LM Report 2003

Turkmenistan

Key developments since May 2002: Turkmenistan reported that it completed its stockpile destruction on 28 February 2003, destroying almost 700,000 antipersonnel mines in a seventeen-month period. Turkmenistan is retaining 69,200 mines for training purposes, far more than any other State Party. The ICBL has called this a violation of the Mine Ban Treaty.

Mine Ban Policy

Turkmenistan signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997, ratified it on 19 January 1998, and the treaty entered into force for the country on 1 March 1999. There are no reports that Turkmenistan has passed national legislation or other implementation measures, as required by Article 9.

Turkmenistan did not attend any Mine Ban Treaty-related meetings in 2002 or 2003, including the Fourth Meeting of States Parties. On 22 November 2002, Turkmenistan voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 57/74, supporting the universalization and implementation of the treaty, as it had in previous years. Turkmenistan submitted its initial Article 7 transparency measures report on 14 November 2001.^[1] On 19 March 2003, it sent a cover letter to the UN, together with a “report of the Government of Turkmenistan on the completion of the destruction of its land mines except those left for training purposes.”^[2]

Turkmenistan stated that it does not produce antipersonnel landmines. ^[3] It is not believed to have produced or exported landmines in the past. Turkmenistan has reported, “There are no mined areas on the territory of Turkmenistan.”^[4]

Stockpile Destruction and Mines Retained

Turkmenistan reports that on 28 February 2003, it completed destruction of its antipersonnel mine stockpiles. The treaty-mandated deadline for completion was 1 March 2003.

In total, Turkmenistan reports destruction of 1,105,183 antipersonnel mines, including 692,582 between 1 October 2001 and 28 February 2003. These landmines were inherited from the Soviet Union upon its collapse in 1991. Turkmenistan’s destruction program eliminated all of its stockpiles of KSF-1, KPOM-2, PMN-3, POMZ-2M, POMZ-2, and PDM-6M mines. All destruction was carried out by detonation.^[5] There was no known participation by outside observers for any of the destruction process.

Turkmenistan’s Antipersonnel Mine Stockpile and Destruction, 1997-2003[6]

Mine Type	Mines Stockpiled as of 24 Dec 1997	Mines Destroyed: 24 Dec 1997 - 1 Oct 2001	Mines Destroyed: 1 Oct 2001 - 28 Feb 2003	Mines Retained for Training
KFS-1S	65,305	57,849	456	7,000
KFS-1	10,423	8,320	2,103	0
KPOM-2S	9,100	7,000	100	2,000
KPOM-2	17,800	17,800	0	0
PMN	31,454	96	31,158	200
PMN-2	182,657	80,173	92,484	10,000
PMN-3	29,993	29,993	0	0
OZM-72	620,845	130,754	470,091	20,000
MON-50	83,422	20,283	58,139	5,000
MON-90	5,842	103	739	5,000
MON-100	42,960	2	32,958	10,000
MON-200	14,410	56	4,354	10,000
POMZ-2M	52,072	52,072	0	0
POMZ-2	4,200	4,200	0	0
PDM-6M	3,900	3,900	0	0
Totals	1,174,383	412,601	692,582	69,200

Mines Retained under Article 3

Turkmenistan reported that it will retain 69,200 mines for training purposes. This decision was roundly criticized in the international community and engendered claims that Turkmenistan is “in violation of a core obligation of the treaty.”^[7] Article 3 of the Mine Ban Treaty provides that “the retention or transfer of a number of antipersonnel mines for the development of and training in mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction techniques is permitted. The amount of such mines shall not exceed the minimum number absolutely necessary for the above-mentioned purposes.” It was understood from the Oslo negotiations in 1997 that this requirement implied retention of hundreds or thousands of mines, but not tens of thousands.^[8]

Turkmenistan’s 69,200 retained mines is more than four times the total retained by any other State Party (Brazil is keeping 16,545). Only four States Parties are retaining more than 10,000 mines, and only six more are keeping more than 5,000.

At the intersessional Standing Committee meetings in May 2003, many States Parties expressed concerns regarding Turkmenistan’s retention of such a large quantity of mines. Six States Parties reiterated that only hundreds or thousands of mines should be kept, not tens of thousands. Austria said Turkmenistan’s decision “cannot be accepted as state practice, as it would severely undermine the integrity of the Convention.” ^[9] New Zealand said such a large stock “could be seen as kept for future use in conflict.”^[10] The ICBL stated its belief that 69,200 is an “unacceptable number; we would contend it is an illegal number. It is obviously NOT the minimum number absolutely necessary, as required by the treaty; it could constitute an operational stockpile.”^[11]

Turkmenistan has not offered an official explanation as to why it chose to retain so many mines, nor has there been any report of reaction to the international criticism of the decision.

[1] Much of the information required by Article 7 is not included in the report. The standard reporting forms were not used. One page of text and two stockpile tables were submitted.
[2] Letter No. 037/2003 from the Permanent Representative of Turkmenistan to the United Nations in New York to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 19 March 2003. The report consists of a seven-sentence statement, with an attached list of antipersonnel mines destroyed and retained. Translation provided to Landmine Monitor by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Hereafter, “Report to the United Nations, 19 March 2003.”
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Turkmenistan had initially requested an extension of its destruction obligation until 2010, but no provisions for such are made in the Mine Ban Treaty. See Landmine Monitor Report 2002, pp. 499-500; Article 7 Report, 14 November 2001.
[6] Report to the United Nations, 19 March 2003.
[7] ICBL Statement on Article 3, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 16 May 2003, available at www.gichd.ch.
[8] This common understanding regarding hundreds or thousands, not tens of thousands, has been reiterated by numerous States Parties during Standing Committee meetings in recent years.
[9] Austria Statement on Article 3, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation, 16 May 2003, available at www.gichd.ch.
[10] New Zealand Statement on Article 3, Standing Committee on General Status, 16 May 2003 (Landmine Monitor notes).
[11] ICBL Statement on Article 3, Standing Committee on General Status, 16 May 2003.