Statement by H. E. Yoshiki Mine

　

Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Japan

to the Conference on Disarmament

The 11^th Session of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts

Geneva, 2 August 2005

Mr. Chairman,

Allow me to congratulate you on your assumption of the chairmanship as the Chairman-designate of the Meeting of the States Parties to CCW. I assure you the full support of my delegation. I am confident that, under your wise guidance, the group will be able to engage in effective and efficient deliberations. Allow me also to appreciate the two coordinators, distinguished ambassador Markku Reimaa and distinguished ambassador Jayant Prasad for their tireless and ever advancing efforts.

Mr. Chairman,

I would like to refer to a couple of points of importance to begin our deliberations on mine-related issues, namely, Mines Other Than Anti-Personnel Mines (MOTAPM), ERW, and Compliance. Japan will elaborate its thoughts and position in each designated session, but I would like to briefly touch upon the basic elements.

(Mines Other Than Anti-Personnel Mines)

The international community must take responsibility to address the humanitarian and socio-economic problems caused by MOTAPM, and, in this regard, Japan believes the CCW, which finds a balance between national defense and humanitarian perspectives, is the most appropriate framework by which to address this issue.

Discussion on the issue of Mines Other Than Anti-Personnel Mines (MOTAPM) has continued for around four years, since the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) was established in 2001 at the Second Review Conference. Nearly two years have already passed since the most recent CCW protocol was adopted. We therefore believe it is time to produce new concrete results within the framework of the CCW.

We welcome the coordinators’ efforts to date, including last year’s paper coordinated by Finland which formed a basis for discussion, and individual consultations with each state. The Coordinator’s paper would form a good point of departure for drafting a protocol. Japan hopes a new protocol on MOTAPM will be drafted at an early date.

The result of discussions to date has boiled down to reaching agreement on detailed points including technical matters. While problems of the addition of features such as Detectability and Self-Destruction, the definition of “Perimeter-marked Area,” and so on, remain to be solved, consensus has almost been reached in the fields of “fuse and sensor” and “transfer”.

In order to conduct efficient discussion and come to concrete results, we should accelerate our work, not only to decide on a common line on fields commanding consensus, but also to take concrete steps to address the specific humanitarian damage caused by MOTAPM, and focus discussion on issues where convergence has not yet been reached. Nevertheless, each field of discussion is mutually related, and drafting a protocol from only the elements already commanding consensus would neither solve the humanitarian damage caused by MOTAPM, nor would it be desirable.

(ERW)

According to the mandate adopted at last year’s Meeting of States Parties, legal experts have been invited to attend this meeting, and a legal expert from Japan is also participating again this time. Japan hopes that the participation by such experts as well as the increased time allotted to the session on “international humanitarian law” will contribute to enriching our discussions on the implementation of international humanitarian law concerning the use of cluster munitions and further promote information exchange between states. We look forward to the next Meeting of States Parties producing a content-rich report on the results of our work.

(Compliance)

Currently, no compliance mechanism exists for the CCW apart from Amended Protocol II. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the treaty, Japan believes that a comprehensive compliance mechanism needs to be established.

We thank the Chairman for the paper that was distributed right before this meeting. We hope this paper will form the basis for deepening discussion during the meeting.

I would like to stress the following essential points concerning a compliance mechanism.

First, the compliance mechanism must be effective in ensuring implementation of the Treaty by the States Parties.

Second, adequate attention must be paid to the sovereignty of each state. The scope of the mechanism should be limited to lack of adherence to the uniform and clear obligations for all States Parties to the Treaty and Protocol.

Third, all points should have equal standing for States Parties to the Treaty.

Japan would like to point out that, through discussion to date there seems to be an emerging consensus on the South African proposal on Amended Protocol II, which takes into consideration the above points.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.