DYB2011-Part-II-web

United Nations Disarmament Yearbook 2011: Part II
292
anti-personnel landmines had been in force in Singapore since 1998. At the same time,
however, Singapore supported a State’s right to self-defence, adding that a blanket
ban on all types of anti-personnel landmines might be counterproductive. Singapore
would continue to work with the international community to seek a durable and truly
global solution.
Seven States that abstained in the vote explained their positions:
• India said that it endorsed the vision of a world free of anti-personnel land
mines, having discontinued the production of non-detectable anti-personnel
mines since 1997 and having observed the moratorium on their transfer. It was
a party to Amended Protocol II of the CCW. Alternative military technologies
would facilitate complete elimination of anti-personnel mines. India remained
committed to international efforts in mine clearance and rehabilitation of mine
victims. It intended to continue its participation in the meetings of the Mine Ban
Convention as an observer.
• Egypt mentioned that it had imposed a moratorium on its capacity to produce
and export landmines in 1980. Nonetheless, Egypt viewed the Convention as
lacking balance between the humanitarian concerns and landmines’ legitimate
military use in border protection. It further commented on the Convention’s
weaknesses regarding lack of firmness on the removal of anti-personnel mines
by the States responsible for placing them and the weak system of international
cooperation. It stated that the Convention’s lack of universality was due to its
having been concluded outside the United Nations.
• Pakistan stressed its commitment to a universal and non-discriminatory ban on
anti-personnel mines that took into account the legitimate defence requirements
of States. Given that landmines formed an important part of its self-defence
strategy, it was not possible for Pakistan to agree to demands for their complete
prohibition until viable alternatives were available. As a party to Amended
Protocol II of the CCW, Pakistan continued to implement the Protocol.
• The Islamic Republic of Iran explained that it shared the humanitarian
concerns of the draft resolution’s sponsors. However, it believed that the
Mine Ban Convention was focused mainly on humanitarian concerns, and did
not adequately take into account the legitimate military requirements of many
countries. More national and international efforts should be made to explore
new alternatives to landmines. Likewise, international cooperation should be
promoted to speed up mine clearance activities for reducing civilian casualties
and to establish sustainable indigenous demining programmes.
• Libya clarified that it shared the concerns of many States, being a victim of
landmines as well. It pointed out that the Mine Ban Convention was concluded
outside the United Nations and that it lacked balance between human protection
and the use of such mines for security reasons. Imposing a total ban on landmines
in weak countries deprived them of a simple means of defence. It also believed
that the Mine Ban Convention should establish a mechanism to assist affected
States in removing landmines and remnants of war left in their territories by
the major colonial Powers, ban the planting of landmines in the territories of
other States, provide for compensation to and rehabilitation of affected States,
and provide for environmental reparations in areas polluted by landmines and
other explosive devices.