The Great Debate UK
Make no exceptions to ban on cluster munitions
- Bonnie Docherty, a researcher in the Arms Division at Human Rights Watch, has conducted investigative field missions on cluster munition use in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Georgia and was actively involved in the negotiations for the new Convention on Convention Munitions. The opinions expressed are her own. -
Six months after the new treaty banning cluster munitions opened for signature, half the world has formally expressed its support. So far, the Convention on Cluster Munitions has an impressive 98 signatories, 10 of which have ratified. Those figures are growing, and Albania, Niger, and Spain ratified this month. The convention will enter into force six months after the thirtieth state ratifies. Many observers predict that it will actually enter into force in 2010, a remarkably short turnaround for international law.
The groundbreaking convention absolutely bans the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. These large weapons carry dozens or hundreds of smaller submunitions and are notorious for causing horrible civilian deaths or injuries both during attacks and afterward.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions also requires countries that are party to destroy their stockpiles within eight years, clear their territory of unexploded submunitions within 10 years, and provide assistance to cluster munition victims. The convention is already having a positive effect at the national level. In March, Spain became the first among those that have signed to finish destroying its stockpiles – and Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom have started the process.
Countries that have signed the convention are convening in Berlin this week for the first time since the December 2008 signing ceremony in Oslo. Although the subject of the meeting is stockpile destruction, delegates are certain to gather in the hallways to discuss some outstanding matters of how to interpret the treaty.
The topic most debated behind the scenes will be what is called interoperability – that is, how the ban on cluster munitions applies during military operations with states that are not party to the treaty. Human Rights Watch has just released a legal analysis of the issue, and many participating countries are considering how to address it in their implementation legislation.
Despite the international support for a strong treaty, certain states are proposing a weak interpretation that threatens to undermine the purpose of the convention: to eliminate cluster munitions and their humanitarian harm.
Here in Aotearoa New Zealand we’re campaigning for our government to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It has been six months since the treaty was opened for signature and we really hope that New Zealand will be one of the first 30 states that ratifies and helps the treaty take effect.
We’re asking New Zealand to take a strong stance on the “interoperability” provisions of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, especially to recognise that the prohibition on assist is a core obligation of the Convention.
This is a real-life concern as New Zealand is currently considering whether to send another deployment of troops to Afghanistan. The United States has not banned cluster bombs and last used the weapon in Afghanistan in 2003. So we want our government to affirm that it will abide by the prohibition on assist and not in any way help the US or others to use cluster bombs in joint military operations.