|
Simon Conway: “Banning Bomblets” (The World Today, Chatham House). “For forty years, from Laos to Lebanon, cluster munitions have been the weapon of choice for industrialised nations against poorer, agrarian states. Now an alliance of small and medium sized countries, supported by the Cluster Munition Coalition, a network of more than two hundred humanitarian organisations spread across fifty countries, stands poised to deliver a comprehensive ban.” Click here to read the full article. |
|
Press Release
US: Efforts to Weaken Cluster Ban Treaty Threat to US Humanitarian Aid Overblown
(Dublin, May 22, 2008) – The US government is trying to win dangerous loopholes in a new treaty on cluster munitions even though it is not participating in the international conference to hammer out a final text, Human Rights Watch said today.
US allies at the conference in Dublin to negotiate a global ban are proposing that the treaty allow parties to assist other countries using cluster munitions during joint military operations. American diplomats have lobbied hard for this provision in world capitals, although they are not present in Dublin.
“We are here to ban cluster munitions, not to create loopholes that would make it easier for the United States to use them,” said Steve Goose, director of the Arms division at Human Rights Watch. “US allies in Dublin must resist the pressure from Washington.”
The current draft treaty text includes a provision that obliges states parties to the treaty not to assist non-states parties with acts that are prohibited by the treaty, such as cluster munition use. The provision will help stigmatize cluster munitions, as well as deter states that are not party to the treaty from using them. Opponents of the provision argue that it will interfere with joint military operations. They fear that their soldiers will be held criminally liable for the actions of their allies, but these fears are overstated and are apparently in response to US pressure.
States parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, which uses virtually the same language, have been able to conduct joint operations with their allies who are not states parties, including the US, without incurring liability. The Mine Ban Treaty has been signed and ratified by 156 nations, including most US allies but not including the United States, and includes virtually the same provision as the current draft of the cluster munitions treaty.
The US government is threatening that the ban on clusters would prevent it from undertaking or participating in humanitarian operations. In fact, identical provisions in the treaty banning landmines have had no effect on US humanitarian efforts in the 11 years since the treaty came into force.
On Wednesday, Stephen Mull, acting assistant secretary for political military affairs at the US Department of State, told reporters, “… if the convention passes in its current form, any US military ship would be technically not able to get involved in a peacekeeping operation, in providing disaster relief or humanitarian assistance as we’re doing right now in the aftermath of the earthquake in China and the typhoon in Burma, and not to mention everything that we did in Southeast Asia after the tsunami in December of 2004.”
The US objection is based on its claim that its ships and mobile units would be banned from ports, as they are sometimes equipped with clusters. But no country has ever banned US units on humanitarian mission from ports on the basis of what arms might possibly be on board, despite similar provisions in other weapons treaties. Mull’s claim that relief missions to places like Burma or China would be impeded is particularly disingenuous, as these countries are not taking part in the treaty discussions.
“It is unfortunate that US officials are making such inaccurate statements,” Goose said. “If they really cared about the process and wanted to protect their interests, the US would be in Dublin negotiating. Sadly, it is not.”
States are currently discussing the addition of new text to clarify the prohibition on assistance provision. Human Rights Watch does not view this new text as necessary, but understands states’ desire for more clarification. There are 109 states in Dublin to conduct final negotiations on a cluster munitions convention. The treaty process began in February 2007 in Oslo, and states are expected to adopt a new convention on May 30, 2008.
Cluster munitions are large weapons that contain dozens or hundreds of smaller submunitions. They cause unacceptable humanitarian harm in two ways. First, their broad area effect kills and injures civilians during strikes. Second, many submunitions do not explode, becoming de facto landmines that cause civilian casualties for months or years to come.
For more information on the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions, please visit: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/05/16/global18845.htm
For more of Human Rights Watch’s work on cluster munitions, please visit: http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=arms_clusterbombs http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/clusters/index.htm
For more information, please contact: In Dublin, Steve Goose: +1-540-630-3011 (mobile); or gooses@hrw.org In Dublin, Mark Hiznay: +353-86-668-4636 (mobile) ; or hiznaym@hrw.org In Dublin, Bonnie Docherty: +1-617-669-1636 (mobile); or docherb@hrw.org In Dublin, Marc Garlasco (English): +1-914-450-4251 (mobile); or garlasm@hrw.org |
|
Progress on cluster bomb treaty but obstacles remain: Strong support for victim assistance but concerns on delays in the ban and joint military operations with the U.S.
(Dublin, Ireland, May 26th, 2008) At the beginning of the final week of diplomatic negotiations on a new treaty to ban cluster munitions, the non-governmental Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) said that it is pleased with the progress made thus far, but that strong concerns remain about efforts by some countries to weaken the treaty. The CMC is the umbrella organization representing civil society at the negotiations and has formal observer status.
"Countries around the world have made exceptional progress toward a strong treaty to ban these deadly and indiscriminate weapons," said Grethe Ostern of Norwegian People's Aid, and Co-Chair of the CMC. "But some governments seem out of step with the widespread desire for the most comprehensive treaty possible, including the United Kingdom, Japan, Finland, Denmark, and Slovakia," she added.
The CMC is especially concerned about two problematic areas still outstanding. First is the desire of some states to have a "transition period" so that they can continue to use some of their banned cluster munitions for a number of years. Second is the effort by some to insert a provision that would allow treaty signatories to intentionally assist others with the use of cluster munitions in joint military operations, as well as to allow those outside the treaty to indefinitely stockpile cluster munitions on their soil. The United States – which is not present in Dublin—has been applying strong pressure behind the scenes on this joint military operations or "interoperability" issue. The countries pushing hardest for this provision, which would clearly undercut the integrity of the treaty, include the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and Canada, as well as Denmark, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.
The current draft treaty text prohibits any assistance with banned acts, and these countries state that they are only seeking legal protections for their soldiers during joint operations when the U.S. may use cluster munitions.
"It is vital that we protect our servicemen and women from prosecution as a result of the irresponsible acts of partners in joint military operations, but the articles of the treaty are not there to give a sly nod to those who wish to continue using these indiscriminate weapons," said Landmine Action's Simon Conway, former soldier, deminer and Co-Chair of the Cluster Munition Coalition.
Certain countries are seeking "transition periods" of some seven to fifteen years during which they would still be able to use banned cluster munitions, claiming that they cannot give up the weapons—which they acknowledge cause unacceptable harm to civilians—until they have filled a perceived military capability gap. The strongest calls for a transition period are coming from Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
"Some states are insisting that they must be able to say: 'now we ban them, now we don't.' In order to protect their existing arsenals, they want to wave a magic wand and un-ban weapons that everyone agrees cause too many civilian casualties," said Steve Goose, Co-Chair of the CMC and Director of the Arms division at Human Rights Watch.
Another area of concern is stockpile destruction, with the insertion of a new clause allowing states to keep a number of cluster munitions for clearance training and other purposes, and the addition of two years (to 8 total) to the destruction deadline.
The CMC said that after the first week of talks, states have demonstrated their humanitarian commitment most notably through progress on victim assistance, with groundbreaking provisions mandating such assistance, as well as plans for implementing it and reporting on it. Work on provisions related to clearance of contaminated areas also progressed well, and many states are standing firm on the importance of the obligation of past users to provide support for affected states.
Ahmed Najem, CMC member and a cluster bomb survivor from Iraq said: "We really welcome the fact that both donor and affected countries are waking up to their responsibility to provide victim assistance and we are hopeful that this treaty will go way beyond other treaties in terms of humanitarian assistance for affected communities."
A total of 109 countries are full participants in the negotiations, and another 20 are observers. The treaty process was launched in Oslo, Norway in February 2007 when 46 nations agreed to conclude a treaty prohibiting cluster munitions "that cause unacceptable harm to civilians" in 2008. The treaty text was developed during international meetings in Peru, Austria, and New Zealand.
Banning an entire class of weapon will have an effect well beyond the signatories of the treaty. The stigmatisation of this weapon in practice will extend to all countries stockpiling and using them. Despite the fact that the US, Russia and China did not sign the treaty banning antipersonnel landmines in 1997, there has since been virtually no production, trade or use of the weapon anywhere in the world by governments.
The negotiations are scheduled to conclude on Friday, May 30, when the participating states will adopt the final text of the treaty; no further changes can be made after that point. The treaty will then be opened for signature to all countries—even those not present during the negotiations—in Oslo, Norway on December 2-3, 2008. After signing the treaty, countries still need to ratify it, usually through legislative approval, before it becomes fully legally binding. |
|
US cluster bombs to be banned from UK Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian, Thursday May 29 2008
The US will no longer be able to stockpile cluster bombs at its military bases in Britain under government proposals for an international ban on the controversial weapons, it emerged last night.
As diplomats from more than 100 states unanimously passed a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs around the world, it emerged that British ministers are prepared to go further.
The government has agreed to scrap the two types of cluster weapon in the armoury of British forces, but it will also ask the US to get rid of its cluster bombs based here, and it will no longer ask for a "phasing out" period for its newest cluster munition - the M73, which is attached to Apache attack helicopters.
Both this weapon and the M85 - an Israeli-designed artillery shell used by British forces during the 2003 invasion of southern Iraq - will now be scrapped as soon as possible. Cluster weapons scatter "bomblets" across a wide area. Many of them fail to explode, later killing and maiming civilians long after the weapons are fired. |
|
Gordon Brown yesterday described the treaty - due to be formally signed in Oslo in December - as "a major breakthrough". He added: "We will now work to encourage the widest possible international support for the new convention." In a statement released by Downing Street, he said: "I am delighted that the negotiations in Dublin have come to a successful conclusion, and congratulate the Irish government and all those involved. I am confident that this agreement is in line with British interests and values, and makes the world a safer place."
Final negotiations centred on the issue of "interoperability" - how far troops from countries signed up to the treaty should "cooperate" with troops from countries that have not, notably the US.
The US claimed last week that the treaty could jeopardise its participation in joint peacekeeping and disaster relief operations, as most American military units have cluster bombs in their armoury. The US is not party to the Dublin talks, but officials in London emphasised yesterday that it was the government's intention to ban cluster bombs at American bases in Britain.
Troops from Britain and other countries signing up to the cluster bomb ban would not be subjected to prosecution under international law if they were engaged in operations with those still free to use the weapons, the draft Dublin treaty is expected to say.
The Ministry of Defence was reluctant to abandon the UK's two cluster weapons, though some defence officials said yesterday that they were hardly going to be useful against small groups of Iraqi insurgents or Taliban fighters or in the battle for "hearts and minds".
Campaigners and human rights groups welcomed the UK government's ban on cluster weapons.
"The treaty will create a new international standard that will prevent the use of cluster munitions even by those countries that have not signed up," said Simon Conway, of Landmine Action UK. Along with the US, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan are not taking part in the Dublin talks. |
|
Human Rights Watch Press Release: Cluster Bomb Treaty Breaks New Ground
(Dublin, May 30, 2008) – The new cluster munitions treaty adopted in Dublin will save thousands of lives for decades to come, with key treaty provisions stronger than even some of its staunchest supporters had expected, Human Rights Watch said today.
The treaty immediately bans all types of cluster munitions, rejecting initial attempts by some nations to negotiate exceptions for their own arsenals, as well as calls for a transition that would delay the ban for a decade or more.
In addition to the prohibitions on use, production, stockpiling, and trade, the treaty also includes very strong provisions requiring states to provide assistance to victims and to clean up areas affected by cluster munitions.
“This treaty will make the world a safer place for millions of people,” said Steve Goose, director of the Arms division at Human Rights Watch. “Cluster munitions have been tossed on the ash heap of history. No nation will ever be able to use them again without provoking the immediate revulsion and disapproval of most countries in the world.”
Cluster munitions typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds of tiny bomblets over an area the size of a football field. Used in urban areas, they invariably kill and injure civilians. Used in any circumstance, they can harm civilians even decades after the war is over, as “duds” on the ground act like landmines, exploding on contact.
Both governments and non-governmental organizations campaigning for the treaty built consciously on the precedent set by the 1997 Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty. But in many ways, the Convention on Cluster Munitions goes farther, Human Rights Watch said.
“This treaty bans not just some cluster munitions, but all cluster munitions,” Goose told the assembled delegates in his capacity as co-chair of the Cluster Munitions Coalition, a group of hundreds of NGOs supporting the ban. “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. This is a convention with no delays. This can only be described as an extraordinary convention.”
Human Rights Watch urged governments supporting the treaty to make all necessary preparations to sign the treaty in Oslo in December 2008. The treaty will go into effect after 30 nations have signed and ratified it.
Several of the world’s biggest users or stockpilers of cluster munitions were not present at the Dublin talks, including the United States, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, and Israel. But experience with the Mine Ban Treaty suggests that even non-signatories will ultimately feel bound by the ban on cluster munitions. Although the United States has still not signed the Mine Ban Treaty, for example, it has not used, exported, or produced any antipersonnel landmines since the treaty was negotiated 11 years ago.
“The most important thing this treaty does is to stigmatize cluster munitions,” said Goose. “The stigma will grow and deepen over time, and ultimately make the use of cluster munitions unthinkable by anyone.”
The new treaty’s sole disappointment came in Article 21, which is designed to provide legal protection for a signatory’s armed forces if another country uses cluster munitions during joint military operations. Human Rights Watch urged governments to make clear in official statements a “common understanding” that the treaty does not allow deliberate assistance for the use of cluster munitions during joint operations and does not allow non-signatories to stockpile cluster munitions on the territory of signatory states.
The UK government has already indicated that it will ask the United States to remove its cluster munitions from UK territory within the eight-year deadline for stockpile destruction.
The United States has not been present at the negotiations, but put intense, behind-the-scenes pressure on negotiating states to avoid inhibiting future US use of the banned weapon.
Article 21 of the treaty also includes a requirement that signatories actively discourage use by other states. |