons are banned under the convention.”
In addition, the fact Sheet entitled “Cluster Munitions in America and the Carebian”, of November 2008 prepared by Human Rigths Watch, refered to the issue in the same sense.
- In the various Jurisdictional proceedings in the Santo Domingo case there were evidence that the armament used at that time did not have the characteristics of the cluster munitions.
- The event which is claimed to have used cluster munitions occurred in 1998. A decade before having an international political and jurisdictional condemnation of the use of this kind of armament. The Cluster Munitions Convention was adopted May 30th 2008 and entered into force the 1st of August of 2010. In that order of ideas, the prohibition in the use of cluster munitions, as described in the Convention, apply (not retroactively) to States that were willing to bind themselves under this international agreement.
- Colombia is a signatory state of the Cluster Munitions Convention and according to the Vienna Convention is our commitment not to contravene the objective of this international instrument. Our country will be bind internationally 6 months after it has ratified the Convention, according with Article 26 of the Treaty.
Nevertheless in 2009, the National Government destroyed all its arsenals even before the Convention entered into forced and before Colombia ratified it. This means that Colombia does not have this kind of weapons. Colombia has fulfilled the obligation to destroy cluster munitions, as states in the article number 3 of the convention, before the deadline of 8 years. There were two public events in which participated international organizations, the diplomatic corps, NGOs, and others, with the aim of destroying this kind of ammunition. In addition to this, the Colombian experience has been shared in the following meetings: Berlin Conference on Arsenal Destruction in 2009 and the International Conference of Chile in 2010.
- There has not been an increase in the victims reported in 2011, since there weren’t any calamities related to the use of the weapons. It is inappropriate to register a past claimed event occurred 14 years ago as a new case. This creates mistakes on victim’s databases.
Finally, it is important to reiterate the commitment of the Colombian State wit the integral attention and socioeconomic reincorporation of all victims of in-humanitarian weapons, regardless of the type of armament. As you already know in Colombia there are fatalities due to the indiscriminate use of Antipersonnel Mines and Improvised Explosive Devises used by illegal armed groups.
Cordially,
SONIA MATILDE EL JACH POLO
Director of Political Multilateral Affairs
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia
_______________________________________________________
Spanish:
DAPM/GDS NO. 85623
Bogotá, D.C., 25 octubre de 2012
Doctora
KASIA DERLICKA
Directora Ejecutiva
Campaña Internacional para la Prohibición de las Minas (ICBL)
Ginebra
Asunto: Comentarios al “Cluster Munition Monitor 2012” y al Fact Sheet “Victim Assistance since Entry into Force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions”
Señora Directora:
De manera atenta me permito referirme a la publicación: Cluster Munition Monitor 2012, en especial a la alusión que se hace sobre Colombia, en los siguientes términos:
“Of the 30 states with casualties that therefore have responsibility for cluster munitions victims, ten are States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Guinea-Bissau, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Montenegro, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone) and sic have signed, but not yet ratified the convention (Angola, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iraq and Uganda). Compared to 29 states with casualties reported in 2011, this is an increase of one country (Colombia).”
Así como a la referencia publicada en el Fact Sheet “Victim Assistance since Entry into Force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions”, de septiembre 2012, en la cual se afirma que Colombia, junto con otros 30 Estados, ha reportado tener victimas de Municiones en Racimo.
Sobre el particular, de manera atenta me permito reiterar que, de acuerdo con las provisiones de la Convención y la información sobre uso de municiones en racimo en el país previo a su compromiso con el instrumento, Colombia no reporta victimas de municiones en racimo. En este sentido, es incorrecto asegurar que ha habido un incremento en el número de países con victimas reportadas en el año 2012, si esta referencia se debe a Colombia.
En este orden de ideas, me permito hacer las siguientes precisiones:
- El único evento en el que se alega el presunto empleo de municiones en racimo es el caso de Santo Domingo. Sin embargo, tal como el mismo Cluster Munition Monitor afirmó en su edición de 2009:
“There are reports that a Colombian helicopter used a World War II-ear dispenser of United States origin, more akin to a weapons rack that a modern cluster bomb, to drop several 20lb (9kg) fragmentation bombs during an attack on the village of Santo Domingo in 1998. These weapons are not considered cluster munitions under the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The CMC has received information from Colombian military sources that Colombia stockpiles four types of cluster munitions:… and, AN-M41 “cluster adapter” (the weapon delivery system used in the attack on Santo Domingo mentioned above.) [10]…
[10]:CMC meeting with the Colombian delegation to th Regional Conference on Cluster Munitions, Quito, 7 November 2008. Notes by CMC. Human Rights Watch and Land mine Action are unfamiliar with the ARC 32 bombs, and are not aware of any of the technical details about them. It is unclear is these weapons are banned under the convention.”
Adicionalmente, en la Hoja Informativa Regional, titulada “Municiones en Racimo en América y el Caribe”, de noviembre de 2008, preparado por Human Rights Watch se había hecho referencia pública en el mismo sentido.
- En el curso de las diferentes actuaciones jurisdiccionales desplegadas por los hechos ocurridos en Santo Domingo, se aportaron pruebas tendientes a evidenciar que el armamento empleado no responde a las características de una munición en racimo.
El evento de presunto empleo de municiones en racimo ocurrió en 1998. Una década antes de que hubiese una condena internacional politica y juridica al uso de este tipo de armamento. La Convención sobre Municiones en Racimo fue adoptada el 30 de mayo de 2008 y entró en vigor internacional el 1 de agosto de 2010. En consecuencia, la prohibición a las municiones en racimo, tal y como están definidas en la Convención, aplica a partir de su vigencia (no de manera retroactiva) para los Estados que hayan manifestado su voluntad de obligarse en virtud de este acuerdo internacional.
- Colombia es Estado signatario de la Convención sobre Municiones en Racimo y, en virtud de la Convención de Viena sobre el Derechos de los Tratados, su obligación es no contravenir el objeto y fin de dicho instrumento internacional. Nuestro país sólo estará obligado internacionalmente seis meses después del depósito del instrumento de ratificación, de conformidad con el articulo 26 de la Convención.
No obstante lo anterior, en 2009, antes de la entrada en vigor internacional y sin haber ratificado la Convención, el Gobierno Nacional destruyó la totalidad de sus arsenales, compromiso para le cual tenia un plazo de 8 años de acuerdo con el articulo 3 de la Convención, es decir, que nuestro país está libre de municiones en racimo. Se destaca que hubo dos eventos públicos de destrucción a los cuales se invitó al Cuerpo Diplomático, Organismos Internacionales, Organizaciones No Gubernamentales, entre otros. Adicionalmente, la experiencia colombiana en materia de destrucción de arsenales ha sido compartida en el marco de las siguientes reuniones: Conferencia de Berlin sobre Destrucción de 2009 y la Conferencia Internationale de Chile de 2010.
- No hay un aumento frente a las victimas reportadas en 2011, dado que en dicho año no ocurrieron siniestros en nuestro país por este tipo de armas. Es improcedente registrar un presunto evento ocurrido hace 14 años como un caso nuevo. Esto genera imprecisiones en los datos sobre victimas.
Finalmente, es importante reiterar el compromiso del Estado Colombiano con la plena atención y reincorporación socioeconómica de cualquier victima de armas de impacto humanitario, independientemente del tipo de artefacto que la haya afectado, que como es de su conocimiento, en el caso colombiano se producen por el uso indiscriminado de minas antipersonal y explosivos improvisados utilizados por parte de los grupos armados ilegales.
De la señora Directora, muy atentamente,
SONIA MATILDE EL JACH POLO
Directora de Asuntos Políticos Multilaterales.
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)
About Us
Our Research Products