ARTICOLI
- Venerdì 30 Maggio 2008: "Un regalo al mondo intero"
- Mercoledì 28 Maggio 2008: "TRATTATO"
- Martedì 27 Maggio 2008: "Aspettando…"
- Lunedì 26 Maggio 2008: "2c o niente 2c, questo è il problema…"
- Venerdì 23 Maggio 2008: "A metà strada"
- Giovedì 22 Maggio 2008: "Mobilitazione della Santa Sede contro le bombe a grappolo"
- Giovedì 22 Maggio 2008: "Verso alcune soluzioni..."
- Mercoledì 21 Maggio 2008: "Camps emerges on key issues"
- Martedì 20 Maggio 2008: "Il nocciolo della questione"
- Lunedì 19 maggio 2008: "Un forte inizio"
- Martedì 20 maggio 2008: "Croke Park: la partita più importante"
In an emotional Plenary meeting, on Friday 30 May 2008, participants in the Dublin Diplomatic Conference formally adopted the text of a new Convention on Cluster Munitions as a whole. Not a single State indicated they could not adopt the Convention at this time.
After a day to reflect on the work of the Conference while the text of the Convention was translated, contentious issues seemed to have faded with the realization of the tremendous achievement that has been accomplished here in Dublin. Today participants spoke with pride, ownership, and resolute commitment to ensuring the implementation of the Convention.
The historic significance of the Convention, with its many groundbreaking provisions, began to sink in as delegation after delegation referred to the Convention as a new chapter in disarmament and a milestone of international law. Many praised the new standards for victim assistance, international cooperation and assistance, clearance of contaminated areas, stockpile destruction, and transparency contained in the Convention, emphasizing the profound effect the Convention will have in making a real difference in affected areas and ensuring the prevention of future tragedies. Others pledged to promote the rapid entry into force of the Convention and its universality.
Of the many moving interventions heard in the Conference room today, Lebanon spoke with such poignancy in conveying messages of thanks and appreciation from victims of cluster munitions in Southern Lebanon that participants applauded, with many eyes beginning to water.
Germany declared that it will immediately renounce the use of cluster munitions and destroy its entire remaining stockpile as soon as possible. Following the announcement by the UK that it will also destroy its stockpiles, it seems the Convention is well on its way to implementation and the stigmatization of cluster munitions it has set out to create is already at work.
Another highpoint of the day was that Japan, which had previously indicated it would not adopt the Convention, in a change of position, agreed to adopt the text. This considerable achievement is the culmination of extremely hard work by Japanese campaigners and survivor Branislav Kapetanovic, who visited Japan to lobby government officials earlier this year.
On the issue of Article 21 on interoperability, a number of States stressed this would not be used as a loophole nor diminish confidence in the Convention. Canada reiterated the importance it placed on the article but emphasized that it would actively discourage the use of cluster munitions and looked forward to getting on with the implementation of the Convention, destroying stockpiles, clearing land, providing assistance, and generating resources to ‘get the job done.’ At the end of the day, Canada said, the Convention is more than a legal document – it is also the honorable intentions of those behind it.
Three States, while joining the consensus adoption, signaled that they may not be prepared to sign in December by stating that the text will have to be studied carefully in capital before a decision is made: Estonia, Finland, and Slovakia.
In the closing ceremony, Foreign Minister Micheal Martin of Ireland, Norway’s Deputy Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide, Sara Sekkenes of the UNDP, Peter Herby of the ICRC, and Grethe Ostern of the CMC addressed the Conference. Sara Sekkenes read out a message from the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, which praised the adoption of the new Convention and successful outcome of the Conference.
Foreign Minister Martin’s remarks deserve repeating:
Rarely if ever in international diplomacy have we seen such single-minded determination to conclude a convention with such high humanitarian goals in such a concentrated period of time.
I want to pay tribute to all present for the efforts all of you have made…It is clear that despite individual national circumstances and perspectives, all of you were able to agree that collectively you gained more than you gave up in the final outcome. That is the essence of any successful negotiation. This was not a zero-sum game, where one side’s win inevitably meant another side’s loss. That may be the usual situation here in Croke Park. On this occasion, I think it is fair to say, we are all winners.
The Convention is strong and ambitious. Its ban on cluster munitions is comprehensive. It sets new standards for assistance to victims and for clearing affected areas. And even though we all know that there are important states not present, I am also convinced that together we will have succeeded in stigmatizing any future use of cluster munitions…
I would also like to pay tribute here to the Cluster Munition Coalition for their tireless lobbying and informed advocacy. And I thank in particular the victims of cluster munitions for constantly reminding us of the broader humanitarian context of our negotiations. They have shown immense fortitude in coping with the pain and suffering which cluster munitions have brought to their lives. They have risen above their personal circumstances to campaign to prevent future victims.
At the end
of the ceremony, Branislav Kapetanovic, who has been a continuous source
of inspiration and tireless campaigner, handed over the CMC plan of action
to achieve rapid entry into force of the Convention to Norway’s Deputy
Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide. While the work of the Dublin Conference
is over, for many the real work has just begun. Campaigners and delegates
must now focus their efforts on ensuring the entry into force of the Convention
as quickly as possible, its universalization, and its national implementation.
But before the new phase of work to truly eliminate the scourge of cluster
munitions begins in earnest, participants should pause to congratulate
themselves on the magnitude of the accomplishment achieved over the past
two weeks and be proud of their new Convention.
Wednesday 28 May 2008: Taking campaigners by surprise, delegates agreed to adopt a text of a new Convention on Cluster Munitions on Wednesday evening. The text is a stunning success. It completely bans and requires the destruction of stockpiles of cluster munitions as a category of weapons, including all existing cluster munitions used to date. It does not permit a transition period or any delay. Cluster munitions that have caused so much human suffering in countries around the world will never be used again by States Parties and the treaty will undoubtedly have a huge impact on the ground in improving the lives of victims.
At 10:00 in the morning, the President presented the Conference with a draft consolidated text. President O'Ceallaigh called the draft an "extremely ambitious Convention text" representing the best possible balance of interests and compromise consistent with the Oslo Declaration. The Committee of the Whole then adjourned and bilateral consultations and regional meetings began. As the hours ticked on, campaigners anxiously awaited news and brooded over the text and possible outcomes.
Just after five pm, the President reconvened the Committee of the Whole, announcing that the Convention text was ready for consideration by the Conference. While many participants were unhappy with some areas of the Convention and would have proposed amendments, all delegations felt that opening the text to consider changing any article would risk unraveling the entire Convention and the very delicate balance presented in the text.
Over 70 countries took the floor to declare that they would agree to formally adopt the Convention on Friday morning. The CMC, ICRC, and two observer states also spoke. Even States who called for broad exceptions or exceptions for their national stockpiles in the beginning of the negotiations agreed to adopt the treaty. The UK, one of the countries most strongly opposed to a complete prohibition, endorsed the Convention, following an unexpected announcement from Gordon Brown that the UK would accept a total ban and destroy its remaining two types of cluster munitions.
The CMC made an intervention, summarizing the feelings of many who pushed for a strong Convention this week. Following are excerpts:
"This can only be characterized as an extraordinary convention, one that is certain to save thousands and thousands of civilian lives for decades to come…. This convention is a comprehensive ban on cluster munitions as a class of weapons. In many ways it is more comprehensive than the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It bans not just some cluster munitions, but all cluster munitions. It does not try to differentiate between good cluster munitions and bad cluster munitions, it bans them all….
This is a convention with no exceptions – no exceptions for individual nations' own particular types of cluster munitions, which would have weakened the treaty severely.
This is a convention with no delays. There is no transition period, which would have undermined the integrity of the treaty.
The convention contains excellent provisions on victim assistance, which are ground-breaking and historic in their own right. It has very good provisions on clearance, transparency, and international cooperation and assistance, all of which are an improvement on the Mine Ban Treaty, taking advantage of lessons learned over the past decade.
Mr. President, we would have liked to have seen states further improve the text today and tonight. We believe that if the text had been opened up, it would have gotten stronger and not weaker. But we respect your judgment Mr. President and that of so many states that this was not the best way forward.
In our view, Article 21 on interoperability is the only stain on the fine fabric of the treaty text. We are deeply disappointed with the language, which is not clear that foreign stockpiling and intentional assistance with prohibited acts are banned in all circumstances. We call on all states to clarify for the diplomatic record that Article 21 does not allow indefinite foreign stockpiling or intentional assistance. We will be watching very carefully to ensure that no state party engages in deliberate assistance with prohibited acts, or allows foreign stockpiling of cluster munitions on their territory in perpetuity, or undermines the fundamental obligations of the treaty in any way."
Bringing some levity to the otherwise serious tone of the session, Austria said that delegations had formed a bond this week with the text. Like a bond with a child, Austria said, it may not be perfect and it may not be beautiful, but you are proud of it nevertheless.
The status of various articles in the final text is as follows:
Article 1 now includes a definition of "dispensers," eliminating a potential loophole created by bomblets released from dispensers affixed to aircrafts, which although they have the same effects as submunitions, would not have been otherwise covered under the Convention as they are not released from a larger munition.
Article 2 on definitions includes a new criteria on weight, for a total of five cumulative criteria for exclusion of munitions that do not have the effects of cluster munitions – weight restrictions, less than 10 submunitions, capability to detect and engage a single target, and electronic self-destruct mechanisms and self-deactivating features. The minimum weight criterion was reduced from 5 to 4 kilograms, but this does not allow the exclusion of additional existing munitions.
Article 3 on stockpiling and destruction permits the retention of a minimum number of cluster munitions for training, research, and the development of countermeasures. Within the article itself, however, is also an obligation for States Parties to report on the planned and actual use of retained cluster munitions.
Article 4 on clearance of cluster munition remnants kept "4.4" on user responsibility, but weakened the language to state that past users of cluster munitions are "strongly encouraged" to provide technical, financial, material, and human resource assistance, along with information on the type and quantity of cluster munitions used, and the precise locations of cluster munitions strikes. Despite the weakened language, the retention of 4.4 is a success. The deadline for clearance was previously extended from 5 to 10 years.
Article 5 on victim assistance is in many ways the highpoint of the Convention. The article was continually strengthened in discussions during the week, to finally include obligations to prove non-discriminatory, age and gender sensitive assistance, including (but not limited to) medical care, rehabilitation and psychological support, as well as providing for victim's social and economic inclusion, in accordance with international humanitarian and human rights law. The article also requires States Parties to ensure victim assistance is developed and implemented in national laws and policies, develop national plans and budgets for activities, and to closely consult and actively involve cluster munitions victims in carrying out victim assistance.
Article 6 on international cooperation and assistance contains an agreed on version of article 9bis on obligations for States Parties requesting assistance and specifically requires that States shall provide assistance for the implementation of victim assistance.
Article 7 contains many positive improvements to ensure the Convention's effective implementation. It makes obligatory reporting on cluster munitions stockpiles, the status and progress of cluster munition destruction programs, clearance programs including measures to provide risk reduction education and warnings to civilians, and victim assistance. Significantly, it also requires reporting on the known amount of national resources, including financial, material or resources in kind, allocated for the implementation of victim assistance, clearance, and stockpile destruction programs.
On Article 17 on entry into force, the President set the number at 30 ratifications – a compromise to appease the few countries calling for 40 instruments of ratifications as the majority of countries wanted 20.
The remaining articles of the Convention were mostly unchanged.
The major disappointment in the new Convention, however, is the inclusion of a new Article 21 on the "Relation with States not parties to this Convention," or interoperability. The text of the article is largely the same as the most recent discussion paper from the Friend of the President, despite suggestions from States calling for revising the article to strengthen the prohibition against assistance.
On the positive side, the article requires States Parties to encourage others to join the Convention, to notify Non States Parties of their obligations under the Convention, promote the Convention's norms, and make "best efforts" to discourage Non States Parties from using cluster munitions. However, the article is not clear that intentional assistance and indefinite foreign stockpiling are prohibited. States need to clarify these points.
Despite this potential loophole in the Convention, the scrutiny of the world will now be focused on States Parties participating in joint military operations and the international recognition that assisting others to use cluster munitions is fundamentally against the spirit of the Convention will go far to ensure that the Article's provisions are irrelevant in reality.
Looking back just over a year ago to the first meeting of the Oslo Process in Norway, the Convention agreed on today is an unbelievable achievement. President Daithi O'Ceallaigh of Ireland, the Friends of the President, the core States, delegates, and all of the CMC campaigners both present in the Conference and the many more working tirelessly across the world, deserve a huge round of applause and should be extremely proud of such a remarkable, heroic, and historical Convention achieved here in Dublin today.
Tuesday 27 May 2008: The Committee of the Whole met for two very brief sessions today as most of the action took place in bilateral consultations and discussions in the curving stadium hallway. It was a hectic day, with unpredictable bouts of activity punctuated by long periods of waiting around, intensified by the clear sense that the clock is ticking here in Croke Park.
In the Committee of the Whole, President O'Ceallaigh moved quickly through some of the remaining articles in the Convention, trying to finalize the articles close to consensus and send them as Presidency Texts to the Plenary.
On Article 6 on international cooperation and assistance, Canada reported back on its efforts to find agreement on language for a proposed paragraph 9 bis on obligations for countries requesting assistance. Canada had proposed a compromise solution by adding language to the paragraph that States Parties seeking to receive assistance should "facilitate the entry of personnel, material, and equipment, in a manner consistent with national laws and regulations and international best practices." The North-South argument, however, that developed in discussions yesterday persisted. Traditional donor countries, such as Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland strongly supported the proposal's obligations.Germany referred to the paragraph's importance in light of problems providing aid in international natural disaster relief assistance. Indonesia questioned the paragraph's infringement on national sovereignty and national legislation. While Canadanoted that it was understood that national law would take precedent over the international best practices mentioned in the paragraph, the sensitivity of a number of States regarding the article's obligations meant that Article 6 will require a further round of consultations.
Canada also noted Austria's proposal for paragraph 7, which requires States Parties to provide assistance for the implementation of obligations on victim assistance as contained in Article 5.
The first full text of the preamble was circulated and discussed in the Committee of the Whole. The initial five paragraphs draw on changes proposed by the ICRC, the UK, and the IFRC. Crucially for the CMC, the area effects of cluster munitions during attacks have been specifically noted as the basis for their prohibition. The previously agreed paragraphs on victim assistance have been added, along with a reference to non-state actors, SC Resolutions 1325 and 1612 on women, peace and security and children in armed conflict, and an additional reference to the need to provide age and gender sensitive assistance to victims. After consultations on minor changes suggested by delegations, a final draft of the preamble was given to the President.
Outside of the Committee of the Whole, Friend of the Chair Ambassador Schraner held the last informal session on interoperability. Tasked with delivering the President with a final discussion paper by noon, Ambassador Schraner held a brief 45 minute discussion focusing on a revised, and slightly improved, version of Friday's paper on interoperability. Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, along with Albania, Croatia, and Fiji, stated that while they preferred the previous (weaker) draft paper, they were willing to accept the new version as a basis for further work. A number of these countries declared that the article's phrasing of "notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1" [read setting aside the main obligations of the treaty] was fundamentally important to their support of the article.
Austria and New Zealand felt the present language of the Article was an acceptable compromise. Others such as Mauritania proposed deleting "notwithstanding the provisions of Article" while Morocco, Indonesia, Uganda, and Kenya suggested adding a qualifier "notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1(c)."
The crux of the issue for the CMC is threefold. First, the article must not be worded as to allow States Parties to deliberately or intentionally assist Non-States Parties in prohibited actions uder Article 1. Second, the article must not permit States Parties to stockpile foreign cluster munitions on its territory (as currently construed under paragraph 4(b) of the article). Third, the language of paragraph 3 reading "notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention" must either (preferably) be deleted, or at an absolute minimum, be changed to specify that paragraph 3 only applies to Article 1(c) of the Treaty, in order to ensure that the fundamental obligations of the Treaty are not undermined. If this option is taken, it would be recommended to delete paragraph 4, which would become obsolete, or even a potential weakness in the Treaty.
Discussions on interoperability continue to be the most contentious area of the treaty. While it was encouraging that States taking a hard line on the issue were prepared to work on the basis of the new proposal, there is still no consensus on how to address interoperability in a manner that provides States an acceptable degree of protection for their armed forces, without fundamentally negating the primary obligations and spirit of the Convention.
The manner in which the discussions were conducted, however, was potentially as flawed as suggestions for interoperability provisions. Held in a small room suitable for around 20 people, delegates packed into the room, which was quickly overflowing and standing-room only. There was no microphone, so unless seated at the table in the center of the room (where the UK, Japan, Denmark, France, Australia and other NATO states were holding court) it was nearly impossible to hear any of the interventions. Many States that were opposed to provisions for interoperability either could not get into the room or could not follow discussions and thus did not make interventions. The result was that the dissenting opinions of many States not part of the NATO and US-allied block were not heard and not reflected in the Friend of the President's final paper.
Definitions were mentioned briefly in the Committee of the Whole. A new draft of definitions under Article 1 was circulated. The draft paper removes Article 1(2) on the definition of mines, eliminating language referring to the CCW's Amended Protocol II. The draft proposal instead states simply that "the Convention does not apply to mines." The draft also included a proposal for a definition of dispenser to be included in the Convention, which would expand its scope to cover submunitions that are dispersed or released from dispensers affixed to aircrafts. This was rejected by the UK and Spain, who were subsequently charged to conduct bilaterals on the issue of dispensers. The CMC view is that dispensers are covered by the definition of cluster munitions, a view shared by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.
Also pertaining to definitions, yesterday, Costa Rica questioned why "air defence systems" had been added as an exception under Article 2(a) in Friend of the President Ambassador MacKay's latest discussion paper. The UK (who proposed the inclusion) explained that it considered air defence systems should not be banned under the Treaty. The UK defined air defence systems as ground to air munitions whose effects were contained in the air, and contained internal guidance systems, point target capabilities, and manual and automatic self-destruct mechanisms. Argentina, Austria, Botswana, Chile, Mexico, Morocco, Panama, and the ICRC opposed including air-defense weapons as an exception in the Convention and called for its removal. The ICRC explained that the munition would be banned under the FoP proposal's Article 2(c), making any reference to air defence systems in Article 2(a) unnecessary.
Tailored to defend its own production and stockpiling of one type of cluster munition, Spain circulated a weak proposal for Article 2, which would exclude under Article 2(c) munitions equipped with electronic self-destruct and self-deactivation mechanisms, that would "only address the area encompassed by the intended military objective."
After adjourning the Committee of the Whole early in the afternoon, President O'Ceallaigh embarked on a lengthy series of bilateral consultations in an effort to produce a consolidated draft text of the Convention. At 9:00pm, after nearly five hours of waiting in the halls of Croke Park, President O'Ceallaigh announced that there was no consensus on the consolidated draft. Participants will have to wait a bit longer for the consolidated draft, which the President expects to circulate on Wednesday morning.
Lunchtime events today included talks on "Divestment and a Cluster Munitions Treaty: Two Sides of the Same Coin?" presented by IKV Pax Christi Netherlands and the "Economic Impacts of Cluster Munition Contamination," presented by Richard Moyes and Greg Crowther of Landmine Action UK.
In the evening Nobel Peace Laureates Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, and Jody Williams held a public event on their perceptions of a new international treaty banning cluster munitions.
Now that the work of the Friends of the President is finished, it's up to the President to move the Conference forward.
2c o niente 2c, questo è il problema…
Monday 26 May 2008: After easing in on Sunday afternoon with a session on the “other definitions” – where the CMC helped clarify and clean up certain definitions and fought hard to ensure transit is covered by the definition of “transfer” – negotiations began again on Monday 26 May 2008, the second week of the Dublin Conference. The Conference tackled remaining contentious issues, such as definitions, interoperability, transition periods, and work progressed on other areas such as the preamble and Articles 3, 6, and 8 (stockpiles, international cooperation and assistance, and compliance). With the goal of finalizing the Convention by Wednesday evening in order to allow time for translation into its authentic texts of French and Spanish, a sense of urgency at the work to be accomplished in the next few days pervaded the Conference rooms.
Definitions were discussed in the Committee of the Whole. While no ground-breaking developments occurred, delegations calling for the deletion of Article 2(c) adopted a more flexible tone towards the consideration of other options. Countries remained grouped in three tiers regarding Friend of the President (FoP) Ambassador MacKay’s latest discussion paper on definitions from Friday 23 May, which lists 4 cumulative criteria for the exclusion of certain munitions; a limited number of submunitions, point target capability, and electronic self-destruct mechanisms and self-deactivation mechanisms that would all be necessary to prevent the effects of cluster munitions, which are set out in the chapeau of 2(c).
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerlandsupported the FoP discussion paper. France proposed that the FoP paper could be strengthened by including an additional cumulative criterion of weight. Although initially unpopular early on in the Conference discussions, several delegations, such as the ICRC, Malta, Mexico, Germany, Norway, and Senegal were in favor of reconsidering weight as an additional criteria to strengthen Article 2(c). The ICRC supported the inclusion of weight restrictions as a further safeguard that could assist in preventing the miniaturization of submunitions and in “future proofing” the Treaty. Others, such as Chile and Guatemala, raised concerns about the inclusion of weight, while Finland,Slovakia, and Spain rejected the proposal.
For Denmark, Finland, Japan, Slovakia, and Spain the FoP’s proposal for Article 2(c) was already too restrictive. Slovakia stated that the proposal contained too many subjective criteria and it would prefer a broad exception based on the criteria of overall reliability, a solution which the CMC previously has presented considerable evidence that is wholly insufficient. Both Slovakia and Japanobjected to the electronic self-destruct and self-deactivation criteria, with Japan specifically stating that mechanical self-destruct mechanisms would be sufficient to guarantee against humanitarian harm. Spain remained focused on self-deactivation features as an acceptable solution in line with its own production and stockpiling of cluster munitions with such features.
Around 20 countries calling for the deletion of Article 2(c), mainly Latin American and AfricanStates, as well as affected states such as Laos and Lebanon, said that while they preferred not to have an Article 2(c), if it was to be included, it should provide the strongest possible effects-oriented approach to preventing humanitarian harm. DR Congo, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, andVenezuela, however, emphasized that 2(c) must be deleted.
Lebanon made a compelling intervention on the need to remain focused on the issue of humanitarian harm. The deletion of Article 2(c), while not optimal, is not a redline issue, Lebanonsaid. The real red line for Lebanon was that a treaty be secured. Should there be a 2(c), it must comply with the highest humanitarian standards and complimented by the following safeguard provisions: review of weapons permitted under 2(c) at annual conferences, annual reporting on stockpiles, and consideration for conformity of IHL and effects on civilians. Austria had also referred to reporting as an important consideration if a 2(c) were to be agreed.
The CMC stated that, “if there is to be a 2(c) and like many others we would prefer there was not, we must make sure it does not become an exception and that it is kept as clear, unambiguous and restrictive as possible.”
President O’Ceallaigh announced that he will take up work on definitions and hold bilateral consultations tonight, to report back to the Committee of the Whole tomorrow. Numerous delegations thanked Friend of the President Ambassador MacKay and Charlotte Darlow of New Zealand for their exhaustive efforts to identify areas of consensus on definitions during the past week and there was general support for the direction in which New Zealand’s work had been going.
A new proposal on interoperability was discussed in an informal session this afternoon. The proposal is an improvement on the initial proposal considered today in the plenary. It deletes reference to “host” States (the foreign stockpiling issue), tightens language in paragraphs 3 and 4 and includes “transfer.” States such as UK and Canada taking a hard line on interoperability, however, did not support the proposal and called for returning to the previous draft. While discussions remain stalled, positively, a number of States exhibited more flexibility towards resolving the issue.
Germany reported back on its mission impossible of holding consultations on transition periods to the Committee of the Whole. While Germany attempted to outline a compromise for a “phasing out” period for use only under “exceptional circumstances,” it is clear that transition periods (under any guise) do not have support from the majority of delegations and are unlikely to fly.
The preamble of the Treaty was discussed for the first time today. Canada, supported by Norway,South Africa, Argentina, and Sweden, suggested including a reference to SC Resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security to address the impact cluster munitions have on gender. Argentina andCanada added that a reference to SC Resolution 1612 on children and armed conflict should be incorporated. Botswana, Canada, the Philippines, and Uganda were in favor of adding a preambular paragraph on non-state actors.
The ICRC and CMC emphasized the importance of including a reference to the effects of cluster munitions both during and after time of use, which Canada and others supported. Other topics such as references to the obstruction cluster munitions cause to social and economic development, stockpile destruction, protection of civilians under IHL, and a reference to the Treaty’s relation with other instruments were also considered. Consultations will continue tomorrow, under the guidance of Ambassador Caroline Millar of Australia and joint language from UK and ICRC will feed into this work.
Article 3 on storage and stockpile destruction was revised a final time and sent to the Plenary as a Presidential Text. The CMC stated that it was concerned that the Article has been weakened with each passing draft, but nevertheless, can still be critical for the implementation of the Treaty, if States adhere to the spirit of the Convention and begin to destroy their stockpiles as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the 8-year-plus-extension scheme deadlines. The CMC again criticized the Article’s provision for the retention of cluster munitions for training, research, and countermeasures, and called on States to clarify for the diplomatic record the parameters of the “minimum number absolutely necessary” as allotted under the Treaty warning against intentional abuse.
A revised text of Article 6 on international cooperation and assistance was also discussed. An uncomfortable division between developed and developing countries arose in a debate over a proposal for obligations for countries seeking assistance to release data, grant entry and visas to international personnel involved in assistance programs, and ensure unimpeded import of relevant material and equipment free of financial and administrative
burdens. After around 20 countries expressed concerns that the Article was over-prescriptive or conflicted with domestic laws and matters of national sovereignty, Canada proposed language to specify obligations were to be consistent with national laws.Canada was appointed to conduct bilateral consultations towards finding consensus tomorrow.
On transparency (Article 7), Belgium is working on garnering support for a proposal containing many CMC suggested changes for the article. On a less positive note, France has put forward a proposal to delete requirements to report on foreign stockpiles of cluster munitions kept on a State Parties’ national territory.
Article 8 on compliance was adopted as a Presidency Text and sent to plenary
(making a total of 13 finalized articles). The Article does not elaborate additional mechanisms for determining instances of non-compliance, as the CMC had hoped, but does contain a somewhat cryptic reference to “other general procedures or specific mechanisms for clarification of compliance, including facts.”
Two exciting lunchtime events were held today. The Ban Advocates, a group of cluster munitions survivors from affected countries around the world, gave a press conference on their impressions of the Dublin Conference. Their determination, dynamism, and remarkable energy has been an invaluable influence throughout this week and the entire Oslo Process. Following the press conference, a panel event on the US and its position on cluster munitions was held. US Senator Patrick Leahy, UK Parliamentarian Lord
Dubs, and Nobel Laureate Jody Williams participated.
On Friday, 23 May 2008, the final day of week one of the Dublin Conference, participants regrouped in the Committee of the Whole to take stock of work accomplished thus far in the week. President Ambassador O'Ceallaigh held an article by article review of the Treaty and the Friends of the Presidents presented their discussion papers for consideration by all delegations.
Discussions began on a revised text of Article 3 on storage and stockpile destruction presented by Friend of the Chair Ambassador Kongstad. The text currently contains an extended deadline for stockpile destruction of 8 years (as opposed to the initial six-years), with the possibility of one 4 year extension, and a second 4 year extension in extraordinary circumstances (the initial extension period was 10 years) . There is no expressed limit on the number of extensions permitted, however. The text also adds a provision for the retention of "the minimum number" of cluster munitions "necessary" for training, research and the development of countermeasures. The CMC intervened during discussions, criticizing both the extended deadline and the retention provision. Mexico, Honduras, Senegal, Peru, and Ghana raised concerns about the potential loophole retaining cluster munitions would create.
When the article is discussed again next week, it will be essential for countries to put pressure on those calling for retentions to clarify the minimum number necessary for these purposes. Demonstrating how dangerous this provision could be for the integrity of the treaty, one delegation reportedly suggested that 50,000 submunitions would be an appropriate number—which amounts to half the number of cluster munitions used by the UK in Iraq in 2003 and enough to constitute an operational stockpile.
President O'Ceallaigh then moved to discuss the transition periods proposed by Germany, Slovakia and Switzerland. Switzerland, joined by Japan, Denmark, Slovakia, and the UK (all in favor of transitions) called for discussions to be postponed until Tuesday, once definitions become clearer. Costa Rica rejected this, saying all articles of the treaty are linked together and all cards should be put on the table now. The rest of the Conference was clearly prepared to give their thoughts on transition periods today, regardless of definitions.
Just short of 60 States took the floor slamming transition periods as completely unacceptable. Interventions against transition periods took up the greater part of the morning session, with many strong interventions from developing, affected and small countries.
The United Kingdom requested that a Friend of the President be appointed to hold informal consultations on transitions. Venezuela responded that with 80% of the Conference against even contemplating a transition period, no more discussions should be held. (This was met by applause from delegates and for the first time, it was the diplomats, not the campaigners who were reprimanded for being too rowdy.)
It appears that the fight against transition periods was won – at least for today. No Friend of the President was appointed, although the President asked Germany, as the first country to submit a proposal for a transition period, to conduct consultations on the issue and report back to the Committee of the Whole on Monday. The President stated that those seeking a transition period would have to "do more to convince others" and Norway noted that those in favor of transitions should find other ways to address their concerns.
Another exciting development was the presentation of the Friend of the President's text on Article 5 Victim Assistance for consideration by all States in the Committee of the Whole. 42 States supported the article, which significantly raises the bar for victim assistance. Of many positive changes to the article, a reference to the consideration of age and gender and vulnerable groups in providing assistance is now included, along with an obligation for States to consult and involve victims and their representative organizations when implementing victim assistance. The article is expected to be adopted without revision and will be a fundamental achievement for both the Treaty and victims of cluster munitions. Friend of the President Markus Reiterer of Austria deserves an enormous thank you for his indefatigable efforts this week and throughout the Oslo Process, along with the dedicated CMC campaigners who have worked hard to bring about such a tremendous success.
Nothing appeared to have changed significantly on definitions. Friend of the Chair Ambassador MacKay reported back to the Committee of the Whole on the progression of discussions and circulated a discussion paper containing slightly revised the criteria for exclusion of certain munitions under Article 2(c). Ambassador MacKay reiterated that the discussion paper was not an agreed text, as many delegations are not in favor anything under Article 2(c) and a formal proposal for its deletion is on the table. Ambassador MacKay also stated that the discussion paper was not a compilation of all proposals submitted for Article 2(c), and does not reflect proposals that he felt did not receive support from delegations. In diplomatic language, this was a minor coup d'état which effectively removed proposals for broad exemptions such as those from Denmark, Finland, Japan, Slovakia and the UK from further consideration.
A revised proposal on interoperability prepared by the Friend of the President was also discussed, again with the recognition that the proposal did not have broad support. As of now, the situation regarding interoperability is the most discouraging of any area of the treaty. The Friend of the President's paper currently permits States to essentially use cluster munitions by proxy, through intentionally assisting States not party to the Treaty in operations where it is known that cluster munitions will be used. It would also permit countries to intentionally continue to stockpile prohibited cluster munitions owned by States not party to the Treaty on its territory.
While still a long, long way from finding an acceptable solution, several States who previously took a hard line on interoperability appeared willing today to entertain a compromise solution, including France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Portugal. The UK, however, remains belligerent that there should be no restrictions on interoperability, despite the current language being fundamentally incompatible with the core objectives of the treaty
Jim Burke of Ireland reported to the Committee of the Whole on the status of Article 4 on clearance. Nothing in the article has changed since yesterday, and although the deadline has been extended from 5 to 10 years, Article 4.4 on the responsibilities of past users remains in the article, despite calls from 3 delegations for its deletion. The CMC will have to work hard to ensure that Article 4.4 remains in the article during further discussions next week.
The President declared that Articles 9-22 of the Treaty, with the exception of Articles 17, 18, and19 which require additional discussion, will be sent to the plenary – meaning they are essentially finalized.
In between the sessions of the Committee of the Whole, participants were invited to a lunchtime book launch of "Banning Landmines: Disarmament, Citizen Diplomacy, and Human Security." Editors Jody Williams, Steve Goose, Mary Wareham, and contributors Tun Chennareth, John Borrie, and Peter Herby discussed their new book on the Mine Ban Treaty experience and its implications for subsequent movements such as the cluster munition process and its overall contribution to the field of human security. A key theme of the event was the power of international treaties, when properly followed up on, to stigmatize a weapon, well beyond the formal signatories of the treaty.
As the Conference goes into weekend half-time (and Croke Park reverts from a diplomatic conference venue to its usual function as a stadium to host this weekend's Ireland-Serbia football match) the Treaty is in good shape. While critical issues like interoperability and definitions will require intensive work to reach an acceptable compromise, most other articles and issues are moving in a positive direction – although with the usual diplomatic caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Mobilitazione della
Santa Sede contro le bombe a grappolo
Argomenti del rappresentante vaticano alla Conferenza di Dublino
DUBLINO, giovedì, 22 maggio 2008 - La Santa Sede sta mobilitando le sue energie per cercare di porre fine agli orrori provocati dalle bombe a grappolo nella conferenza che ha luogo a Dublino fino al 30 maggio.
Circa cento Paesi partecipano alla riunione, che aspira a siglare uno storico impegno per eliminare questo tipo di armi e le munizioni frammentarie esplosive.
L'Arcivescovo Silvano Maria Tomasi, osservatore permanente della Santa Sede presso l'ufficio delle Nazioni Unite a Ginevra, è intervenuto nel dibattito per sottolineare l'urgenza di raggiungere una Convenzione che bandisca questi ordigni micidiali.
Il presule ha ricordato l'appello lanciato domenica scorsa dal Papa all'Angelus, nel quale ha auspicato che, "grazie alla responsabilità di tutti i partecipanti, si possa giungere ad uno strumento internazionale forte e credibile: necessario infatti rimediare agli errori del passato ed evitare che si ripetano in futuro".
Monsignor Tomasi ha rivelato che "in questa Conferenza la delegazione della Santa Sede sta lavorando alacremente per portare a buona conclusione, assieme agli altri Paesi, questo nuovo strumento giuridico che speriamo sia veramente efficace, operativo, e che in maniera sostanziale e decisa bandisca, elimini l'uso, il trasporto, lo stoccaggio di queste bombe a grappolo".
"E' chiaro che la presenza nel contesto internazionale di uno strumento nuovo, di una Convenzione che dia la possibilità agli Stati di far leva su di essa per eliminare queste bombe, diventa un passo molto costruttivo e molto importante per raggiungere il nostro obiettivo, che quello che non ci siano più stragi inutili causate da queste bombe", ha ammesso.
In alcune dichiarazioni alla "Radio Vaticana", il presule ha spiegato che la ragione profonda che ispira questa attività della Santa Sede a livello diplomatico multilaterale è "il desiderio di evitare che ci siano vittime tra la popolazione civile, soprattutto, che paghino un prezzo troppo alto per queste attività di carattere militare".
"La Santa Sede parte del piccolo gruppo di Stati che da qualche anno stanno creando opinione pubblica e stanno lavorando attraverso strumenti operativi, anche giuridici, per arrivare a delle conclusioni pratiche che possano limitare i danni di queste armi".
"Per esempio - ha illustrato -, dopo ormai 40 anni che queste bombe sono state usate a milioni nel sud-est asiatico, ancora oggi continuano ad esserci morti e feriti. Quindi, non parliamo di una realtà astratta né di una realtà storica, ma di qualcosa che continua a produrre vittime".
"Noi come Chiesa, come persone cristiane, che vogliamo essere sensibili alla protezione delle persone più vulnerabili, cerchiamo di fare qualcosa per limitare l'impatto di questi ordigni sulle persone, che poi ne portano le conseguenze tutta la vita, se non addirittura perdono la vita", ha concluso.
Thursday 22 May 2008, the fourth day of the Dublin Conference, states continued to clarify their positions on
definitions and interoperability, and moved towards
concluding the first round of negotiations on other issues
such as victim assistance, stockpile destruction, and
clearance. For definitions and interoperability, the contentious issues of the day, several states began to lay
down “red lines” and it appears that the real
negotiation
is about to begin.
In a significant session on definitions, states aligned
themselves around a new proposal for an exclusion under
Article 2(c) and a proposal to delete Article 2(c)
entirely. Friend of the President Ambassador MacKay
introduced a discussion paper, building on and strengthening the cumulative criteria required for the
exclusion of certain weapons as contained in Norway’s
proposal from yesterday. Most importantly the discussion
paper introduces an effects-based approach to link the
technical criteria to the actual effects of cluster munitions. The paper adds a requirement that a munition must
have less than 10 submuntions.
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands,
Portugal, the ICRC, and UNMAS were supportive of the
Friend of the President’s proposal. Germany stated that
if
the cumulative criteria approach to 2(c) used in the paper
was taken off the table, it would not be able to sign the
Treaty. Canada, however, proposed deleting the criteria of a specific limited number of submunitions and the minimum
weight limit of 5 kilograms. The Netherlands and Portugal
supported Canada’s proposal. Australia agreed that the
criteria should be cumulative, but stated it would prefer
including only three out of the five listed. On the other hand, Finland objected to the proposal
outright. Japan, South Africa, Slovakia, Spain, and
Switzerland also did not appear to support the proposal,
often citing weight and limiting the number of submunitions as areas of concern.
Denmark stated it could be “flexible” about the content of
2(c), but insisted that 2(c) be retained, while the UK
continued to call for the inclusion of direct fire as a
criterion and reiterated its call for a transition period.
Argentina introduced a proposal to delete Article 2(c), co-sponsored by Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Lebanon, Mexico, Palau, and Uruguay. 12 states—Austria, Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia— endorsed the proposal, bringing the total to 21 States calling for the deletion of the article. The CMC fully supported the proposal and appreciated the work of Ambassador Mackay to ensure an effects-based approach and a prohibition on cluster munitions as an entire category of weapons with no exclusions for weapons that have the effects of cluster munitions.
As a result of these discussions, Friend of the Chair MacKay
intends to give a revised text to the President, to be
discussed tomorrow in the Committee of the Whole. Informal discussions on interoperability were more
contentious. Friend of the President Ambassador Schraner
Burgener circulated a discussion paper for an additional
article on interoperability that, if adopted, would
completely undermine the prohibition on assistance (and the fundamental purpose) of the Treaty. In practical terms, the
proposal permits States to willingly and intentionally
engage in any sort of activity with Non-States Parties
relating to the use, transfer, and storage of cluster
munitions—just short of actually using cluster munitions
themselves.
Australia, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Fiji, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Morocco, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK supported the
proposal with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Australia,
Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom were the staunchest supporters of the proposal indicating their
support for the convention would be conditional upon it.
Around a dozen countries rejected the Article or raised
concerns about the giant loophole it would create in the
Treaty. As discussions continued in a small representative
group of delegations, neither side appeared to be willing
to compromise. One possible solution, suggested by the
ICRC, might be an “opt-in” provision, wherein States with interoperability concerns would have the option of making a declaration upon signing the Treaty that their military
personnel would not be criminally liable if in
extraordinary circumstances they violated the prohibition
on assistance.
In contrast, informal discussions on Article 4 on clearance
were largely positive. Ireland, as Friend of the President
, introduced a revised text which contains many CMC
suggestions and improved provisions on extension requests,
proposed by Canada. Very encouragingly for the CMC,
Article 4.4 on the responsibility of past users of cluster
munitions was not deleted from the article. 10 countries
spoke in favor of the obligation, and while Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom cited they
had concerns with the article, they did not call for it to
be removed. The minimum deadline for clearance, however,
was changed from 5 years to 10 years. The CMC intervened
against this. If States refuse to return to the originally
proposed deadline, it is imperative that additional obligations for annual reporting on clearance activities be
included in Article 7, to ensure that States do not delay
clearance activities.
While no informal session was held today on storage and
stockpile destruction, a revised draft of Article 3 was
circulated amongst delegations. Unfortunately, the revised
draft also increased the minimum deadline for stockpile
destruction, from 6 to 8 years. The change was the result
of pressure from the UK and France, who are looking to
ensure a maximum amount of time to destroy the weapons in their stockpiles that will be prohibited.
Informal discussions on victim assistance concluded
successfully today and a revised text will be sent to the
Committee of the Whole for final consideration. A high
point of the day, campaigners felt confident that Article
5 will create a new standard for victim assistance in
international humanitarian law.
Brief informal discussions took place on Article 8 on
compliance. 13 States, including South Africa, as Friend
of the President, and UNMAS and the CMC participated in
discussions. The text of Article 8 was shortened
considerably. The CMC recommended that mechanisms for facilitating verification and determining instances of
non-compliance should be elaborated now and included in
the text.
In the Committee of the Whole, discussions continued on the
remaining articles of the treaty, the majority of which
are now Presidency Texts. A proposal for a new article
called the “Relationship with Other International
Agreements” was submitted by Australia, Canada, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and
the United Kingdom. The Article states that “the
Convention shall be considered as complementary to any
existing international agreement binding on the
Parties.”
While seemingly innocuous, the article may essentially be
“interoperability in sheep’s clothing” and possibly intended as a way to ensure that a loophole for
interoperability remains in the treaty if the primary
proposal on interoperability is rejected. Not
surprisingly, all of the States who sponsored the article
are amongst the biggest supporters of the Friend of the President’s informal proposal on interoperability.
Positively, 17 countries spoke against the article.
Also during the Committee of the Whole, the UK supported
proposals for a new article on a transition period. The
CMC made a strong intervention opposing this. Transition
periods will be discussed again in the Committee of the
Whole tomorrow morning at 10 am.
NGO activities began early for many dedicated CMC
campaigners. At 7 am, campaigners lay down in the middle
of a busy commercial street in Dublin, to graphically
represent the victims of a cluster munitions strike for a
publicity photo.
At lunchtime, Titus Peachey and Virgil Wiebe of the
Mennonite Central Committee presented a debate on
“lessons
learned from the 1970s effort to ban cluster bombs,”
followed by a talk on “working with youth to promote the
clusters treaty” given by the Brazilian Campaign, Mines Action Canada and SPADO.
The UNDP sponsored a briefing with Colin King and Chris
Clark answering questions on technical issues related to
definitions. With translations in Spanish and French, this
was an attempt to remedy the fact that translation is not
provided for delegates in the informal sessions on
definitions and interoperability. The lack of translation is seriously hindering many non-native English speaking
delegations from taking part in the negotiations. (And the
technical discussions are difficult enough to follow, even
with English as a first language.)
Having gathered early in the morning to stage a protest by
lying down in the streets of central Dublin, campaigners
wrapped up a long day by attending a public film screening
of the NPA film “Yellow Killers” on the humanitarian
impact of the use of cluster munitions in Serbia.
Camps emerge on key issues
Wednesday 21 May 2008
On Wednesday, 21 May 2008, the third day of the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions, negotiations on critical issues shifted from mainly political discussions to the consideration of textual proposals. Four informal sessions were held on definitions, interoperability, storage and stockpile destruction, and victim assistance. Discussions were increasingly technical and tough at times, but work is progressing at a rapid pace.
Discussions on definitions moved from considering an itemized list of individual criteria to discussing cumulative sets of criteria that might be considered for an exemption under Article 2(c). A significant development occurred when Norway circulated the first informal textual proposal for Article 2(c).
Under the proposal, cluster munitions are all munitions that contain explosive submunitions which weigh less than 20 kilograms. It would, however, exclude from the prohibition cluster munitions containing submunitions that weigh more than 5 kilograms AND are designed to seek, detect and engage point targets, AND are equipped with electronic self destruct and self deactivation mechanisms.
While the proposal requires careful further study, it appears that, in plain terms, it would mean that virtually all cluster munitions that have been used to date would be banned under the Treaty.
The CMC maintains that the best possible solution would be to have no exclusions under Article 2(c). The focus of work on definitions should be based on the effects of cluster munitions and to ensure that no weapons are allowed under the treaty that have the effects of cluster munitions.
As discussions on definitions pick up speed, a tripartite division amongst delegations is emerging. One group of countries continues to call for exceptions for cluster munitions corresponding to those on their shelves—the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. A second group is opposed to any exception in Article 2(c), such as Indonesia, Ghana, Nigeria, Mexico, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Malawi, Lebanon, Botswana, Lesotho, and Senegal, to name a few. A third group are countries consolidating around a position that there are some munitions with more than one submunition that do not have the wide area and unexploded ordnance effects of cluster munitions and that could be excluded under a cumulative set of criteria in Article 2(c), such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland. It is feared though that many of these states will seek a transition period allowing them to use cluster munitions. Nonetheless the middle group’s willingness to prohibit cluster munitions as an entire category of weapons is a substantial shift and a far cry from the polarization of the Wellington Conference’s “likeminded” group.
During informal discussions on storage and stockpile destruction, Friend of the President Ambassador Kongstad of Norway went through a revised version of the text of Article 3 with delegations and will revise the article again. France and the UK maintained that a 6 year minimum clearance deadline might be unrealistic, or cause a multitude of extension requests. Regrettably, most States continue to support a stockpile destruction extension provision, which was reduced from 10 years to 2 four year periods. With objections from the CMC, they also added a provision allowing retention of cluster munitions for training, research, and development of countermeasures.
Informal discussions on interoperability were closed to NGOs today. A potentially negative textual proposal on interoperability is expected to be circulated tomorrow.
In contrast, informal discussions on victim assistance (Article 5 and the definition of cluster munition victim contained in Article 2) were nothing short of fantastic, in large part due to the hard work of many CMC campaigners. Initially, the UK stated that the definition of cluster munition victim, including the individual, their family and community was too broad, especially in regard to the notion of ‘community.’ The UK proposed narrowing the definition of victim to apply only in “affected areas.” A number of delegations defended the definition, citing significant problems arising from the fact that victims remain victims regardless of where they are and that people usually have to leave affected areas. Australia saved the day by proposing that the definition should cover victims and their “affected families and communities,” which proved satisfactory to all.
Guatemala introduced a joint proposal on behalf of Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Costa Rica, Chile, Honduras, Zambia, and Guinea, clarifying obligations on victim assistance including implementation, inclusion of survivors, nondiscrimination, and national focal points. 13 additional countries signed on in support of the proposal in the first hour.
The Committee of the Whole reconvened as well today to revisit Articles 11 through 22. Articles 11 (Meetings of States Parties), 12 (Review Conferences), 13 (Amendments), 15 (Signature), 16 (Ratification), 21 (Depositary), and 22 (Authentic Texts) were the first articles of the Treaty were provisionally concluded, meaning that the President had ascertained there was consensus on the articles and they were ready for a final review in the Committee of the Whole.
Article 17 on the required number of ratifications for the Treaty’s entry into force was contentious. France led a list of 9 States—Fiji, Germany, Indonesia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Slovakia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—who called for raising the number of necessary ratifications from 20 to 40. They were overwhelmingly opposed by a total of 20 States who urged that the number remain at 20 to trigger a rapid entry into force. Articles 18 (Provisional Application) and 19 (Amendments) will be revisited later. Disturbingly, a few States, including the UK, were reluctant to discuss reservations (currently prohibited under the Treaty) until the scope and definition in the treaty became clearer. The Committee of the Whole will meet again at 10am on Thursday to consider proposals for additional articles to the Treaty. Delegates will discuss a proposal by Switzerland on the relationship of the Treaty to other instruments of international law; a proposal for a transition period from Switzerland (for cluster munitions with self-destruct, self-deactivation, and self-neutralization mechanisms for an unspecified period of years); and a proposal from Slovakia (for all cluster munitions for a period of 12 years).
NGO sponsored events consisted of a workshop on engaging Parliamentarians, run by Portia Stratton and Anne Villeneuve; a lunchtime talk on sensor-fuzed munitions, held by Rae McGrath; a lunchtime talk on progress towards an Arms Trade Treaty, presented by Amnesty International, Oxfam and IANSA; and two evening events, an exhibition of “What Remains,” photography documenting the humanitarian harm caused by cluster munitions by Alison Locke and Chris Anderson; and an outdoor film screening of a new cut of Chris Anderson’s film “Unacceptable Harm.”
The Nitty-Gritty
Tuesday 20 May 2008
Off to a good start, on Tuesday 20 May 2008, the second day of the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions, work began in earnest on the substantive issues before the Conference. Informal discussions were held by the Friends of the Chair on the two critical issues of interoperability and definitions. Work continued simultaneously in the Committee of the Whole, where President O'Ceallaigh concluded the article by article discussion on the remainder of the Treaty, covering Articles 4 through 22.
In the informal discussions on Article 1 and interoperability, States made constructive interventions (at least rhetorically). A significant majority of States who expressed concerns over interoperability emphasized that they sought a solution that would not undermine the comprehensive obligations in Article 1 or in any way condone the use of cluster munitions by States outside the Treaty. A number of States rejected the idea that interoperability concerns pertaining to cluster munitions could be solved by adopting national declarations, as was done under the Mine Ban Treaty regime. A large portion of States suggested that additional language addressing interoperability should be added as a separate article in the Treaty. The Friend of the Chair on interoperability, Ambassador Schraner Burganer, held closed consultations with a selection of delegations.
Despite the number of affirmative assurances that the Treaty would not be weakened, new treaty text on interoperability is expected to be tabled tomorrow. This is disappointing for the CMC and those who support the present formulation of the Treaty and its strong prohibition on assistance. On the brighter side, however, no State proposed deleting Article 1(c) and negotiations seem to be progressing rapidly, which may set a precedent that consensus can be achieved on contentious issues.
Friend of the Chair Ambassador MacKay held three informal sessions on definitions. Long, but lively, the sessions lasted until 8:30 pm as Ambassador MacKay held structured discussions on a point by point review of elements to be considered as criteria for excluding certain munitions under Article 2(c). A number of other States continued to question the need for a 2(c) and expressed concerns this could lead to an exception for weapons with the same effects of cluster munitions. The CMC was an active participant in the informals on definitions, intervening on every point in MacKay's structure document.
Canada and Germany made encouraging interventions calling for a complete prohibition on all cluster munitions, with exclusions only for weapons based on cumulative criteria such that they would not have the same negative effects as cluster munitions. Canada noted that the burden was on States to demonstrate the reliability and accuracy of any weapon they sought to exclude. France stated it supported the cumulative approach suggested by Germany (point target capability, self-destruct, self-deactivate, and low number of submunitions), even though it would lead to an immediate ban of more than 80% of its national stockpiles of cluster munitions. The Netherlands' position appeared to be moving in a positive direction as it questioned the acceptability of reliability criteria, while South Africa also seemed to be heading towards the right camp when it stated that an approach based only on a limited number of submunitions was not acceptable.
The UK, however, looked increasingly isolated. Responding to Germany and Canada, the UK emphasized that the purpose of the Oslo Process, as it understood it, was not to ban all cluster munitions, that in essence there are good cluster munitions and bad cluster munitions. The UK might soon find itself in the company of the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Japan, and Slovakia—the only States who continue to call for broad exceptions.
On a low note, Spain tabled a proposal for an exemption, tailored to its own cluster munitions, for submunitions with a "self-safe mechanism that…guarantees that the number of remaining dangerous duds that can cause unacceptable harm to non-combatants is in practice equal to zero." This return to an approach based on a dangerous dud rate is extremely alarming (as well as unrealistic).
Overall, the outlook for definitions is optimistic. It appears that if there is an exclusion for certain munitions, it will be through a cumulative approach. The treaty will not contain a blanket exemption based on any one criteria in itself. Another testament to how far the Oslo Process has come this year, not a single State claimed that the presence of a self-destruct or self-deactivation device or a certain failure rate was justification for an exemption. Informals will continue on definitions tomorrow morning.
A brief, hour-long informal consultation was held on Article 3 on stockpile destruction. Poorly attended, Friend of the Chair Ambassador Kongstad of Norway went through the text of the article during the session. A revised draft text of the article will be presented tomorrow. To the dismay of the CMC, it appears there is widespread support for an extension period for the destruction deadline, and for the addition of a provision allowing retention of some submunitions for training, development, and military counter-measures.
In the review of the remaining articles in the Committee of the Whole, 15 delegations made interventions on clearance obligations. Discouragingly, 7 of these States—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom—proposed deleting obligations for past users of cluster munitions contained in Article 4.4. Bilateral consultations on Article 4 will take place tomorrow.
While States opposed obligations on past users in Article 4, Kenya and Zambia, supported by a number of developing countries, supported provisions on user responsibility in discussions on Article 6 on international cooperation and assistance. Discussions on Article 6 appear to be progressing smoothly and the President did not feel it necessary to appoint a Friend of the Chair.
29 States made interventions on Article 5 on victim assistance, highlighting the article's importance to many delegations. The article was strongly supported by African and Latin American States. Several Latin American delegations proposed treaty language based on CMC proposals. Informal consultations will begin tomorrow on victim assistance under the guidance of Friend of the Chair Markus Reiterer of Austria.
The remaining articles were covered briefly, with the understanding of the President that the articles will be revisited once the definition and scope of the Treaty become clearer as negotiations move forward. Belgium and Canada proposed amendments based on CMC language for improving Article 7 on transparency. Informal bilateral consultations are scheduled for Article 7.
On Article 8 on compliance, Argentina proposed the inclusion of fact-finding missions. South Africa was appointed Friend of the Chair and will conduct individual consultations and if necessary will meet as a group. Detailed discussions on Article 9 on national implementation were set aside in order to allow for further development of the Treaty. Botswana made an intervention referring to non-state actors, to which Ethiopia aligned itself. The CMC also made a statement. On Article 10, the UK proposed adding that referral to the ICJ should be "by mutual consent" and made a plea for the rationalization of meetings under Article 11. The United Nations proposed language regarding their role under Articles 13 through 22.
A lunchtime panel debate "Looking Survivors in the Eye: What Will Make Victim Assistance Really Work" was presented by Survivor Corps and Handicap International, followed by a film screening of "'Bomb Harvest," a Lemur Films production by Kim Mordaunt and Sylvia Wilczynski, presented by Austcare.
At the end of the second day of the Conference, a message to the media was that negotiations are on track and moving in the right direction as Friends of the Chair work towards developing text to be presented at the end of the week. Yet while things appear to be going well, the CMC anticipates that some may seek a trade-off between a comprehensive prohibition and a lengthy transition period. It will be critical to work now to prevent this and ensure that governments do not accept any type of transition period.
The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund hosted a reception in the evening where Umarbek Pulodov, a cluster munition survivor from Tajikistan spoke of his work in support of the treaty process.
A Strong Start
Monday 19 May 2008
The Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions began Monday 19 May 2008 with a smooth procedural start, a very positive tone and mood, and a highly efficient and interactive approach to the deliberations. The opening panel of speakers including Irish Foreign Minister of Affairs Michael Martin T.D.; a televised speech from UN Secretary General H.E. Ban Ki-Moon; UN Under Secretary General, Associate Administrator of the UNDP, Mr. Ad Melkert; ICRC President Dr. Jakob Kellenberger; and cluster munitions survivor Branislav Kapetanovich. Shortly before the Conference commenced, Soraj Ghulam Habib, a 16 year old cluster munitions survivor from Afghanistan, presented Irish MFA with a petition to ban cluster munitions containing over 700,000 signatures, amidst cheers from nearly 300 CMC campaigners.
The President of the Conference, Ambassador Daithi O’Ceallaigh of Ireland, quickly got the Conference down to business. The Rules of Procedure governing the Conference were adopted immediately with no objections from participants, resolving a potentially contentious issue. Setting a positive tone for the Conference, President O’Ceallaigh stated he was confident that by the end of the next two weeks the Conference will succeed in adopting a new international treaty banning cluster munitions, and he will make every feasible effort to ensure that it will be adopted by consensus.
To allow the Conference to begin discussing substantive issues without delay, President O’Ceallaigh convened the Committee of the Whole to discuss the Convention article by article, while general statements were heard in a separate plenary meeting. The President explained that where it was apparent that there was no consensus on a particular issue, a Friend of the Chair would be appointed to hold informal consultations in the search for agreement. One highlight from the plenary was Portugal’s announcement that it no longer has any cluster munitions in operational stocks and has commenced destruction of remaining cluster munitions in non-operational stocks. The plenary concluded its general exchange of views today with the CMC statement.
Articles 1, 2, and 3 on the general obligations and scope of applicability, definitions, and storage and stockpile destruction were covered in discussions, with a broad range of participation and an efficient pace. Interoperability, transition periods, definition, deadlines for stockpile destruction, and retention of cluster munitions for training and research purposes were the major issues that arose in the Committee of the Whole. Ambassador Christine Schraner Burganer of Switzerland was appointed Friend of the Chair for interoperability, Ambassador Don MacKay of New Zealand for definitions, and Ambassador Steffen Kongstad of Norway for storage and stockpile destruction.
Interoperability was a critical issue for many States, with a few saying that their approval of the entire Convention was conditional on finding an acceptable solution. Those with strong concerns emphasized that interoperability must be dealt with explicitly in the treaty text. Several countries, many who had not spoken on interoperability before, stated they were willing to discuss options but were concerned that proposals must not weaken the treaty. Encouragingly, no State proposed deleting the obligation in Article 1(c) and Friend of the Chair Ambassador Schraner Burganer told the Conference that she would work hard to find a solution that would not create a loophole or undermine the Convention.
Transition periods were also mentioned in discussions on Article 1, but overall received marginal attention. Germany, Denmark, Finland, Japan, and Switzerland reiterated their calls for transition periods. Sweden, for the first time, also stated that a transition period allowing continued use of cluster bombs was necessary, calling it a ‘decisive element.’ Others firmly opposed transition periods as contradictory to the spirit of the Convention.
Discussions on definitions appeared to be moving in a positive direction. There was dwindling support for broad exceptions for cluster munitions with self-destruct mechanisms or with a limited number of submunitions and a broad geographic representation of states opposed such exceptions.Canada made a proposal for Article 2(c), stating that it would agree to a ban on all cluster munitions as long as munitions with "sensor-fuzing and electrical fail safe systems" were excluded from the scope of the definition. This approach of banning all cluster munitions as defined gathered further support, with a number of States that have concerns on the definition issue, including Australia, theNetherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom emphasized adopting a cumulative approach to drafting Article 2(c), by applying multiple criteria for any weapons that might be allowed under that provision. CMC and ICRC made the point that it is the effects, capabilities and performance of weapons that counts, rather than simply the technology. As such no weapons with the effects of cluster munitions should be excluded from the definition of cluster munitions.
While it was a positive start on Monday, the negative proposals are more likely to come in the informal consultations with Canada and Australia noting they had proposals to table shortly on interoperability and Spain noting it had one read on definitions.
Discussions on stockpile destruction were less encouraging. While a number of States supported the 6 year deadline for stockpile destruction, many indicated that they were flexible on the time period allotted or would consider a 10 year minimum. The number of States calling for retaining cluster munitions for training, research, or the development of countermeasures rose significantly. Of the 24 States that spoke on Article 3, 21 called for the retention of a limited number of cluster munitions. Surprisingly, countries such as Argentina, Chile, Fiji, Indonesia, Malta, Panama, Peru,Portugal, Senegal, and South Africa said they would agree to the possibility of permitting the retention of cluster munitions. Indonesia, Fiji, and Peru cited concerns about their ability to train their peacekeeping forces, while others expressed the caveat that a provision include obligations on transparency and or an explicit minimum number permissible. No State spoke in favor of strengthening obligations in Article 3, such as reducing the minimum time necessary for clearance or eliminating the possibility for an additional 10 year extension, as the CMC recommends. The CMC made interventions on all articles and these will be available shortly.
In addition to the Conference sessions, a lunchtime talk, “A New Treaty on Cluster Munitions: Perspectives from Lao PDR” was presented by UNDP and Landmine Action UK and an exhibition of Werner Anderson’s photographs of cluster munitions victims was unveiled by Norwegian People’s Aid, and Deputy Minister of Defence for Norway, Espen Barth Eide.
At the end of the day, the feeling in Croke Park Stadium was that work was charging ahead. Informal discussions on interoperability will begin tomorrow at 9am, directly followed by definitions at 10:30. The article by article review will continue simultaneously in the Committee of the Whole. There was extensive coverage of the opening of the Conference in the media, both internationally and locally in Ireland. The dynamic partnership of the Oslo Process was illustrated by a joint press conference between Foreign Minister Martin, Jakob Kellenberger (ICRC), Ad Melkert (UNDP) and Thomas Nash (CMC). One highlight of the print media was the publication of a letter signed by of high ranking former UK and NATO military generals calling for the UK to agree to a total ban on cluster munitions in the Times UK.
Croke Park: la partita più importante
Lo stadio di Croke Park, la cui enorme mole di cemento armato si staglia su un orizzonte di tetti di ardesia nella periferia di Dublino, è spesso teatro di appassionanti sfide di calcio gaelico, sport molto popolare in Irlanda che ad un occhio profano appare come un ibrido tra il calcio come lo conosciamo ed il rugby. La partita che si giocherà qui tra il 19 ed il 30 di maggio è però di tutt’altra natura: in gioco ci sono la conclusione di un trattato per la messa al bando delle bombe a grappolo, ed il destino di milioni di persone. In campo scenderanno 128 delegazioni governative (di cui 19 con status di osservatori) e più di 250 rappresentanti della società civile.
Sebbene gli 80.000 posti sugli spalti rimarranno vuoti, milioni di occhi sono puntati su Croke Park, anche grazie all’appello lanciato dal Pontefice nel corso dell’angelus di domenica 18 maggio per uno “strumento internazionale forte e credibile [sulle munizioni cluster] per rimediare agli errori del passato ed evitare che si ripetano in futuro.”
A dimostrazione dell’attenzione internazionale riservata al tema, al suo arrivo a Croke Park per l’apertura della Conferenza, il nuovo Ministro degli Esteri irlandese Michéal Martin, ha trovato ad attenderlo una piccola folla di attivisti provenienti da una sessantina di Paesi, “capitanata” da Soraj Ghulam Habib http://blog.banadvocates.org/index.php?post/2007/11/02/Soraj-Ghulam-Habib, sedicenne di Herat a cui una submunizione inesplosa ha strappato entrambe le gambe mentre giocava con gli amici per strada all’età di otto anni. Soraj ha consegnato al ministro irlandese più di 700.000 firme raccolte in tutto il mondo a sostegno della messa al bando dell’arma che gli ha cambiato la vita per sempre.
La voce delle vittime, delle loro famiglie e comunità è risuonata anche nella cerimonia inaugurale. Nel suo discorso di apertura, Branislav Kapetanovic http://blog.banadvocates.org/index.php?post/2008/05/19/Branislavs-Statement-Dublin-19-May-2008 , ex sminatore dell’esercito yugoslavo, ha ricordato come sia “offensivo” per coloro che hanno sofferto gli effetti di queste armi sentire che alcuni governi fanno pressioni per escludere alcuni tipi di munizioni cluster dal trattato perché dotate di meccanismi di autodistruzione “più moderni ed efficienti”. “Ho perso entrambe le gambe e le braccia, parte della vista e dell’udito a causa di un tipo di munizione che, quando è stata introdotta era considerata “moderna ed efficiente”. Durante la prima guerra del golfo è stato dimostrato che questo tipo di arma aveva un tasso di fallibilità eccessivamente alto. Eppure è stato usato di nuovo parecchi anni dopo in Yugoslavia, solo perché era disponibile. E’ per questo che anche la distruzione di tutte le munizioni cluster negli arsenali è un elemento molto importante del futuro trattato.”
Sebbene il risultato non sia del tutto certo, il presidente della Conferenza, l’ambasciatore irlandese O’Ceallaigh ha dichiarato senza esitazione che l’obiettivo delle prossime due settimane è la conclusione di un trattato, anche a costo di sacrificare il consenso tra le delegazioni partecipanti.
Come rappresentanti della società civile abbiamo un obiettivo ancora più ambizioso, che il trattato non venga diluito o dirottato per servire interessi militari o economici, ma dia una risposta concreta alla richiesta imperativa di Rahid, padre libanese il cui bambino Ahmad è morto dopo quattro ore di agonia, dilaniato da una munizione cluster inesplosa durante il pic-nic per il suo quinto compleanno: che quello che è successo ad Ahmad non si ripeta mai più.