Belgium signed the Mine
Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997. This act is the result of a global movement to
ban antipersonnel landmines initiated in the early 1990’s in which Belgium
has played a decisive role. “In June 1993, the Belgian government
established a moratorium on the export of antipersonnel mines, before providing
itself with legislation in 1995 which modifies the law of 3 January 1933
relating to the manufacturing, trade and carrying of firearms and the trade of
ammunition. The law of 9 March 1995 which henceforth includes antipersonnel
mines, booby traps or other devices of a similar nature was amended by the law
of 24 June 1996 which provides for a complete ban concentrating on the use,
stockpiling, manufacturing and the transfer of antipersonnel mines. Belgium was
the first state in the world to declare de jure a complete ban of
antipersonnel
mines.”[1]
Following its signature, the Belgian Senate ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 9
July 1998 with a unanimous
vote.[2] The Chamber of
Representatives then passed the ratification measure on 16 July 1998 with 137
votes for and two against.[3]
The instrument of ratification, after having been signed by the King, was
deposited at the United Nations on 4 September
1998.[4]
No interpretative declaration was filed with the instrument of
ratification.[5] The
ratification law appeared in the official bulletin, issued by the government
giving details of laws and official announcements, of 18 December 1998 without
any interpretative note.[6] It
has not been possible to obtain a copy of the instrument of ratification.
Because the Belgian law provides for a complete ban, no further implementing
legislation is necessary.[7]
Belgium was at the root of the proposal for Article 18 during the treaty
negotiations in Oslo.[8] In his
speech on 3 December 1997 at the occasion of the signing of the Treaty, the
Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Erik Derycke, encouraged countries to
commit to the article -- namely the provisional application of the important
obligations of the Treaty before entry into force: “For many governments,
Article 18 nonetheless represents the possibility to immediately apply the
essential points of the Convention. I encourage all of the States Parties to use
this possibility for provisional application without waiting for it to
officially enter into force.” In view of the internal legislation already
in effect in Belgium at the time the treaty was signed, it was not necessary to
make specific mention regarding the application of this article: "Indeed, this
provision is not applicable for countries, such as mine, which have had a
radical law for years which bans antipersonnel
mines."[9]
Belgium has already begun preparing the requisite report to be handed over to
the United Nations 180 days after the Convention went into effect, that is
before the first of September 1999. In order to underscore its ongoing
commitment to this process, Belgium expects to present the report before the
deadline.[10]
Belgium’s Role in the Global Ban Movement
In 1993 the Belgian Network of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
(ICBL) was created and started to rally public opinion in support of a ban. In
1994 members of Parliament were mobilized and in March 1995 passed the first
unilateral domestic law banning mines. From this time, the government began to
take a lead internationally as well.
Early on, Belgium supported the role of the United Nations as the
coordinating forum for mine action, and has co-sponsored a number of resolutions
related to that matter. In 1994, its proposed the idea, later taken up by the
European Union, of creating the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for
Demining.[11] An international
conference on humanitarian mine clearance was held in Geneva in July of 1995. In
presiding over the meeting, Belgian Foreign Minister Derycke emphasized the
necessity of expressing a strong political commitment and to making available
sufficient resources, both financial and in kind, to provide effective action
against mines and to curb the humanitarian catastrophe. In his short
introductory speech, he also mentioned the need to ban landmines: “My
third appeal will request everyone to give more comprehensive thought to mines.
It seems to me that the time has come for an initial examination of the
timeliness of an international convention banning antipersonnel mines following
the example mutatis mutandis of chemical and biological
weapons.”[12]
The government continued to back up its words with action -- its
representatives participated in ICBL-sponsored meetings during the final
sessions of the CCW Review Conference in Geneva in 1996. These sessions gave
birth to what became the “Ottawa Process” when Canada offered to
host a meeting later that year to strategize as to how to reach a global ban.
During the Ottawa conference in October 1996, the head of the Belgian delegation
took a very firm position in favor of a total and global ban: “the first
element should be the total and immediate ban on the production of all
antipersonnel mines ?, the second essential element to be included in the
convention is also of paramount importance because it bears upon the rapid
destruction of our
stocks?.”[13]
Belgium was a key member of the core group of states that carried the Mine
Ban Treaty process through to successful completion. Before the Ottawa October
conference, Belgium had already offered to host a follow-up meeting in June of
the next year and was named in the “Ottawa Declaration” as the host
of that very important conference, seen as the mid-way point of the Ottawa
Process.
At the close of that watershed meeting, the secretary general of the
conference declared, "What we wanted was the adoption of a declaration of the
conference which restates the essential elements of the treaty which are not
negotiable and we also wanted to know exactly how many of us share this
objective. This had never been done before. I think that now it has. We have the
participation of 153 states and today we have 91 signatures supporting and
upholding the declaration of
Brussels."[14]
In Oslo, Belgium actively participated in the negotiations of the entire
text; its positions were very strong and one of the key elements in avoiding
weakening the text.[15] And in
Ottawa, at the time of the signing of the Treaty, Foreign Minister Derycke
promised to continue efforts towards universalization: “Belgium will
continue its efforts to rally countries which still feel hesitant in support of
the convention.?My country will carefully examine each request for assistance by
a State Party in the enforcement of the
treaty.”[16]
Throughout the Ottawa process, a close collaboration between the
representatives of the NGOs and of the government developed. In each of the
conferences that marked the return to Ottawa for the signing of the Mine Ban
Treaty, the Belgian delegations included an NGO representative. This allowed for
real, constructive collaboration, in particular throughout the negotiations in
Oslo.
Belgium has contributed to the organization of the First Conference of the
State Parties of the Ottawa Convention, in Maputo from 3 to 7 May 1999, in
addition to its obligatory contribution. Foreign Minister Derycke announced the
figure of 3 million Belgian francs (US$82,200) on the first of March 1999, the
day the Treaty entered into
force.[17]
Belgium has also been an active supporter of various efforts in the context
of the Ottawa Process and the Mine Ban Treaty. In 1997,
BADC[18] supported Handicap
international with 2,300,000 BEF ($63,000) for the organization of various
activities for the Brussels conference for banning landmines, as well as
participation in Belgium of the representatives of the ICBL and mine
victims.[19] One million BEF
($27,400) was also given for the making of the 10 short films “Spotlight
on a Massacre.”[20]
In support of Handicap International’s global plan of action, BADC is
financing the organization for 1,400,000 ($38,350) for 1998 and 1,945,000 BEF
($53,289) for 1999 for its work coordinate the Belgian network of the ICBL and
for continuing to build public awareness in Belgium of the landmine problem and
its solutions..[21]
For 1998, the Belgian government allocated one million BEF ($27,400) to
Handicap International Belgium as a member of the core group of the Landmine
Monitor research team for the collection of data and preparation of this
report.[22] Belgium also
supported the Campaign of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1997
and 1998[23]
Belgium in the European Context
Belgium assumed the presidency of the Western European Union (WEU) in 1996
with the Birmingham declaration that consisted of an initiative on WEU demining
actions, in the framework of the European Union (EU), without exclusion of other
forms of collaboration. That approach was concretized by the EU joint action of
November 1997 that gives to EU the possibility of using the demining capacities
of WEU for EPCS actions (European policy for common security). The EU Council
subsequently decided to provide assistance to Croatia for humanitarian demining.
Belgium provided one expert trainer for that
mission.[24]
In November 1997, Belgium launched an initiative in the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) for more transparency in state
landmine policies, consisting of a questionnaire related to the legal and
political measures adopted vis-a-vis landmines. Each year the secretariat will
compiles the responses to the questionnaires and publish a report. The first
report will be available in the Spring of 1999. The main objective of this
initiative is a confidence-building measure among the members of the
OSCE.[25]
Belgian National Legislation
In Belgium, largely because of the work of the Belgian Network of the ICBL to
build public awareness of the landmine problem, there was a change in Belgian
policy to support national legislation to ban antipersonnel landmines. The
public pressure was supported by steps being taken in the European context and
internationally. In December 1992, the European Parliament passed a resolution
calling upon its member states to ratify the CCW and calling urgently for a five
year European moratorium on the sale, transfer and export of antipersonnel
mines.[26]
Then, on 11 February 1993, French President Francois Mitterand "announced
that France calls for the rapid convening of a Review Conference of the 1980
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
(CCW)".[27] This helped build
momentum in Belgium which in 1993 Belgium enacted a moratorium on the export of
mines.[28]
From that period, Belgium advanced on two fronts: the first on the process of
ratification of the CCW and the second in the preparation of a law banning
antipersonnel mines. The law banning antipersonnel mines was adopted on 2 March
1995. The first law banned the production, procurement, sale, export, use and
custody of mines. [29] On 2 May
1996, the Parliament passed a second law which included a ban on stockpiling and
imposed a deadline for destruction of stockpiles within three years from 9 July
1996.[30]
Belgium was the first member state of NATO, in fact the first country in the
world, to adopt such a severe law, which worried some in the Belgian government.
The Minister of Defense Delcroix, while supporting the principle of a serious
restriction in the use of antipersonnel mines, booby traps and devices of a
similar nature, was opposed to a total ban which would isolate Belgium within
NATO and prevent it from fulfilling its military obligations vis-a-vis the other
members of the Alliance.[31]
“However, these arguments were rejected following the recognition of the
risks of anarchic use of this armament, the very theoretical nature of the
so-called necessity of their use (the last use of this armament by Belgian
forces was in 1951 during the Korean War) and the important symbol which a total
ban would represent in the view of the international
community.”[32]
The definition of mines in the Belgian law is interesting. The Belgian law
deals with antipersonnel mines, booby traps and devices of the same nature. If
the definition given is clear for antipersonnel
mines,[33] this is not the case
with booby traps and devices of the same nature. The introductory section of its
report on the law, the Commission of Justice gives several examples : “it
could be a question of antitank or anti-vehicle mines which are dealt with to
explode not under the pressure of the weight of a tank or vehicle, but by
contact with a person; or of ‘sub-munitions’...which have been
deliberately regulated to not explode from a first contact but can be
disseminated and have the same effect as antipersonnel
mines.”[34] It seems
obvious to NGOs that anti-handling devices should be considered as devices of
the same nature and therefore fall under the ban law.
The Belgian army does not agree with this interpretation and considers that
from the moment an anti-handling device is in place on an antitank mine, it
becomes an integral part of the ATM and that ATMs are not prohibited by the
law.[35] The army also
acknowledges that “a certain percentage of antitank mines retained by the
army are equipped with anti-handling
devices.”[36] Of course,
the Ottawa Treaty excludes prohibitions on anti-handling devices (although the
diplomatic record notes that if they act like an APM they should be considered
one and thus outlawed[37]), but
the Belgian law was written before the treaty and it contains strict penal codes
which have priority over international law.
Convention on Conventional Weapons
Belgium signed the CCW on 10 April 1981, but did not ratify it until 7
February 1995.[38] One of the
first acts of the Belgian network of the ICBL was to encourage the urgent
ratification of the Convention so that Belgium could actively participate in the
review conference.
Throughout the two sessions of this review conference, Belgium took the
following position: “We have banned antipersonnel mines. We have a
two-pronged political position which is namely in international matters, we
would like to push every initiative towards a total ban on antipersonnel mines
but regarding the conference here which was the finalizing of new regulations on
the use, the production and certain technical aspects of the use of mines, we
have aligned our position with the Joint Action of the European Union (Joint
Action, 12 May 1995) with a specific focus on the extension of the scope of the
protocol in internal conflicts and on detectability. The third point which was
extremely important for Belgium and the European Union was the ban on transfers,
that is to say, the international trade of
mines.”[39]
On 9 July 1998, the Senate unanimously passed the ratification of the
additional Protocol and of Protocol II as amended in the
CCW.[40] The Chamber of
Representatives did the same on 16 July
1998.[41] The instruments of
ratification were deposited at the United Nations on 10 March 1999.
Conference on Disarmament
While defending the ultimate objective of a total ban on mines, Belgium was
already envisaging discussing mines in the CD during the international meeting
on mine clearance in July 1995 when Minister Derycke, while talking about an
international convention banning mines, stated, “Why not entrust the
Disarmament Conference with the preliminary studies of such a
convention.”[42] At the
end of the review conference of the CCW in Geneva on 3 May 1996, the head of the
Belgian delegation declared: “We are prepared to devote several years to
putting in place a system totally banning antipersonnel mines first by passing a
resolution (at the General Assembly of the United Nations( and if possible by
obtaining a mandate which would lead to the negotiation of a worldwide ban
treaty at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. This takes time but it is
possible, we did it for chemical weapons, we will finish by doing it for nuclear
tests, we believe that it is possible for mines. But this would not be done
tomorrow. It is a long-winded issue which requires a great deal of assiduity and
which requires continuity in the political willingness of which, in Belgium,
there is no
doubt.”[43]
After the conclusion of the Brussels conference, Belgium continued to favor
an approach on a number of fronts: "It is true that at the Disarmament
Conference in Geneva, certain countries would like to discuss mines. Belgium is
one of these countries. We do not see a contradiction between the Ottawa process
and the Disarmament Conference. We are convinced that the only true objective is
the ban of antipersonnel mines. The paths that we take to achieve this objective
are a matter of indifference to us. Our analysis is that for the moment, the
Ottawa process will lead us there more certainly and more quickly. However, we
are open to any developments at the Disarmament Conference. What matters to us
is the final objective."[44]
In March of 1999 the Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Service of the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs-confirmed this view: “Belgium's approach is
inspired by a wish for integrity. We have always, from the very beginning of the
Ottawa Process, expressed the desire to attend the two complementary processes.
At the Disarmament Conference, there are countries which did not attend the
Ottawa Process. Discussing these issues in different fora is one way to commit
those countries towards the banning of APLs. But it remains clear that in our
minds we will never agree with any initiative which should risk to weaken the
Convention.”[45] Belgium
was one of twenty-two countries to co-sponsor a Bulgarian statement in February
1999 calling for negotiations of a transfer ban of antipersonnel landmines in
the CD.
Production
It was in 1778 that in Wetteren (which was not yet
Belgium at this time) the first powder factory was created. By 1979, United
Powder Factories of Belgium, or Poudreries Reunies de Belgique -- PRB held more
than 73 factories around the world with production in 5 sectors: industrial
explosives, foam, chemistry, defense and mechanical, and miscellaneous. The
headquarters is located in
Brussels.[46] Military
production was carried out at six sites: Matagne, Clermont, Vivegnis (in
Wallonia) and Mechelen, Kaulille and Balen (in
Flanders).[47]
Mine production was mainly located at
Balen.[48] However, in
parliamentary debates on the law banning mines it was revealed that the "Matagne
la petite" site had also produced
mines.[49] In fact, mine
production took place at three of the sites: at Matagne, elements were produced
(plastic and metal); at Kaulille it was explosives; and at Balen, the explosive
was poured into the
cases.[50]
Before the 1990s, Belgium produced antipersonnel and antitank mines.
Antipersonnel mines included:
- The NR409 also known by the name PRB M409 is a blast mine which is placed
manually. It was also produced in Portugal under the reference M411 or MAPS.
This mine contains very little metal and is therefore difficult to detect. These
mines have been found in Angola, Iraq, Namibia, Rwanda, Somalia and
Zambia.[51]
- PRB BAC H-28: antipersonnel blast mine, precursor to the NR
409.[52] The Belgian army did
not acquire this mine.[53]
- The PRB M35: small cylindrical blast mine which is found in Somalia,
Eritrea, Ethiopia and
Angola.[54] This mine was
included in the basic equipment of the Belgian
Army.[55]
- The NR 413 is a relatively simple fragmentation mine which is triggered by
trip wires. It is found in
Rwanda.[56]
- The PRB M966: bounding fragmentation mine copied from a series M2 model
from the United States. This mine was also produced in Portugal under the
reference M/966.[57]
- The NR 442: bounding fragmentation antipersonnel
mine.[58]
Antitank mines included:
- PRB M1, PRB M2 , PRB M3 and its variation PRB M3A1 are antitank mines with
a blast effect.[59] The
variation has two secondary fuze-wells for booby-trap purposes.
- PRB III: blast mine. The fuze is the same type as used on the M 35
antipersonnel mines.[60]
- PRB IV: The fuze is in fact an antipersonnel
mine.[61]
- NR 141 and the NR 210: antitank mines with a blast effect. The NR 210 has a
secondary fuze-well at the base of the mine for boobytrap
purposes.[63]
In the 1980s, PRB experienced financial difficulties which led the company to
declare bankruptcy in 1989 and the different branches were put into
liquidation.[64] In a letter
dated 25 January 1999, the trusteeship of the PRB Company confirmed that the
bankruptcy of PRB had been closed on 27 December 1993, but did not release any
details.[65] As for their side,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms the destruction of the Belgian
production capabilities: “The manufacturing of antipersonnel mines in
Belgium has stopped since the bankruptcy of the PRB company well before the
introduction of the national prohibitory legislation in this matter. The PRB
substructures were dismantled by a specialized
company.”[66] A request
had been made in order to obtain, if it exists, a copy of the certificate
signifying the end of the demilitarization of the site.
[67]
Alternatives
Belgium participates in various fora where studies relative to APM
alternatives are being carried out. At the same time, it respects the letter and
the spirit of the Ottawa Convention and the national legislation in this matter.
To date, there have been no budgetary implications for
alternatives.[68]
Transfer
In June 1993, the Belgian government established a
moratorium on the export of antipersonnel mines, which was superseded by the
national law of 1995.[69] It
was not possible to obtain information on any import of mines in the past, but
in view of the fact that the stocks of destroyed mines (see below) were
Belgian-made mines, it is unlikely that any imports of large quantities ever
took place.[70]
Stockpiling and Destruction
One year after the Belgian national ban law of
1995, stockpiling was also banned through a new law, which went into effect on 9
July 1996. From that moment on, the Belgian armed forces began the destruction
of the stocks, in order to meet the three-year
deadline.[71]
Belgian stocks mainly consisted of M35 antipersonnel mines, which were sent
to a weapons dismantling plant in Pinnow, Germany. Not having adequate
facilities in Belgium, a contract was signed for the incineration of 428,952
explosive devices.[72]
“The demilitarization and destruction of the antipersonnel mines in
Belgium's possession has been the subject of a contract (jointly with the
Netherlands) fulfilled in 1997 by the German civil company ‘BUCK INPAR
GMBH, Am Waldrand, 2 at 16278-PINNOW.’ The destruction was carried out by
the dismantling of the components, followed by the destruction of certain
elements by explosion. These operations were carried out in accordance with
German law and European directives relating to respect of the environment. The
certificate of destruction was delivered by the German company to the Ministry
of National Defense, in accordance with the contract established between the two
parties.[73]
This destruction was carried out in two stages with the departure of a first
lot of more than 300,000 mines from the Bertrix military station munitions depot
on 20 December 1996.[74] The
media reporting the event mentions 313,472 mines loaded onto 272
pallets[75] which represents 6
freight wagons.[76] On 25
August, the Army's Media Service announced in its press release N?148, the
departure of the second lot made up of 115,480 for Germany. On 26 August 1997,
at 13H45 the 115,480 mines manufactured in the 1960s, approximately 45 tons,
left in a convoy.[77]
On 8 November 1997, the media announced that dismantling operations had been
completed. [78] It has not been
possible to obtain any details regarding the types of mines destroyed.
[79] However, a camera crew
from Handicap International was able to get on site in Germany and film the
dismantling of the Belgian mines. The mines that were filmed were type
M35.[80] The cost of the
destruction is estimated at 39.5 BEF ($1.08) per mine, plus German taxes and the
cost of transport.[81] The total
cost was more than 17,960,000 BEF ($492,068) which was borne by the Ministry of
National Defense.[82]
Besides the dismantling of the above stocks, the Mine Clearance Service of
the Armed Forces destroyed 4,489 antipersonnel mines. These operations were part
of on-going military directives, carried out on the destruction grounds provided
for this purpose and in accordance with standards decreed by the European Union
and national legislation.[83]
Belgium therefore destroyed 433,441 antipersonnel mines.
Belgium kept a small stock of mines for training and research purposes. The
media reported some 8,800 mines in November
1997,[84] but in a document
dated February 1999, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced: "Today, Belgium
has a minimum stock of 6,240 active type M35 antipersonnel mines. These are
intended for the education and training of specialists in mine clearance
operations as well as for ‘mine awareness’ instruction of personnel.
The use of this stock, kept by the Ministry of National Defense, is subject to
both strict military regulations and to the provisions provided by Belgian
law.”[85]
Various inert or rendered inoperative antipersonnel mines are also used for
training purposes as well as in research and development programs for mine
clearance methods and techniques. These mines mainly come from zones in which
Belgium has been involved in mine clearance operations. Belgium has also
supplied such mines to the Netherlands (11 cut and inert APMs) in July of 1998,
in accordance with Article 3 of the Ottawa
Convention.[86]
In the 1960s, the Belgian army had American type M2A1 bounding mines which
were subsequently withdrawn from
stocks.[87] As far as the
Claymore type mines or munitions are concerned, "Belgium does not have any
fragmentation mines which could be likened to antipersonnel
mines."[88]
During the debates on the Belgian law in 1995 and 1996 and again at the time
of the ratification of the Ottawa Convention, the question arose regarding the
stockpiling and the transfer of non-Belgian mines in Belgium in the framework of
NATO. On 1 December 1998, Hugo Vandienderen, Belgian Member of Parliament,
questioned the Minister of Defense, Mr. Jean-Pol Poncelet, about this issue.
The Minister replied that “Belgian legislation and the Ottawa Treaty ban
the stockpiling of antipersonnel mines. U.S. authorities have been informed of
this ban and they have confirmed that they did not organize the transport of
antipersonnel mines on our territory?.The situation regarding antipersonnel
mines is studied at different levels within NATO?.Our national legislation bans
the transit of antipersonnel mines. Furthermore, this matter is regularly the
subject of discussion within
NATO.”[89]
Use
During the parliamentary debates of 1995, it was
declared that Belgium had not used mines since 1951 in the Korean
War.[90] The question was
asked to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which replied, in coordination with
the Ministry of Defense that “To our knowledge, the Belgian troops did not
place antipersonnel mines in Korea. Belgium does not have any information
regarding the situation of mine fields in
Korea.”[91]
In Belgium today, the only legal uses of mines are for training or research
projects for detection and mine clearance techniques. As noted above, the
government stated that it has retained 6,240 M35 APMs for these purposes. It
also noted that the stock is controlled by the MoD under strict military
regulations and those of Belgian
law.[92] According to
information obtained from the Removal and Destruction of Explosive Devices
Service (SEDEE), training mine clearance personnel does not, on their side,
require possession of active
mines.[93] However, SEDEE does
use active mines for research projects for new techniques for mine clearance and
detection[94]
The Engineering school does use active mines in its training. There are two
types of training that call for active mines. One is “mine
awareness”: statutory one-day training for warrant officers and officers.
This training includes an on-site demonstration of the explosion of a mine type
M35bg in order to illustrate the noise, range and impact of the explosion. In
1998, there were some fifty such sessions. There will be approximately the same
number in 1999. The second is specialized training of combat engineering
members. Four categories of military personnel from this unit receive training,
which includes the use of mines: the soldiers, two levels of warrant officers
and the officers. The statutory training includes mine clearance. For this, type
M35bg mines are used at first to illustrate (as in the above-mentioned
training), subsequently, the individual defusing of a mine of that type and
finally, a practical “mine plug” demining exercise with on-site
destruction. These types of training require approximately 200 to 210 mines per
year.[95]
Landmine Problem
Belgium is not deeply affected by mines, however,
following the two world conflicts of 1914-18 and 1940-45, the territory has been
affected by mines and unexploded ordnance. The latter still require the
intervention of specialists in 1999. In Belgium, mine clearance is the
responsibility of the Ministry of Defense. Within the armed forces, operations
are carried out by SEDEE. This Service consists of around 97 deminers who
perform approximately 3,000 interventions per year. Throughout the 1990s more
than 200 tons of devices have been destroyed each year, including 260 tons in
1998.[96]
In Belgium there is no need of mine risk education for the public. Mine
awareness was carried out after the two World Wars but today mines are not
considered a risk. Some mine awareness training is organized for the armed
forces and for civilians who are going to be in a position to face dangers,
e.g., journalists,
diplomats.[97]
International Cooperation and Funding
In the framework of mine action, Belgium follows a
multi disciplinary approach that prioritizes mined areas which are absolutely
necessary for the survival of the civilian population. The approach follows some
basic principles including the integration of demining programs into global
regional development plans, the creation of local capacity, and the support of
research and development of new demining techniques mainly oriented to
“low-tech”
solutions.[98]
Belgian support for humanitarian mine action includes financial contributions
and in-kind support, in particular Belgian deminers of SEDEE, all of whom are
NATO-certified and capable of mine clearance as well as for the treatment of
UXO. They have participated in mine clearance operations in Somalia, Rwanda,
Zaire, Iraq, Bosnia, Cambodia and
Laos.[99]
Since the creation of the United Nations Voluntary Fund in 1994, Belgium
annually contributes a non-earmarked sum of 5,600,000 BEF ($150,000) to the
Fund. In addition, Belgium granted an additional amount of 25 million
BEF($685,000) in 1997 and has already contributed 10 million BEF ($274,000) to
the Fund for the year 1999. Belgian also contributes through international
organizations of which it is a member.
Since the 7 April 1992 start of United Nations and NATO operations in Croatia
and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, more than 120 Belgian mine clearance personnel have
participated in mine clearance activities there. In Croatia, one mine clearance
expert will participate from February 1999 onwards in a WEU demining mission. In
1998, a budget of 3 million BEF ($82,000) was granted to a "lessons learned"
project in Croatia. (BADC Budget, 1998)
In Cambodia, two mine clearance experts have served as technical advisors for
the Cambodia Mine Action Center (CMAC) in a mine clearance project supported by
Belgium up to 45 million
($1,233,000)[100] for the period
from 28 February 1994 to 31 March 1999. The international financial and
technical backing given to CMAC is coordinated with UNDP. Technical assistance
is given with the goal of making the Cambodian CMAC teams independent. In 1997,
the “Trust fund for Capacity Building in Demining Operations” was
also supported by Belgium with 30 million BEF ($822,000) paid to the Voluntary
Fund of UNDP (in the 1996 budget).
Since April 1998, three mine clearance experts have served as technical
advisors for the Laos National Unexploded Ordnance Program (UXO LAO). This
project aims to train Laotian mine clearance experts by Belgian specialists and
is supported by a Belgian grant of to 15 million BEF ($411,000) for one year.
Belgium is also supporting UXO-LAO with 15 million BEF ($411,000) for an
awareness campaign of the existence of unexploded projectiles and of the
cleaning up of affected areas. In order to see this program through to a
successful conclusion, UNDP has established a voluntary Fund, which mobilizes
donations.
The Belgian contribution to the program is allocated for the
“Savannakhet Provincial Program” which is coordinated by Handicap
International. This contribution was made on the 1998 budget and covered the
activities for the period from the first of April 1997 to 31 March 1998. The
operations of Handicap International in Laos are also supported with the
secondment of an EOD expert to HI. The 1994 law enables such secondment of
experts with less than five years from retirement; the costs in Laos are shared
by the Ministry of Defense and Handicap
International.[101]
Belgium is also member of the ad hoc "High-Level UN Mine Action Support
Group" which was established apart from the United Nations in 1998 and mainly
consists of the main donors countries to mine
action.[102]
Assistance in the development of mine clearance
technology[103]
Until now, Belgium has granted 26,255,400 BEF ($720,000) to the research
program for mine clearance technology called “HUDEM”, launched in
1997, at the instigation of the Ministry of National Defense. It is financed by
the Ministry of National Defense and by the Secretary of State of Development
cooperation (6,255,400 BEF, $171,400). This program is based on the sharing of
expertise of eight Belgian University institutions in the fields of detection,
locating and neutralization of mines and in the field of merging data. A new
phase is planned for 1999.
In 1998, the Belgian government decided to grant 44,000,000 BEF ($1,205,400)
for a European pilot project “Airborne Minefield Detection”. This
also involves a co-financing: 30,800,000 ($843,800)comes from BADC (in 1997 and
1999), 5,600,000 ($153,400)comes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
7,600,000 ($208,200)from the Ministry of Defense.
Also in 1998, the government granted 10,743,150 BEF ($294,300) for the first
phase of a project concentrating on the development of mine clearance
technology. The project concerns research in the use of biosensors (rats) for
humanitarian mine clearance operations. The aim of the research project –
APOPO – is the development of an inexpensive and effective technology for
the detection of mine fields. The general project is divided into two phases, of
which the first two-year phase in Belgium consists of a concept feasibility
study, and in the second phase, which consists of the pursuit of development of
a functional mine detection system that will be developed in South Africa. A
budget of 15,750,000 BEF ($431,500) has been given for the second phase in 1999.
Today in Belgium there are no longer accidents due to landmines. From time to
time, UXO incidents occur in the civilian population. In Belgian peace keeping
operations in Croatia and in Somalia, at least 3 accidents were reported. All
three, which occurred in 1992 and 1993, were vehicle-detonated antitank mine
incidents. One resulted in no serious injuries. But the other two resulted in
one dead and one injured in Croatia and in the Somalia incident, 3 dead and two
injured – all Belgian military. The Somalia explosion also injured one
Somali passenger.[105]
For Belgium, policy to aid mine victims is placed in a double perspective :
short term and long term. The actions conducted by Belgium in the short term are
geared to have immediate socio-economic impact. For the longer term, the actions
conducted by Belgium are aimed at sustainable development.
In the context of the Post-Ottawa process, the ICRC is called on to play an
important role with respect to the application of article 6 paragraph 3 of the
Treaty which provides for the support of states parties for victims of
antipersonnel mines. The Belgian government decided from that moment on to
release a sum of 16 million BEF($438,000) (6 million ($164,400) from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 10 million ($273,600)from the development
cooperation) for ICRC programs in 1998 to assist victims in rehabilitation,
surgical and medical support, awareness program, "advocacy" campaign and special
funds for the disabled.
Mine clearance is an important part of the cooperation program led in Angola.
The mine clearance program is based on an integrated approach, on medical care
and rehabilitation of disabled persons in coordination with Handicap
International in Kuito. Belgium granted a sum of 5,200,000 BEF ($142,500) to
this project.
[1]Belgian response to the
Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 26 February 1999; responses coordinated by the
Ministry of Defense, the State Secretariat for Cooperation and Development and
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the coordination of the latter, p. 2.
This is further referred to herein as “MFA response.”
[2]Report of the plenary
session of the Senate, Ordinary Session 1997-1998, afternoon session, 9 July
1998.
[3]Report of the plenary
session of 16 July 1998 of the Chamber of Representatives, Nominal vote
N°87.
[4]Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Fax memorandum from Legal Affairs General Direction, Treaties Service,
23 October 1998.
[12]Speech of Foreign
Minister Erik Derycke, Chairman of the International Meeting on Demining,
Geneva, 6 July 1995.
[13]Intervention of the
Belgian head of delegation, “Towards a Global Ban on Antipersonnel
Mines,” Ottawa, Canada, 3 October 1996.
[14]Video interview of
Ambassador Mernier, general secretary of the Brussels conference, Handicap
International, 27 June 1997; see also, Robert J. Lawson, Mark Gwozdecky, Jill
Sinclair, and Ralph Lysyshyn, “The Ottawa Process and the International
Movement to Ban Antipersonnel Mines,” To Walk without Fear, Maxwell
A. Cameron, Robert J. Lawson, Brian W. Tomlin (eds.), (Oxford University Press,
Toronto, 1998), pp. 173-174.
[15]Observation of the
researcher who was the NGO member of the official Belgian delegation in the Oslo
Treaty negotiations.
[16]Speech of Minister
Derycke, Ottawa, 3 December 1997.
[17]Statement of Minister
Derycke, Press Conference, 1 March 1999.
[18]Belgian Administration
for Development and Cooperation.
[29]Law related to
antipersonnel mines, booby traps and devices of the same nature. N95-778.
[30]Law of 24 June 1996
modifying the Law of 3 January 1933 relative to the production, trade and
carrying of arms and of commerce of ammunition with the intent of prohibiting
the Belgian State or its public administrations from holding antipersonnel mines
in depots. F96-1435, published in the Belgian Monitor on 9 July 1996, p.
18777.
[31]Parliamentary document,
Senate, 1994-1995, 1009-2 (1993-1194), report by Mr. Pataer, pp. 7 ss., 35.
[37]International Campaign to
Ban Landmines, “Statement to the Closing Plenary of the Oslo Diplomatic
Conference on a Treaty to Ban Antipersonnel Landmines,” Oslo, 18 September
1997.
[48]PRB Alternative report :
"Alternatief Verslag," Aktiekomitee aan de wapenhandel omschakeling
wapenindustrie en de vlaamse vredeuniversiteit", Nico Van Duffel en Ernst
Gulcher, 1985, p. 3.
[49]Report done in the name
of the Justice Commission of the Belgium Senate, session 1994-1995, 20 December
1994, R.A 16526, p. 5.
[74]Armed Forces Press
Service, Press Release 354/1, 19 December 1996.
[75]This figure is quoted in
the following newspapers : La Lanterne, 28 August 1997; La
dernière Heure, 8 November 1997; La Wallonie, 8 November 1997;
Het Nieuwswsblad, 29 August 1997, Vers l’Avenir 27 August
1997; La Libre Belgique, 27 August 1997, Le Soir, 27 August
1997.
[77]This figure is quoted in
the following newspapers: La Lanterne, 28 August 1997; La
dernière Heure, 8 November 1997; La Wallonie, 8 November
1997; Het nieuwsblad, 29 August 1997; Vers l’Avenir, 27
August 1997; La Libre Belgium, 27 August 1997; Le Soir, 27 August
1997.
[78]Le Soir, 8
November 1997; La Dernière Heure, 8 November 1997; La
Wallonie, 8 November 1997.
[79]Request of 19 November
1998 and repeated 7 March 1999 at the Ministry of Defense, The requests to the
firm of Buck failed to obtain information.
[80]Visit made in May 1997;
Footage available at Handicap International.
[81]Het Volk, 20
December 1996; Le Soir, 27 August 1997 and 8 November 1997; La
Wallonie, 8 November 1997; Het Nieuwse Blad, 29 August 1997; La
Libre Belgium 27 August 1997.
[87]Colonel Paul Frank
(ret),military engineers, now volunteer at Handicap international
[88]Supplement to the Belgian
response to the Landmine Monitor questionnaire, fax from Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 12 March 1999.
[89]Response of the Vice
Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense in Charge of Energy , Jean-Pol
Poncelet, public meeting of the National Defense Commission, 1 December 1998,
ref: C 683. p. 2.
[90]Senate of Belgium,
session de 1994-1995, 20 December 1994, Bill, report done in the name of the
fait Justice commission by Mr. .Pataer. doc ref 1009-2, p. 35.
[91]Supplement to the Belgian
response to the Landmine Monitor questionnaire, fax from Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 12 March 1999.
[95]LM Researcher telephone
interview with Adjudant-Major Henkinet, section commander of the DMTCC
(Destruction, mines, travaux de campagne et camouflage) at the Engineering
school. 16 March 1999.
[96]Statistic table received
from Col. Devroe, Commander of SEDEE, March 1999.
[97]LM Researcher telephone
interview with Adjudant-Major Henkinet.
About Us
Our Research Products