Newsletter December 2003 [No. 5 2003]

Cluster Munitions Coalition

AMAT/AT Submunitions (Conventional)

After months of preparation, a new international NGO coalition dealing with the serious humanitarian impact of cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war (ERW) was launched on 13 November 2003 in The Hague, the Netherlands, by eighty-five member organisations from forty-two countries from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Middle East, including CALM.

The CMC was founded to provide a coordinated, global civil society response to the growing problems created by cluster munitions and other ERW. The CMC is an inclusive coalition open to NGOs, community groups and professional associations, which support the aims, policy objectives and the overall programme of action by the coalition.

The CMC will be governed by a small steering committee and will have a number of sub-groups working on various aspects of the ERW issue.

Cluster munitions are a category of weapon in urgent need of stronger national and international regulation in order to protect civilians during and after armed conflict. The immediate danger that cluster munitions pose to civilians during attacks is exacerbated by their inaccuracy and wide dispersal pattern. The long-term danger they pose after conflict is due to the high number of submunitions duds (with wounding effects, if exploded, at least as serious as anti-personnel mines).

There is also the potential future danger of widespread proliferation. While some States, such as the US and UK, have improved their systems for properly identifying military targets in order to reduce civilian casualties where air-deployed cluster munitions are concerned, the increasing use of groundlaunched cluster munitions, for instance in Iraq, is proving to have alarming humanitarian consequences because of their poor targeting, inaccuracy and sheer numbers. The widespread use of cluster munitions has been well documented in our earlier newsletters along with their negative socio-economic impacts.

Cluster munitions pose an especially high risk to civilians in the growing number of conflicts where they have been used. There are now thirty-three producers and 58 countries around the world with cluster munitions in their arsenals. Within the CCW, 39 States Parties and two signatories have stockpiles of cluster munitions and/or are users of them: Argentina, Belgium, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt (signatory), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia,

Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sudan (signatory), Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK, USA and Uzbekistan. Explosive remnants of war, whether ordnance that has failed to function as intended or abandoned stockpiles, can put civilian lives and livelihoods at risk long after conflict has ended. Unlike antipersonnel mines, there is currently no provision in international law to comprehensively address the post-conflict humanitarian impacts of cluster munitions and other ERW on civilian populations, despite agreement on CCW Protocol V.

The Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC)’s 3-point call to governments includes:

1. No use, production or trade of cluster munitions until the humanitarian problems associated with the weapons have been resolved;
   
   
2. Increased resources for assistance to communities and individuals affected by unexploded cluster munitions and all other explosive remnants of war; and
   
   
3. Users of cluster munitions and other munitions that become ERW to accept special responsibility for clearance, warnings and markings, risk education, provision of information and victim assistance.

Committee Activities

Lawrence Carter organised meetings in Auckland and Waiheke Island to show the video on cluster bombs;

Deborah Morris has begun work as LM Researcher for NZ and the Pacific with the assistance of Geraldine Canham-Harvey;

David Wilkin and John Head have sent publicity to Ponsonby Intermediate school for a fund raising project;

Alyn Ware has attended the UN First Committee in New York; and

Chris Swain leaves very soon to teach English at the Youth Centre of Korea. He will be away 5 weeks and hopes to work on landmine activities.

Brian and Leang Hayes attended the Thai reception to mark the King’s 76th bithday and were thanked for their fundraising work.

We look forward to the return of Deborah Morris to New Zealand in the first part of 2004.

The video lent was “Are We The Enemy?” produced by the women of Cambodia. Perhaps next year we should do more to let secondary school teachers know of landmine resources available.

RESOURCES for further information on cluster munitions;

• www.landmineaction.org
• www.hrw.org/arms/clusterbombs.php
• www.hrw.org/arms/clusterbombs.php
• www.icrc.org

The Debate On ERW Within The CCW

The meeting of the States Parties to the CCW concluded on 28 November 2003 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The main outcome was the decision to adopt a new Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) annexed to the CCW. Ambassador Rakesh Sood of India chaired the meeting. The legally binding instrument will be known as “Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War”.

This decision reflected the recommendation of a CCW Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), including New Zealand Government representatives, that has been working since 2001, and reached final agreement on a text on 24 November.

The States Parties also confirmed their commitment to take further action with the aim of strengthening the Convention and agreeing on follow-up work for its GGE in 2004. The GGE will hold three sessions in 2004: 8-12 March, 5-16 July, and 8-16 November. Detailed information about these future meetings can be found on the UN website.

Protocol V will enter into force once ratified by 20 States. Ambassador Sood hailed the agreement as the first legally binding treaty on disarmament adopted at the United Nations since CCW Amended Protocol II on mines, booby traps and other explosive devices was agreed in 1996.

The US Bush administration, which has expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of international arms control treaties, was one of those involved in the negotiations on the ERW agreement. CALM Committee member John Borrie (author of the Landmine Action’s “Global Survey of Explosive Remnants of War”) wrote from Geneva that “the protocol is legally binding, even if it is weak. As you know, a key question was whether the United States, which had previously expressed a preference for a political declaration, would allow a consensus on a legally binding instrument. The US delegation phrased their acquiescence very carefully: they said that the US could agree not to oppose formation of a consensus for a protocol. But of course this is quite different from a statement of commitment to join the instrument.” Edward Cummings, head of the U.S. delegation, said that “Everybody wanted it to be legally binding and we did not want to stand in the way”. Cummings added that no decision had been taken yet on whether Washington would actually sign the treaty.

All the big military powers, including the US, Russia, India, Pakistan and China, are parties to the CCW and have agreed on the text of the new protocol, though they have not yet committed themselves to ratifying and implementing it.

In a message to the negotiators, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described the leftovers of war as “sleeping killers which continue to threaten men and women in fields and children at play, endanger the lives of aid workers and hold back reconstruction and development”.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the original initiator of the discussions on unexploded ordnance in 2000 and a key player in the negotiations, reacted favourably to the news of an imminent agreement on a new protocol. “In the countries where we have a presence, we are going to have legal means to approach the authorities and ask them to work together with us,” said Dominique Loye, a technical advisor in the ICRC’s mines and arms unit.

The protocol’s primary obligations are that it requires each party to an armed conflict to

• Clear the ERW in territory they control after a conflict, and, • Provide technical, material and financial assistance in areas they do not control to facilitate the removal of the unexploded or abandoned ordnance resulting from their operations. This assistance can be provided directly to the party in control of the territory or through a third party such as the UN, NGO’s or other organizations.

• Record information on the explosive ordnance employed by their armed forces and to share that information with organizations engaged in the clearance of ERW and programs to warn civilians of the dangers of these devices.

• Provide warnings to civilians of the ERW dangers in specific areas. The protocol’s core obligations (mainly in Articles 3 and 4) are clear and, together with the protocol’s technical annex, provide a detailed roadmap of how obligations on ERW are to be implemented for the most part.

John Borrie commented that a downside of the new Protocol V is that the obligations within the instrument are heavily qualified with phrases like “where feasible”. “Even by diplomatic standards, this weakness is evident when read alongside CCW Amended Protocol II, itself hardly outstanding in terms of the clarity and strength of its obligations”, he said. “Protocol V scores a B Minus. It’s not a failure, and does reflect some progress. But the international community could do considerably better, and will need to, if it sincerely wishes to tackle the effects of ERW on post-conflict communities.”

The principal obligations of the ERW protocol will apply primarily to future conflicts. It is, in other words, not retroactive, although there is a weak reference within the protocol giving each State Party the right to seek assistance from other States Parties to help it remove ERW that may already be in its territory (Article 7). States Parties, in a position to do so, are obliged to provide assistance to help ERW-affected States Parties reduce the threats posed by existing explosive remnants of war. However, the operative phrase here is “in a position to do so”, obviously determined by the requested State itself.

New Zealand’s Role

John Borrie reported strong New Zealand commitment to the ERW process, and its integrity on issues of substance. New Zealand’s delegation fought very hard on the negotiation floor and behind the scenes for the strength of key provisions in Articles 3 (user obligations) and 4 (information exchange). Also especially active in this manner were Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Mexico and South Africa. New Zealand’s Ambassador for Disarmament, Tim Caughley, delivered a short statement after adoption of the protocol in which he welcomed its agreement, although he noted that “certainly there are articles where New Zealand would have preferred stronger language.” Caughley made special mention of the importance of Article 3, and noted that he was pleased with Article 4; calling on future States Parties to have in place the necessary procedures for adequate information exchange. He noted that the New Zealand Government remains “gravely concerned” about the effects of submunitions on civilians. This has, in New Zealand’s view, implications for the vitality of the CCW if not dealt with.

John noted the relative outspokeness of the UN system, spearheaded by New Zealander John Flanagan, who attended for the first day en route to the Middle East in his new role as UNMAS Ops Director. (Flanagan was previously a Major with the New Zealand Army, and is a familiar figure both in New Zealand and internationally on demining issues, having worked for UNMAS previously and in demining operations in Cambodia, Mozambique and Kosovo.) The UN Inter-Agency Support Group (IASG), comprising 14 of the most active UN agencies including UNMAS and UNICEF delivered a number of statements, including its round-up delivered by another Kiwi, Ross Mountain of UNHCR, at the end.

John said he believed it would take the CMC a couple of years to “ramp up”, but that civil society action is going to be as crucial as it was in the Mine Ban Convention campaign to deal adequately with existing ERW and submunitions. His view is that, despite adoption of Protocol V, achievement of such measures seems more likely in a humanitarian or developmental context outside the CCW, than within it.

This poses the question that if the world media has given as little publicity to these issues as the New Zealand media, how is civil society going to be activated? This is something CALM will need to ponder carefully, and devise solutions in the context of our own domestic environment and regional neighbourhood. In the meantime, CALM’S challenge is to see that New Zealand is one of the first countries to ratify Protocol V. Initial reaction from the Minister for Disarmament and the Disarmament Division has been very positive.

Launch of Landmine Monitor 2003

Breaking from tradition, this year the launch was held at the Loaves and Fishes at the Wellington Cathedral on the 17 October 2003.

Remembering the recent 5MSP in Bangkok, Thailand, our guests were welcomed with a Thai Welcome dance and a Thai finger food lunch provided by the Thai community. Wellington City Councillor and CALM Deputy Convenor, David Zwartz chaired the function. Before the guest speakers, CALM Convenor John Head spoke briefly on his work as Landmine Monitor Researcher for New Zealand and 14 Pacific nations. Brian Hayes commented on his and his wife Leang’s “Running for those who can not Run” and thanked people for the sponsorship support he had received. The Thai Ambassador, H.E. Mr Norachit Sinhaseni spoke of the success of the 5MSP and reminded us of the problems caused by landmines in Thailand and the efforts to clear them.

Hon Marian Hobbs, New Zealand’s Minister for Disarmament and a strong advocate for the full implementation of the Ottawa Convention, thanked NZ CALM for its advocacy within New Zealand and for its “tireless efforts in compiling information on the Pacific.” Marian also spoke of the success of the 5MSP and noted that not only were four CALM representatives present but that we were supported by three NGO reps from Pacific nations, the latter funded by the New Zealand Government. She concluded with a positive statement about the future of the Ottawa Convention. Copies of the two speeches are available from the Convenor.

Laos; US BLU 3-B cluster bombs intact inside their dispenser.

The Clear Up Campaign

Landmine Action in the UK initiated this international campaign. We have supported it by distributing publicity and petition forms. Our supporters have held three film evenings to highlight the history and horrors of cluster munitions.

Any member who still holding petition forms should mail these, please, to CALM at Box 17-195 Karori. We appreciate the efforts of those who have been collecting signatures.

Congratulations to Dave and Isobel Silvester of Papatoetoe for collecting 33 signatures. Anne Quensey, the UK coordinator, said the international campaign has collected nearly 100,000 signatures: these were presented to the CCW States Parties at Geneva during their recent deliberations.

End Of The Year

The end of the year is near and it is an appropriate time to thank members for their support and to wish you all the compliments of the season. May you have a relaxing holiday.

John V Head, Convenor

This newsletter has been prepared by John Head, typeset by Nathan Donaldson and Louise Head and printed and distributed by Stuart Beresford.