Key developments since May 2003: In 2003, France provided mine
action funding of $2.5 million, a significant decrease from 2002. In June 2004,
France reported that it was assessing how best to clear mines from the French
military site at La Doudah in Djibouti. In March 2004, CNEMA held a meeting on
implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, which was attended by representatives of
31 countries and five NGOs. France has continued to oppose discussions on mines
with sensitive fuzes and antihandling devices in the context of the Mine Ban
Treaty, and has questioned efforts to reach conclusions on this and other
matters of interpretation and implementation at the Review Conference.
Key developments since 1999:France became a State
Party on 1 March 1999. National implementing legislation, which includes penal
sanctions, was previously enacted on 8 July 1998. France completed destruction
of its stockpile of 1.4 million antipersonnel mines on 20 December 1999. In
January 1999, France created the position of Ambassador for Mine Action, and
CNEMA, the National Commission for the Elimination of Antipersonnel Mines,
became operational in June 1999. France has played a prominent role in
promoting universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, with a
special focus on compliance issues. It has been actively involved in the
intersessional process. From May 1999 to September 2000, it was co-chair of the
Standing Committee on Technologies for Mine Clearance. It served as
co-rapporteur and then co-chair of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance
and Socio-Economic Reintegration from September 2001 to September 2003. It has
promoted multilingualism in the intersessional process. France has been
prominent among the States Parties opposed to the effort to reach a common
understanding on Article 2 and antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes. From
1999 to 2002, France provided about $10.9 million in mine action funding,
excluding expenditures on research and development. This total included about
$650,000 in funding for mine victim assistance.
Mine Ban Policy
France signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 23
July 1998, becoming a State Party on 1 March
1999.[1] National implementing
legislation, which includes penal sanctions, was enacted on 8 July
1998.[2] In January 1999,
France created the position of Ambassador for Mine Action, appointing Samuel Le
Caruyer de Beauvais, who was replaced on 1 November 2002 by Gérard
Chesnel. France is one of only a few States with a high level official
specifically designated for mine action.
France has played a prominent role in promoting universalization and
implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, with a special focus on compliance
issues. It has been actively involved in the intersessional process. From May
1999 to September 2000, it was co-chair of the Standing Committee on
Technologies for Mine Clearance. It served as co-rapporteur and then co-chair
of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration
from September 2001 to September 2003. France described its objectives for this
Standing Committee as giving mine-affected and donor countries the opportunity
to put forward their needs and priorities in advance of the Review Conference,
in order to gain a detailed picture of needs and
capacities.[3] For the future,
France favors “international recognition of individual victims’
rights,”[4] and notes that
“victim assistance will certainly benefit from a more important place than
before within the action plan that the European Commission is currently
elaborating, in liaison with member
States.”[5]
In concert with other States Parties (notably Belgium and Canada), France has
promoted multilingualism in the intersessional process, and believes that this
has increased the participation of delegations from mine-affected countries in
Africa, Asia and Latin
America.[6]
France submitted its annual Article 7 transparency report for calendar year
2003 on 11 May 2004. This included the voluntary Form J giving details of mine
action assistance. France has previously submitted five Article 7
reports.[7]
CNEMA
On 12–13 March 2004, the Commission Nationale pour l’Elimination
des Mines Anti-personnel (CNEMA, the National Commission for the Elimination of
Antipersonnel Mines) held a meeting on implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty,
which was attended by representatives of 31 countries and five NGOs. The
meeting focused on national mine action structures and
planning.[8]
CNEMA was created by the national implementation law of 1998, and became
operational in June 1999. It includes NGOs, and has the legal mandate to ensure
full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, including assistance to mine action
projects and mine victims in other
countries.[9] Its mandate
expired on 8 June 2002 and was renewed in October 2002 for another three years,
with the same membership and
presidency.[10] CNEMA operated
under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s office until 2004, when it was
transferred to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.[11]
The first CNEMA report, for 1999, was presented to the Prime Minister in July
2000. The second report, for 2000, was presented in December 2001. The third
report for 2001–2002, presented to the Prime Minister in August 2003,
reviewed French participation in universalization and implementation of the
treaty, mines retained under Article 3 of the treaty, and antivehicle mines with
sensitive fuzes or antihandling
devices.[12] There was no
response from the government to the issues
raised.[13]
Compliance Initiatives
France has given priority to compliance matters, facilitating dialogue and
cooperative steps between States Parties. In 2003, Ambassador Chesnel said that
the aim was to convince States Parties, in the context of the Review Conference
but without re-opening the treaty text, of the practical measures that could be
taken in order to ensure compliance with the
treaty.[14] Brigitte Stern,
President of CNEMA, proposed in September 2003 that discussion on Article 8
proceed.[15] In February 2004,
CNEMA was reported as regretting the lack of input on this issue from States
Parties.[16]
France has supported the Landmine Monitor initiative of the ICBL, and hosted
a global researchers’ meeting in Paris in April 2002. The Ambassador for
Mine Action described the Landmine Monitor as “an irreplaceable reference
book.”[17]
Universalization Initiatives
In February 2004, Ambassador Chesnel confirmed that France takes every
opportunity to encourage States not party to the treaty to accede or ratify. He
works in collaboration with ICBL-France to achieve
this.[18] In 2003, France used
bilateral contacts with Laos (September), the United States (November), and the
Baltic States (November), to promote the treaty, in addition to contacts
undertaken on behalf of the European Union before the Fifth Meeting of States
Parties.[19] France has also
continued to promote active participation of all States in the Standing
Committee process.[20] In
February 2001, France and Canada co-organized the Pan-African Seminar on
universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, in Bamako, Mali.
In the UN Security Council on 13 November 2003, France promoted the Mine Ban
Treaty as “a mobilization tool for mine action at all levels” and
called on all countries with a major role in peacekeeping to accede to the
treaty as soon as possible.[21]
At the Conference on Disarmament (CD) on 26 February 2004, France said that the
Mine Ban Treaty was a milestone in the history of disarmament because it was
prompted by humanitarian considerations. It said the treaty opened the way to a
permanent solution, and the world must continue to strengthen the ban on mines.
The French delegation noted that 24 of the 65 member States of the CD were not
yet States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, and some had major stockpiles of
antipersonnel mines.[22]
In December 2003, France voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution
58/53, which calls for universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban
Treaty. France has voted in favor of similar resolutions in previous years.
ICBL Issues of Concern
France has participated in the extensive States Parties discussions regarding
interpretation and implementation of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Mine Ban Treaty.
France has been particularly outspoken on the issue of antivehicle mines with
sensitive fuzes and antihandling devices; it has been one of a handful of States
to oppose strongly any consideration of the matter in the Mine Ban Treaty
context. At the Fifth Meeting of States Parties in September 2003, States
Parties agreed to continue discussions on these Articles, with a view to
reaching understandings by the Review Conference. At the Standing Committee
meetings in June 2004, France questioned the need to discuss the meaning of
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the treaty, and questioned the status of any conclusions
on these issues that might be reached at the Review Conference. It stated that
efforts to reach conclusions ran counter to universalization of the treaty, and
also implied that some States Parties carry out activities prohibited by the
treaty.[23] The French national
positions on these issues are noted below.
Joint Military Operations, Transit and “Assist”
When Parliament ratified the Mine Ban Treaty, the Minister of Defense stated
that “the planned or actual use of antipersonnel mines in any military
operation by its military personnel will also be banned, and France will refuse
to agree to rules of engagement in any military operation calling for the use of
antipersonnel mines.”[24]
A directive to this effect was issued to French military forces on 12 November
1998, to which Ambassador Chesnel referred at the Standing Committee meetings in
February 2003.[25] The Army
Chief of Staff directive states that French soldiers must not at any time
participate in planning or training activities involving the use of
antipersonnel mines, accept rules of engagement that include use of
antipersonnel mines, or “transfer, stockpile, or authorize antipersonnel
mines on national
territory.”[26] The
Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs confirmed in April 2004 that national
legislation and the military directive of November 1998 prohibit transfer of
antipersonnel mines for any purpose except as permitted by Article 3 of the
treaty.[27]
Antivehicle Mines with Sensitive Fuzes and Antihandling Devices
France has consistently taken the position at annual meetings of States
Parties and during the intersessional process that antivehicle mines are dealt
with, and should continue to be dealt with, only by the Convention on
Conventional Weapons (CCW), and not the Mine Ban Treaty. At the Fifth Meeting
of States Parties in September 2003, France claimed that this is the position of
the majority of States
Parties,[28] even though at the
meeting only three States Parties publicly expressed that view. The delegation
stated that the treaty “clearly establishes a definition of antipersonnel
landmines based on the design and use of these weapons (and not on their
potential
effects).”[2][29]
France stated that the objective of all should be the more efficient and
universal implementation of the Treaty, and not revision of its
goals.[30] In February 2004,
France’s Mine Action Ambassador criticized “the proposal by the ICRC
aimed at dealing with the issue of antivehicle mines within the scope of the
Ottawa Convention. Such a step would lead to implicitly recognize the
treaty’s competence regarding antivehicle mines and would work in a way
incompatible with the definitions clearly expressed in Article
2.”[31] At the Fourth
Meeting, in September 2002, France said that only weapons created from the
outset as dual purpose – both antivehicle and antipersonnel – could
be considered to fall with the Mine Ban
Treaty.[32]
The issue of antivehicle mines which may function also as antipersonnel mines
was first raised by NGOs and some legislators in France when the national
legislation was under discussion in 1998. In May 2000 the Ministry of Defense
responded to NGO inquiries by listing French mines with sensitive fuzes and
antihandling devices. It listed those which had previously been destroyed,
those never put into production, and three types of mines currently stockpiled
(HPD F2, MIACAH F1, and MIAC Disp
F1).[33] However, in its 2000
report, CNEMA identified six types of French antivehicle mine that may function
as antipersonnel mines.[34]
CNEMA recommended physical adaptation of the ACPR F1 mine to prevent its use
in anti-demining mode. There was no official response to this
recommendation.[35]
Subsequently, in its 2001–2002 report, CNEMA repeated this recommendation
and added that measures should be taken to ensure that the fuzing of HPD F2, HPD
F3 and MI AC Disp F1 mines is not activated by the unintentional presence of a
person. It also noted that one of the six types (MIACAH F1) had been withdrawn
from service in 2001.[36]
In February 2004, the Mine Action Ambassador stated that CNEMA’s remit
is limited to antipersonnel mines as defined in the Mine Ban Treaty and that the
treaty does not cover antivehicle
mines.[37] Therefore, he said,
the government did not respond to CNEMA on these
points.[38] Following
withdrawal of the MIACAH F2 due to corrosion, a project by France and Belgium to
replace the fuzing of these mines proved unsuccessful, and a call for tenders
was published in the Bulletin Officiel on 28 January 2004. The MIACAH F2
will be returned to service when the new fuzing is
achieved.[39]
In March 2003, HI presented a report to parliamentarians, detailing the
antipersonnel characteristics of these
mines.[40] Following this
report, parliamentarians addressed several questions to government on the issues
raised. The government answered that the classification as antipersonnel mines
by HI of certain mines designed for antivehicle use is incompatible with Article
2 of the Mine Ban Treaty. For France, “mines designed for antitank use
are unambiguously excluded from the implementation scope” of the
treaty.[41] France has
supported proposals on antivehicle mines made by the US and Denmark in the
CCW.[42] France also has said
that in response to concerns about the reliability of sensitive fuzes, the Army
has been committed for years to limiting the duration of activity of the mines
it could use.[43]
CCW
France is a State Party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and its
Amended Protocol II. It attended the Fifth Annual Conference of States Parties
to the Protocol in November 2003, as in previous years. It submitted an annual
report in accordance to the Article 13 of the Protocol on 11 October 2003, as in
previous years. France supported the establishment of a Governmental Group of
Experts to study the issue of explosive remnants of war, which resulted in
agreement on a new CCW protocol in November 2003. Ambassador Chesnel said that
France considers this to be a priority
issue.[44]
Production and Transfer
France was previously a major producer and exporter of antipersonnel mines.
Production was prohibited in
1995.[45] An independent study
identified two companies which had produced ten types of antipersonnel mine, and
several mine-related
systems.[46] France’s
Article 7 report noted that, following the 1995 moratorium on production,
manufacturers “progressively converted” their production
facilities.[47] Export was
prohibited in 1993.[48] In May
2000, the Minister of Defense stated that permission for export of components
which could be used in the production of antipersonnel mines would be
refused.[49] Countries in which
French antipersonnel mines have reportedly been found include Algeria, Angola,
Iraq, on the Kuwait/Saudi Arabia border, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco,
Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia, and
Syria.[50]
Stockpiling and Destruction
France possessed a stockpile of 1,402,086 antipersonnel mines, composed of
four main types. Between 1996 and 1999, 1,098,281 mines were destroyed, and
after entry into force another 299,266 mines were destroyed (for a total of
1,397,547). Completion of stockpile destruction was achieved on 20 December
1999, one year in advance of the deadline set by national legislation, and far
in advance of the 1 March 2003 treaty
deadline.[51]
France confirmed in 2003 that it does not possess Claymore-type directional
fragmentation munitions.[52]
Mines Retained Under Article 3
At the end of 2003, France retained 4,466 antipersonnel mines for training
and development purposes, as permitted by Article 3 of the
treaty.[53] A total of 13 mines
were destroyed in the course of 2003 in testing and research
activities,[54] and 17 foreign
antipersonnel mines (nine Z1 Claymore-types from Egypt and eight PPM P2s from
“Yougoslavie”) were acquired. At the end of 2002, France retained
4,462 antipersonnel mines.[55]
National legislation set the maximum number of antipersonnel mines to be
retained as 5,000.[56] After
completion of stockpile destruction in December 1999, France retained 4,539
mines.[57] Mines have been
consumed every year since 2000, and additional mines were acquired in 2002 and
2003: 17 mines consumed in 2000, 47 mines consumed in 2001, 23 mines consumed in
2002 (when six new mines were obtained), and 11 mines consumed in 2003 (when 15
foreign mines were
obtained).[58] France’s
Article 7 reports have not noted the specific purposes or tasks for which the
mines have been used, but details on use of retained mines is sent to CNEMA each
year and provided to the Landmine Monitor
researcher.[59] The Ministry of
Defense said the mines are needed for research and development in clearance,
training, and testing of
equipment.[60] Asked why this
quantity is retained, Ambassador Chesnel said that although recent use for
research purposes has been low, the future need may be higher. He said France
may need to purchase foreign landmines for research purposes in the future, as
in 2002 and 2003.[61]
Mine Action Funding and Assistance
In 2003, France provided approximately €2,217,000 ($2.51 million) in
mine action funding and
assistance.[62] This is a
significant decrease from funding of €3,779,996 in 2002. The Ambassador
for Mine Action explained that much of the budgeted expenditure in 2003 was
frozen and postponed to 2004. He said that the government was aware of the
decrease and hoped that the economic situation would allow improvement in future
years.[63]
These totals do not include research and development and in-kind assistance
provided by the Ministry of Defense. A comprehensive figure for French funding
is not included in the Article 7 report for 2003, which gives narrative details
of mine action funding and assistance. Funding was distributed to seven
countries and two organizations in 2003:
Angola: €460,000 ($520,490) consisting of €260,000 to the HALO
for emergency mine clearance and €200,000 to HI for mine risk education
(MRE) in Huambo province[64]
Benin: €755,000 ($854,283) contribution to the Ouidah training center
(including €200,000 for training of deminers from Africa, Lebanon and
Venezuela[65]
Cambodia: €465,000 ($526,148) consisting of €425,000 to the UNDP
for mine clearance and training, and €40,000 to HI for training of local
staff
Croatia: €124,000 ($140,306) consisting of €100,000 to CROMAC
for mine clearance and €24,000 for the victim assistance center in
Rovinj
Guinea-Bissau: €106,000 ($119,939) to HI for mine risk education (in
2004)
Kosovo: €83,000 ($93,915) to the International Trust Fund for Demining
and Mine Victims Assistance (ITF) for mine clearance training by
HI[66]
Senegal: €114,000 ($128,991) to HI for MRE in
Casamance.[67]
In addition, France provided €60,000 to Handicap International for its
“Campaign for a Mine-Free World,” and €50,000 to the ICBL for
the Landmine Monitor Report 2003.CNEMA’s budget of
€135,000 in 2003 is not included in the total funding
above.[68]
For 2004, mine action funding is also planned for Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Cambodia, Croatia, Laos, Mozambique, Sudan and Sri
Lanka.[69] For 2005, France has
budgeted $1 million for mine clearance in Angola as part of a larger development
grant.[70]
In the five-year period 1999–2003, France provided mine action funding
totaling about $10.9 million, excluding expenditure on mine-related research and
development (1999: $908,000, 2000: $1.17 million, 2001: $2.7 million, 2002:
$3.6 million, 2003: $2.5
million).[71] Due to variations
in presentation of the data in previous years and change of national currency to
the euro, this can only be an approximation. The UN Mine Action Service records
French contributions as totaling $6.35 million in
1999–2002.[72] These
totals are substantially less than funding provided by many other European
States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. At least 13 countries have received
French mine action funding, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon,
Mozambique, Nicaragua, Slovenia and Somalia, in addition to those funded in
2003.
Out of the total funding in 1999–2003, about $657,906 was allocated to
victim assistance projects (2000: $213,980, 2001: $95,829, 2002: $320,941, 2003:
$27,156).[73] In 2003, the
French Red Cross did not contribute to mine action. In 2002, it made a
contribution of €100,000 to victim assistance projects in
Afghanistan.[74]
The Ministry of Defense provides mine action assistance in the form of
training for mine clearance and mine risk education, and the creation of
demining units. At the Ecole Supérieure et d’Application du
Génie (ESAG), in Angers, about 50 foreign military personnel received
mine clearance training in 2003. ESAG also carried out training in Senegal in
2003 and prepared for training in Venezuela in 2004. In 2003, at the Ouidah
training center in Benin, French military personnel trained 80 deminers from
Africa in mine clearance
techniques.[75] French
military personnel participating in missions in Afghanistan, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Chad, Djibouti, and Kosovo during 2003 also carried out mine
clearance operations.[76]
Funding Policy and Structures
French mine action policy was described in March 2001 as favoring the
strengthening of local and national capacities and creating conditions for the
return to normal economic and social life. Mine action is considered as an
element of development and a means of reinforcing the sovereignty of the
mine-affected countries. In a change of position, the French Ambassador for
Mine Action declared in 2004 that non-party States would also be funded, so that
their populations “would not be doubly penalized;” previously States
Parties and signatories were strongly favored for French funding. In 2004,
France was planning to fund Laos and Sri
Lanka.[77]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs funds humanitarian mine clearance projects,
mine risk education and victim assistance. Three departments are involved, and
include a Fonds de Solidarité Prioritaire (FSP, Fund for Priority
Solidarity) on mine action.[78]
The FSP was originally created as the Fund for Aid for Cooperation in 1999,
endowed with FF20 million ($2.85 million) for the period January
2000–December 2002.[79]
In 2002, it was renewed for another year with €3 million ($2.85
million).[80] However, in 2003,
€600,000 of this FSP was postponed to 2004 with the intention of starting
a new FSP if these funds were unspent by 30 June 2004. The FSP was due to be
audited by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining in late
2004. According to Ambassador Chesnel, “It is necessary before the start
of a new FSP.”[81]
There were also FSPs for Angola (€3 million, announced in July 2002)
and Mozambique (€1,174,467, announced in March 2002). Expenditure on
Mozambique was postponed from 2003 to
2004,[82] and the FSP for Angola
has been postponed to 2006. Until then, a general one-year FSD (Fonds
Social de Développement) of €3 million for Angola will be launched
in 2005, with about $1 million devoted to humanitarian mine
clearance.[83]
Research and Development
Three research and development (R&D) projects were reported by France in
2003. The Pegase Instrumentation Mine Picker project, first reported in 2002,
was scheduled for evaluation during 2004. The Anonymate V2 project for a
flexible protective boot, also first reported in 2002, received an initial
evaluation in 2003, with final evaluation planned for 2005. The Sydera joint
project with Germany, for a combined mine detection and destruction system, was
initiated in 2003.[84]
Landmine/UXO Problem
At the Standing Committee Meetings in June 2004, France reported that it was
assessing how best to clear mines from the French military site at La Doudah in
Djibouti. Flooding and landslides had buried some of the mines deeply, so
traditional clearance methods were not effective. Once the appropriate methods
have been identified, France believes that clearance should be completed
quickly, and within the treaty deadline of 1 March 2009. France intends to
announce a timetable for the clearance operation at the Review Conference in
November 2004.[85]
Mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) from World Wars I and II are occasionally
found in France.[86] During
2003, clearance of UXO that necessitated evacuation of local populations
occurred in April near Lens in the west of France, in September in Brest (also
in the west), and in October/November in Strasbourg in the east and in a
northern village.[87] World War
II weapons were found in two rivers in
2003.[88] In April 2004, 12
antipersonnel landmines from World War II were discovered on a beach at
Saint-Trojan.[89] In August
2004, two antipersonnel mines from World War II were discovered on a beach at La
Torche (on the Atlantic
coast).[90]
Landmine Casualties
In 2003, no mine or UXO casualties were recorded by the DCSSA (Central
Direction of the Health Service of the
Armies).[91] It was reported
that one French national was killed in Chad on 13 November 2003 when a nine-ton
stockpile of antipersonnel mines detonated. The cause of the explosion was
unknown.[92] In June 2004, two
French peacekeepers were injured by an antipersonnel mine in
Afghanistan.[93]
There have been French mine casualties in previous years: in 2002, two
soldiers were injured by mines in Afghanistan, and in 2001 a French soldier in
Bosnia and Herzegovina was
killed.[94] The Minister of
Defense informed HI in 2001 that mine clearance operations have caused nine
deaths and tens of injuries to French soldiers in the last ten
years.[95]
The Ministry of Defense has identified a total of 265 mine survivors
(civilian and military) living in France, including 250 people in the Paris area
from Algeria, Africa, the Balkans, Cambodia, Lebanon and from the Gulf war of
1991, and eight people in the Lyon area from Cambodia and Vietnam. They are
entitled to the usual health services. Military mine survivors also receive a
pension.[96]
NGO Activities
Handicap International, added mine action to its work program in 1992 and by
2003 was involved in mine action in fourteen countries: Afghanistan, Albania,
Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kosovo, Mozambique, Russia (Chechnya), Senegal,
Somaliland, and
Thailand.[97]
In March 2003, to mark the anniversary of entry into force of the Mine Ban
Treaty, HI presented a report to parliamentarians drawing attention to the low
level of governmental funding of mine action, particularly of victim assistance,
and to the antipersonnel characteristics of some French antivehicle
mines.[98] Following this
report, 13 parliamentary questions were addressed to government on the issues
raised. In August, HI launched a petition urging all the States, and France in
particular, to provide more funding of mine clearance; the petition was signed
by 47,000 people. On 4 October, HI organized its ninth shoe pyramid event in 30
cities, to maintain public awareness of the mine issue.
In August 2003, HI was one of five mine action NGOs convening the NGO
Perspective on the Debris of War. The NGO Perspective’s aim is to improve
the effectiveness of mine action and to represent the view that many mine action
programs are unnecessarily costly and complicated, with the result that
“under the current circumstances the obligations of the Ottawa Treaty
cannot be met.”[99]
In 2003, HI broadened its campaign from antipersonnel mines to include
cluster munitions and other UXO. It focused on the Iraqi situation, with
numerous press conferences and the release in August 2003 of “Report on
cluster munitions systems.” HI is a member of the Cluster Munition
Coalition, launched in November 2003.
HI has led the “Campaign for a mine free world” in France since
1992. Since then, more than a million people have signed HI petitions. HI
started organizing the shoe pyramid event in 1994, as an annual public
mobilization day against landmines. Since 1998, HI has organized each year in
Paris the “Courir Ensemble” (“Running together”) race,
which is made up of able-bodied and disabled runners. As well as providing
research for Landmine Monitor, HI published global reports on victim assistance
in 2001 and 2002. HI is member of CNEMA.
[1] France took early steps toward a ban on
antipersonnel mines. In 1993, it was the second country in the world to
announce a moratorium on the export of antipersonnel landmines. In September
1995, it announced a ban on production and trade. In October 1996, France
announced that it would ban the use of antipersonnel mines, unless French
soldiers were in danger. Still, France did not fully embrace the Ottawa Process
until the Brussels Conference in June 1997, when it became a strong supporter
and a member of the expanded core group of like-minded countries. See Landmine
Monitor Report 1999, pp.
585–586. [2] Law No. 98-564,
Journal Officiel, 8 July 1998. This implementing legislation was passed
unanimously, at the same time as ratification. The law set 31 December 2000 as
the deadline for destruction of France’s stockpile of antipersonnel mines,
authorized retention of a maximum of 5,000 mines under Article 3 of the treaty,
and applied penal sanctions for violations. It applies to French overseas
territories and the collective territory of Mayotte. The law entered into force
on 1 March 1999. Two further measures were introduced: Décret 99-357
pour l’application de l’article 7 de la loi du 8 juillet 1998, and
Directive du Chef d’état-major des Armées relative aux mine
antipersonnel, 12 novembre 1998. [3]
Intervention by France, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, Bangkok, 15–19
September 2003; letters from Chesnel, Ambassador for Mine Action, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2003 and 17 February 2004.
[4] Answer by Ministry of Foreign
Affairs to a parliamentary question, 2 June 2003: “La France suit avec
beaucoup d’attention la réflexion menée...s’agissant
de la création d’un mécanisme international
spécifique de reconnaissance des droits individuels des
victimes.” [5] Letter from Amb.
Gérard Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004:
“l’assistance aux victimes devrait également jouir
d’une place plus importante que par le passé dans le plan
d’action que la Commission Européenne est en train
d’élaborer en liaison avec les Etats
membres.” [6] Letter from Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March
2003. [7] See Article 7 reports
submitted: 11 May 2004, report dated 30 April 2004 (for calendar year 2003); 30
April 2003 (for calendar year 2002); 30 April 2002 (for calendar year 2001); 11
June 2001 (for the period 1 April 2000–1March 2001); 3 May 2000 (for the
period 1 August 1999–31 March 2000); 26 August 1999 (for the period 1
March–31 July 1999). [8] CNEMA,
Colloque international des structures nationales chargées de la lutte
contre les mines antipersonnel, Paris, 12–13 March
2004. [9] See Landmine Monitor Report
1999, pp. 587–588. [10] Letter
from Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin to Brigitte Stern, President of CNEMA,
14 October 2002. [11] Letter from Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February
2004. [12] CNEMA, “Rapport
2001–2002,” 2003. For details of the 1999 and 2000 reports and
recommendations, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 687, and Landmine Monitor
Report 2002, pp. 260–261. [13]
Interview with Amb. Gérard Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17
February 2004. See later in this report for CNEMA recommendations on
antivehicle mines with antipersonnel
characteristics. [14] Letter from Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March
2003. [15] Intervention by Brigitte
Stern, CNEMA, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 15-19 September
2003. [16] Letter from Amb. Chesnel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February
2004. [17]
Ibid. [18] Ibid. For previous
universalization initiatives, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp.
689–690, Landmine Monitor Report 2002, pp. 261–262, and Landmine
Monitor Report 2003, p. 257. [19]
Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February
2004. [20] Answer to a parliamentary
question, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Journal Officiel, 8 May 2003, p.
1538. [21] UN Security Council,
“Action against mines dynamic component of peacekeeping operations,
Under-Secretary-General tells Security Council,” 13 November
2003. [22] “Conference on
Disarmament hears statements in fifth anniversary of Mine-Ban Convention,”
M2 Presswire, 26 February 2004. [23]
Intervention by France, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of
the Convention, Geneva, 25 June 2004. France raised similar concerns at the 9
February 2004 Standing Committee
meeting. [24] Speech by Minister of
Defense, Parliamentary Debate, Journal Officiel, 25 June 1998, pp.
5402–5403. [25] Intervention by
France, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention,
Geneva, 7 February 2003. See also Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p.
265. [26] See Landmine Monitor Report
2002, p. 265. [27] Fax from Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22 April 2004. A similar statement was
made in May 2000: Letter from Christian Lechervy, Ministry of Defense, 15 May
2000. [28] Intervention by France,
Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 15–19 September
2003. [2]9 Ibid: “La France
rappelle que le Traité d’Ottawa établit clairement une
définition des mines antipersonnel fondée sur la conception et la
destination de ces armes (et non sur leurs effets
potentiels)”. [29] Intervention
by France, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 15–19 September 2003:
“La France rappelle que le Traité d’Ottawa établit
clairement une définition des mines antipersonnel fondée sur la
conception et la destination de ces armes (et non sur leurs effets
potentiels)”. [30]
Ibid. [31] Letter from Amb. Chesnel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004: “la proposition du CICR
visait à traiter de la question des mines antichar dans l’enceinte
de la Convention d’Ottawa. Une telle démarche aurait conduit
à reconnaître implicitement la compétence de cette enceinte
vis-à-vis des mines antichar et à s’engager dans une voie
incompatible avec les dispositions clairement énoncées par
l’article 2.” [32]
Intervention by France, Fourth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 16–20
September 2002. [33] See Landmine
Monitor Report 2000, pp.
636–638. [34] CNEMA,
“Rapport 2000,” 2001, pp. 15–23.
[35] For the Mine Action
Ambassador’s response to similar criticisms by HI, see Landmine Monitor
Report 2001, p. 601. [36] CNEMA,
“Rapport 2001–2002,” 2003. The reason for the withdrawal
of the MIACAH F1 is not reported. [37]
Ibid., pp. 54–55. [38] Letter
from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February
2004. [39]
Ibid. [40] “HI et l’action
contre les mines: théorie, pratique et revendications d’HI,”
March 2003. [41] Letter from Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004: “les mines
conçues pour un emploi antichar sont sans ambiguïté exclues
du champ d’application de la
Convention.” [42]
Ibid. [43]
Ibid. [44] Ibid, 31 March
2003. [45] In April 2004, Amb. Chesnel
declared that the last production of antipersonnel mines took place in 1987.
(Fax from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22 April 2004.) In 1999,
CNEMA contacted the two companies directly. SAE Alsetex replied that it had
ceased production in 1982 and converted its facilities in 1995. Giat Industries
(which purchased the Belgian PRB company in 1990) stated that it had never
produced antipersonnel mines and had no production facilities. Giat’s
reply has not been satisfactorily explained. In March 2001, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs stated that Giat “does not deny” having produced
antipersonnel mines. (See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 636, and Landmine
Monitor Report 2001, p. 690). [46] See
Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 590–596, for details on past
production. [47] Article 7 Report,
Form E, 11 May 2004. [48] See
Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 596-598, for details on past export. The
Minister of Defense stated in 1998 that export of antipersonnel mines ceased in
1986; however, there is documentation showing authorization of export of
antipersonnel mines to Rwanda in
1992. [49] See Landmine Monitor Report
2000, p. 636. [50] See Landmine
Monitor Report 1999, pp.
597–598. [51] Article 7 Report,
Form F, 3 May 2000, and see Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 638–639.
The total stockpile of 1,402,086 is calculated from subtotals given in the
Article 7 report. The four types were: Models 51M55/54, F1, 59 and
61. [52] Interview with Amb. Chesnel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 March
2003. [53] Article 7 Report, Form D,
11 May 2004. The total of 4,466 retained at the end of 2003 consisted of 4,250
French antipersonnel mines (1,348 Model 51M55 and Model 54M58; 1,260 Model F1;
1,612 Model 59; 30 Model 61), and 216 foreign antipersonnel mines of 22
types. [54] Letter from Amb. Chesnel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004, and fax, 22 April
2004. [55] Article 7 Report, Form D,
30 April 2003. [56] Law 98-564,
Article 3, 8 July 1998. [57] Article 7
Report, Form D, 3 May 2000. [58]
Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004, and
see: CNEMA, “Rapport
2001–2002,” 2003. [59]
Fax from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22 April
2004. [60] Interview with Arnaud
d’Aboville, Capitaine de Frégate, Ministry of Defense, 24 April
2003. [61] Letters from Amb. Chesnel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2003 and 17 February
2004. [62] Article 7 Report, Form D,
11 May 2004; emails from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1 March and
10 June 2004. France informed the Resource Mobilization Contact Group that its
mine action funding in 2003 totaled $2,388,597. “A review of resources to
achieve the Convention’s Aims,” Norway, Coordinator of the Resource
Mobilization Contact Group, 25 June 2004. Exchange rate for 2003 of €1 =
$1.1315, used throughout this report. US Federal Reserve, “List of
Exchange Rates (Annual),” 2 January
2004. [63] Interview with Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February
2004. [64] The funding of
€260,000 to HALO Trust for emergency mine clearance was part of the 2002
budget, but expended in 2003. Interview with Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Paris, 14 April 2004. [65]
The Ouidah training center was inaugurated in April
2003. [66] The ITF reported receiving
from France $92,088 in 2003 for HI training and supervision of the Kosovo
Protection Corps. ITF, “Annual Report 2003,” p.
17. [67] Article 7 Report, Form D, 11
May 2004; emails from Amb. Gerard Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1 March
and 10 June 2004. [68] Email from Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 20 February
2004. [69] Letter from and interview
with Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris, 17 February
2004. [70] “France to fund
mine-clearing in Angola,” Agence France-Presse, 8 June 2004; email from
Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 June 2004. The Angolan funding
was first announced in July 2002, but frozen. Email from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, 20 February
2004. [71] Data taken from previous
Landmine Monitor reports, with US$ amounts at exchange rates used in each year.
Historical funding is not reported here in national currency, because in some
years France has reported funding only in
US$. [72] “Multi-year Donor
Report: France,” Mine Action Investments database, accessed at www.mineaction.org on 18 June 2004 (data
for 2003 not recorded). [73] Data
taken from previous Landmine Monitor reports, with US$ amounts at exchange rates
used in each year. No funding of mine victim assistance projects in 1999 has
been identified. [74] Statement of
France, Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic
Reintegration, Geneva, 13 May
2003. [75] Article 7 Report, Form J,
11 May 2004, p. 2. [76] CCW Amended
Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 6 October
2003. [77] Interview with Amb. Gerard
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004. For previous policy,
see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp. 692–693, and Landmine Monitor Report
2002, p. 265. [78] Statement of
France, Standing Committee on Victim Assistance, 13 May 2003. For details of
the three departments, see Landmine Monitor Report 2003, pp.
261–262. [79] See Landmine
Monitor Report 2000, p. 640. [80]
Letter from Samuel Le Caruyer de Beauvais, Ambassador for Mine Action, 27 March
2002. [81] Email from Amb. Chesnel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 June
2004. [82] Interview with Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004, and email from Amb.
Chesnel, 20 February 2004. [83] Email
from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 June
2004. [84] Letters from Amb. Chesnel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2003 and 17 February 2004, and Article 7
Report, Form J, 30 April 2004 (for calendar year
2003). [85] Intervention by France,
Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action
Technologies, Geneva, 22 June
2004. [86] Article 7 Report, Form C,
11 May 2004. [87] “9 000
habitants évacués pour un déminage,” Le Figaro (daily
newspaper), 28 April 2003; “Un quartier strasbourgeois sera
évacué fin octobre pour cause de déminage,” Agence
France-Presse, 6 October 2003; “Déminage en cours à Brest
après l’évacuation de 5 500 personnes,” Agence
France-Presse, 26 October 2003; “Un village evacuée,” Le
Figaro, 10 November 2003. [88]
“Découverte d’armes de la dernière guerre dans une
rivière de l’Essonne,” Agence France-Presse, 27 August 2003;
“Découverte et neutralisation de 178 obus allemands dans
l'Eure,” Agence France-Presse, 29 August
2003. [89] “Des mines sur la
plage,” Sud Ouest (newspaper), 24 April
2004. [90] “Une mine
désamorcée à la Torche,” Ouest France (newspaper), 20
August 2004. [91] Letter from Amb.
Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February
2004. [92] “Six démineurs
tués dans l’explosion de mines antipersonnel au Tchad,”
Associated Press, 17 November
2003. [93] “Two French
peacekeepers injured by landmine in Afghanistan,” Agence France-Presse, 29
June 2004. [94] “Mine Blast
Kills French Soldier,” The Independent (British daily newspaper), 5 April
2001; letter from Amb. Samuel Le Caruyer de Beauvais, 27 March
2002. [95] Letter from Alain Richard,
Minister of Defense, 17 December
2001. [96] Email from Amb. Chesnel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 14 April
2004. [97] For details, see reports
for these countries in this edition of Landmine Monitor
Report. [98] “Handicap
International et l’action contre les mines: théorie, pratique et
revendications d’HI,” March
2003. [99] Statement by the NGO
Perspective on the Debris of War, Lyon, France, 28 August 2003.