Key developments since May 2003: New Zealand has served as
co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of
the Convention since September 2003. New Zealand has been particularly active
in the effort to reach common understandings on Articles 1, 2, and 3. New
Zealand’s mine action funding decreased in its fiscal year 2002/2003 to
NZ$1.45 million, then rose to NZ$1.59 million in 2003/2004. Notable aspects of
funding in 2002/2003 included contributions for the first time for mine action
in Iraq and Sri Lanka.
Key developments since 1999: The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force
for New Zealand in July 1999. New Zealand has been a highly active participant
in the Mine Ban Treaty intersessional work program. It has also carried out
significant international advocacy in support of the Mine Ban Treaty,
particularly in promoting universalization in the Pacific region. New Zealand
has taken a strong position that there is no need to retain antipersonnel mines
for training purposes. New Zealand provided NZ$8 million to mine action from
1999 to 2003, with both financial and in-kind contributions.
Mine Ban Policy
New Zealand signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997, ratified on 27
January 1999, and the treaty entered into force for the country on 1 July 1999.
Domestic implementation legislation, the Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act
1998, was enacted on 9 December
1998.[1]
New Zealand was one of the earliest supporters of the antipersonnel mine ban,
pushed by non-governmental organizations campaigning under the umbrella of the
New Zealand Campaign Against Landmines (CALM), established in 1993. On 22 April
1996, the government announced it would unilaterally relinquish use of the
weapon.[2] New Zealand
subsequently became one of the founding members of the Core Group of pro-ban
governments that steered the Ottawa Process toward successful conclusion of the
1997 Mine Ban Treaty.
New Zealand has attended all of the annual meetings of States Parties,
including the Fifth Meeting of States Parties held in Bangkok, Thailand in
September 2003. It also provided support to bring civil society representatives
from the Pacific to this meeting to encourage universalization efforts and help
to “raise awareness in their communities and the Pacific region more
widely.”[3] New Zealand
has participated fully in all the intersessional Standing Committee meetings,
including in February and June 2004. At the Fifth Meeting of States Parties,
New Zealand was named co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on the General
Status and Operation of the Convention, together with South Africa. New Zealand
remains an active member of the Universalization Contact Group.
On 30 April 2004, New Zealand submitted its annual Article 7 report, covering
calendar year 2003. This is the country’s fifth
report.[4] It does not contain
any new information, except for voluntary Form J, which details New
Zealand’s mine action contributions and provides a statement on Claymore
mines.
New Zealand has voted in support of all pro-mine ban UN General Assembly
resolutions since 1996, including UNGA Resolution 58/53 on 8 December 2003.
During the annual General Assembly debate on mine action, New Zealand expressed
its ongoing support for the Mine Ban Treaty, describing it as an instrument
“not only of disarmament significance, but more importantly a humanitarian
instrument that has broken new
ground.”[5]
In Bangkok in September 2003, New Zealand praised the Mine Ban Treaty as
“an instrument that is not only of disarmament significance, but, more
importantly, a humanitarian instrument that has set a leading example.... The
unprecedented success of the Ottawa Convention is an example of how an inclusive
multilateral approach can achieve tangible and sustainable benefits. The
important partnership between States Parties, Inter-governmental Organizations
and Non-Governmental Organizations and the informal, cooperative spirit that has
been so obviously apparent at the well-attended intersessionals have contributed
to this outstanding
success.”[6]
In addressing the UN General Assembly in October 2003, New Zealand said that
the Mine Ban Treaty “stands as an unprecedented success in the disarmament
arena in recent times.... The partnership between States, IGOs and NGOs has
contributed to the now firmly established international norm against the use of
antipersonnel
mines.”[7]
In 2003 and 2004, New Zealand continued its efforts to secure full
universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty in the Pacific through bilateral actions
and by working in the framework of multilateral fora in the region. New Zealand
believes that the slow pace of universalization in the Pacific is not due to a
lack of political will, but rather the “relatively limited administrative
resources” of the governments concerned, as well as competition with other
priorities such as human rights, environment and other disarmament
treaties.[8] Unfortunately, the
issue was not addressed in the communiqué of the 34th Pacific Islands
Forum meeting, held in Auckland, New Zealand from 14-16 August 2003.
ICBL Issues of Concern
Joint Operations and “Assist”
In May 2003, New Zealand said that its domestic implementation legislation
makes it clear that it cannot “actively assist” with acts prohibited
by the Mine Ban Treaty and noted that providing cover for other forces laying
mines would be defined as such, as would planning or training for use of
antipersonnel mines. However, if New Zealand’s forces receive incidental
benefit from another country’s mine-laying, that is not considered active
assistance, and is not prohibited. New Zealand said, “The practical
reality of New Zealand’s defence strategy, and one which is necessary for
a small country that is heavily reliant on interoperability, is that we would be
unable to prevent receiving an indirect benefit of cover from a minefield where
our forces were under non-New Zealand
command.”[9]
In the past year, New Zealand has been involved in coalition operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq with non-States Parties to the treaty, but according to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New Zealand is not aware of any antipersonnel
mine-laying by those States in the course of
operations.[10] A total of 61
New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel have been deployed in Iraq to work on
humanitarian and reconstruction tasks. A total of 104 NZDF personnel worked in
Afghanistan, including helping with landmine stockpile destruction in
coordination with the UN Mine Action Center in Afghanistan. An additional 50
SAS troops were deployed to Afghanistan for 180 days starting in April
2004.[11]
Antivehicle Mines with Sensitive Fuzes or Antihandling Devices
In February 2004, New Zealand clarified its position on antivehicle mines and
Article 2 of the Mine Ban Treaty in an effort to encourage progress on reaching
a common understanding in time for the Review Conference. New Zealand’s
Ambassador for Disarmament, Tim Caughley, said, “New Zealand regards
anti-vehicle mines that can be ‘exploded by the presence, proximity or
contact of a person’ to be anti-personnel mines,” meaning they are
prohibited by the Mine Ban
Treaty.[12] Caughley noted New
Zealand’s concern that a strict interpretation of Article 2 would conflict
with the objectives of the treaty. He said, “It would leave open the
possibility that States Parties could deploy excessively sensitive AVMs, which
were capable of being detonated by the presence of a person, relying on the
exception under Article 2.1 as a defence by asserting that the mines were
designed to be detonated by vehicles. Such an interpretation would leave a
worrying loophole in the Convention, effectively giving State Parties scope to
interpret their obligations under this provision in a manner that could
compromise the humanitarian objectives of the
Convention.”[13]
On the issue of anti-handling devices (AHDs), Amb. Caughley said that New
Zealand applies a “functional” approach to the issue: “if an
AVM is fixed with AHDs, which are designed in such a way that these are prone to
accidental detonation, then the device and the mine to which it is attached
should not be considered to be an AVM but effectively becomes an APM for the
purposes of the
Convention.”[14]
Mines Retained for Training
In 2003 and 2004, New Zealand continued to argue against the retention of
live antipersonnel mines for training, as permitted by Article 3 of the Mine Ban
Treaty. In place of live antipersonnel mines, New Zealand uses inert simulator
mines developed by a private company for comprehensive training in demining and
for practice drills in which NZDF personnel find themselves in a mine
contaminated area.
In May 2003, Ambassador Caughley said the retention of large stockpiles of
antipersonnel mines “may lead to speculation that these are being retained
for future use in a conflict situation” and described the practice as
being inconsistent with the objectives of the
treaty.[15] In a September 2003
letter to ICBL, the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control said that
“we would argue that the ‘minimum number’ of mines that
absolutely must be retained for training is
zero.”[16] New Zealand
has urged States Parties to destroy all their stockpiles and instead use
simulator mines for training, expressing the view that States Parties should be
able to reach a common understanding on Article 3 and in particular the issue of
the “minimum number absolutely necessary” for training purposes.
[17]
New Zealand is a State Party to Amended Protocol II of the Convention on
Conventional Weapons (CCW) and participated in the November 2003 Fifth Annual
Conference of States Parties and in other experts meetings in 2003 and 2004. It
submitted its annual report under Article 13 of Amended Protocol II on 18
November 2003.
NGO Activities
The New Zealand Campaign to Ban Landmines (CALM) continued its campaign work,
making representations to the government for funding, distributing a regular
newsletter, maintaining communications with members and other stakeholders,
lobbying diplomats from other countries and distributing the Landmine Monitor
Report to local universities, libraries and governments of Pacific Island
states. After the Fifth Meeting of States Parties, CALM members ran a half
marathon that raised NZ$2,544 for the Chiang Mai Prosthetic Foundation. In
September 2003, a New Zealand doctor undertook a trek in Afghanistan to raise
funds for Sandy Gall’s Afghanistan Appeal, a survivor assistance
NGO.[18]
Landmine Monitor Report 2003 was launched by New Zealand’s Minister for
Disarmament and Arms Control on 17 October 2003 at a function in
Wellington.[19] New Zealand
made its first financial contribution to the ICBL’s Landmine Monitor
project in 2004.
Production, Transfer, Stockpiling, and Use
New Zealand has never produced or exported antipersonnel mines. The transit
of antipersonnel mines through New Zealand’s territorial waters is
prohibited by domestic laws. However, the government noted in October 2002 that
efforts to enforce these laws against a vessel exercising the right of innocent
passage were limited.[20] In
the past, New Zealand imported mines from the United States, and perhaps other
nations.[21]
In May 2002, the Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force told Landmine Monitor
that at the time of the ban, New Zealand had no antipersonnel landmines in
service, with the exception of a number of surplus training/practice mines,
which were destroyed in
1997.[22] New Zealand has
reported that it “retains very limited operational stocks of Claymore
mines. Measures have been taken to ensure that they cannot be used in the
victim-activated mode and the tripwire assemblies and mechanical fuzes have been
destroyed.”[23] In its
April 2004 Article 7 report, New Zealand noted that it “retains
operational stocks of M18A1 Claymores which are operated in the
command-detonated mode only. These devices are not antipersonnel mines, as
defined in Article 2...and are therefore not prohibited under the
Convention.”[24] There
have been no changes to the Claymore stockpile in the reporting
period.[25]
New Zealand has a history of mine use dating back to World War II and the
Korean War, but prohibited operational use in 1996.
Mine Action Funding and Assistance
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, mine action funding for fiscal
year 2002/2003 (July 2002-June 2003) totaled NZ$1.45 million
(US$839,000).[26] This
represented a decrease of NZ$244,371 from the previous year, and marked two
years in a row that mine action funding had fallen. However, mine action
funding for fiscal year 2003/2004 increased to NZ$1.59 million (US$1.05
million).[27]
From 1992 through fiscal year 2003/2004, New Zealand has provided
approximately NZ$16.5 million (US$9.1 million) in mine action
support.[28] This includes
NZ$7.97 million (US$4 million) for the five-year period 1998/1999-2002/2003.
The major recipients of New Zealand mine action assistance have been Cambodia,
Laos, and Mozambique, as well as UN mine action activities. Other recipients
have included Afghanistan, Angola, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Yugoslavia (Kosovo). In
addition to those countries, New Zealand Defence Force personnel have assisted
the United Nations in mine action in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and
Namibia.[29]
New Zealand Mine Action Funding 1992-2004
(NZ$)[30]
Fin. Year
NZ Defence
Foreign Affairs/NZAID
Total
Total (USD)
1992-1998
6,900,000
$4 million
1998/99
144,260
756,540
900,800
$520,000
1999/00
869,755
740,525
1,610,280
$810,000
2000/01
1,025,550
1,297,218
2,322,768
$1.11 million
2001/02
344,000
1,346,125
1,690,125
$730,000
2002/03
388,000
$1,057,754
$1,445,754
$839,000
2003/04
361,000
1,225,719
1,586,719
$1.05 million
TOTAL
3,132,565
6,423,881
16,456,446
$9.06 million
Notable aspects of funding in 2002/2003 included contributions for the first
time for mine action in Iraq and Sri Lanka, and a large increase in funding for
the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS). New Zealand also provided funds for
Afghanistan for the second year in a row. New Zealand also funded NGO
representatives from the Pacific to the Fifth Meeting of States
Parties.[31]
In FY 2003/2004, mine action funding increased to NZ$1.59 million. The
recipients will be Laos, Cambodia, Mozambique, the UN Development Program in Sri
Lanka, the UN Trust Fund, the UN Mine Action Service, and the Humanitarian
Demining and Training Center (US). In April 2004, New Zealand announced a
contribution of NZ$5,000 to the ICBL’s Landmine
Monitor.[36]
While New Zealand has no stated policy on mine action funding, the New
Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID), established in July 2002,
is formulating a new conflict prevention and peace building policy due to be
finalized in late 2004, which may include mine
action.[39] New Zealand has no
specific criteria or stated policy for the allocation of funds to survivor
assistance programs, but this will also be considered as part of NZAID’s
policy development process.[40]
Survivor assistance funds have been provided through UN trust funds or
directly to appropriate service delivery agencies, such as the Cambodia Trust
School of Prosthetics and Orthotics (CSPO) and Rehabilitation Craft
Cambodia.[41] The CPSO received
NZ$138,246 for the period January 2001 to 31 July 2003; the New Zealand
Volunteer Services Abroad (VSA), which receives most of its funds from the
government, has provided a volunteer to CSPO for the past two
years.[42]
In June 2004, the governmental Foundation for Research Science and Technology
(FORST) was considering funding proposals for research and development of
landmine detection and clearance technology, which, if successful, would also be
partially funded with private sector
funds.[43] The Landmine
Research Group at the University of Auckland is conducting research on landmine
detection technology, focusing on thermal imaging and eddy-current detection; it
is also working on a detector for tripwire-operated
mines.[44]
Landmine Casualties
New Zealand is mine-free but New Zealand civilians and military have been
killed and injured by landmines during their work overseas. On 28 October
2003, a New Zealand Defence Force Captain received fractures to an arm, hand and
heel while traveling in a vehicle that detonated an IED on a road in Shaibah,
Iraq.[45] On 22 October 2002,
three New Zealand Army Special Forces soldiers were injured when the vehicle
they were traveling in hit a landmine in western
Afghanistan.[46] One of the men
had his foot amputated.
[1] The law makes engaging in prohibited
activity an offence, punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven
years or a fine not exceeding NZ$500,000 (approximately
US$250,000). [2] The announcement was
made through a joint statement by the Minister of Defence and the Minister for
Disarmament and Arms Control. See, 1998 Antipersonnel Mines Prohibition Bill,
Explanatory Note, November 1998. [3]
Statement by Peter Rider, Ambassador to Thailand, to the Fifth Meeting of States
Parties, Bangkok, 16 September 2003.
[4] Previous reports were submitted
on 2 May 2003 (for calendar year 2002); 29 April 2002 (for calendar year 2001);
18 May 2001 (for 27 December 1999 to 31 December 2000); and, 27 December 1999
(for 1 July 1999 to 27 December
1999). [5] Letter from Marina
Anderson, Treaty Implementation Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Wellington, 26 February 2004. [6]
Statement by New Zealand, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 16 September
2003. [7] Statement by the Disarmament
Ambassador of New Zealand, H.E. Mr Tim Caughley, UNGA 58th session, First
Committee, New York, 13 October
2003. [8] Statement by New Zealand,
Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 16 September
2003. [9] Statement by Tim Caughley,
Ambassador for Disarmament, to the Standing Committee on the General Status and
Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 16 May 2003. The official report of the
meeting says, “New Zealand stated that its legislation makes it clear that
its defense forces cannot actively assist in any way with AP mines, including
complicity, causation, training or planning.” Standing Committee on the
General Status and Operation of the Convention, “Report of the 12 and 16
May 2003 Meeting,” p. 6. [10]
Letter from Marina Anderson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 February
2004. [11] Email from Paul Roberts,
Disarmament Division Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wellington, 17 April
2004. [12] Statement by Tim Caughley,
Ambassador for Disarmament, to the Standing Committee on General Status and
Operation, Geneva, 9 February
2004. [13]
Ibid. [14]
Ibid. [15] Statement by New Zealand,
Standing Committee on the General Status, 16 May
2003. [16] Letter to Elizabeth
Bernstein, ICBL Coordinator, from Marian Hobbs, Minister for Disarmament and
Arms Control, 16 September 2003. [17]
Statement by New Zealand, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 16 September
2003. [18] “NZ doctor to walk so
others can too,” New Zealand Press Association, 19 August
2003. [19] Speech by Marian Hobbs,
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, to the launch of Landmine Monitor
Report 2003, Wellington, 17 October
2003. [20] Letter from Geoff Randal,
Director, Disarmament Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 15 October
2002. [21] See Landmine Monitor Report
1999, pp. 371-372. US Army records show that New Zealand imported 5,634 M18A1
Claymore mines from 1969-1988. Another US government source indicates that the
U.S. shipped 6,486 antipersonnel mines to New Zealand, including 4,800 mines in
the period 1983-1992, but there is no breakdown of mine
type. [22] Letter from Air Marshal B.R
Ferguson, Chief, New Zealand Defence Force, ref: NZDF 1540/1, 17 May
2002. [23]
Ibid. [24] Article 7 Report, Form J,
30 April 2004. [25] Letter from Marina
Anderson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 February
2004. [26] Ibid; email from Wendy
Napier-Walker, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 23 August 2004; email to Landmine
Monitor (Deborah Morris), from Helen Presland, International Defence Relations
Branch, NZDF, 27 August 2004. Landmine Monitor Report 2003 indicated anticipated
spending of NZ$1.18 in FY 2002/2003.
[27]
Ibid. [28] Letter from Matt Robson,
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, 13 May 2002, stated NZ$12.8 million
was spent from FY 1992/93 to 2000/01. For US equivalent, Landmine Monitor used
a conversion rate of NZ$1=US$0.69 as of 26 February
2004. [29] Letter from Simon Upton,
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 17 November
1998. [30] Figures for 1998/1999 to
2004/2005 are from: email from Wendy Napier-Walker, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
23 August 2004; email from Helen Presland, NZDF, 27 August 2004; and previous
editions of Landmine Monitor Report. The information provided in 2004 corrects
some funding information given to Landmine Monitor in past years. The figure
for 1992-1998 is from “Executive Summary,” Landmine Monitor Report
2003, p. 56. [31] NGO representatives
from Fiji, Tuvalu and Vanuatu attended the meeting. Article 7 Report, Form J,
30 April 2004. [32] The table includes
both financial and in-kind contributions. Email from Wendy Napier-Walker,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 23 August 2004; email from Helen Presland, NZDF, 27
August 2004. [33] The in-kind
estimates based on the ranks of personnel involved, their entitlements and their
expenses. [34] Prior to the
suspension of UNMAS operations in Iraq in December
2003. [35] Exchange rate US$0.58=NZ$1
(2003 average). US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates
(Annual),” 2 January 2004.
[36] Letter from Marian Hobbs,
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Wellington, 16 April
2004. [37] Email from Helen Presland,
NZDF, 27 August 2004. [38] Landmine
Monitor used a conversation rate of NZ$1 = 0.66, the average rate for
2003/04. [39] Letter from Marina
Anderson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 February
2004. [40]
Ibid. [41] Statement by Hinewai Loose,
Second Secretary, NZ Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, Standing Committee
on Victim Assistance, Geneva, May
2003. [42] Letter from Marina
Anderson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 February
2004. [43]
Ibid. [44] Email from Lawrence Carter,
School of Engineering, University of Auckland, 27 February
2004. [45] Letter from Marina
Anderson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 February
2004. [46] “New Zealand
Commandos Hurt in Blast,” Associated Press (Wellington), 23 October
2002.
About Us
Our Research Products