ban newsletter 23

8/7/2019 Ban Newsletter 23

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ban-newsletter-23 1/10

ISSUE 23

SEPTEMBER 2008

IN THIS ISSUE:

P 1 EDITORIAL IN THIS ISSUE

P 3-5 107 STATES ADOPTED

THE CONVENTION ON

CLUSTER MUNITIONS

P 6 MEASURES TO

IMPLEMENT THE

CONVENTION ON

CLUSTER MUNITIONS

P 7 OPPORTUNITIES AND

CHALLENGES ON

CLUSTER MUNITIONS

P 8 MINE BAN TREATY

UPDATE

P 9 UPDATE ON

INVESTMENTS IN

LANDMINES AND

CLUSTER MUNITIONS

SHORT NEWS

P 10 RECENT PUBLICATIONS

AND WEBSITES

PROVISIONAL

CALENDAR

Research and writing:Policy Unit

Handicap International67, Rue de Spastraat

1000 BrusselsBELGIUM

Phone: +32 2 280 16 [email protected]

www.handicapinternational.be

EDITORIAL

On 30 May 2008, 107 states adopted the Convention on ClusterMunitions. This sounds simple. It is not. The adoption of this newconvention is the result of years of efforts and the progressiveconstruction of “clusters of cooperators”1 made of individuals fromdifferent backgrounds and affiliations. It also demonstrates for the

second time that by working together states, civil society andinternational organizations can rid the world of indiscriminateweapons. Together with many others, we feel privileged to havebeen part of this incredible process. We would like to draw a fewlessons from this experience.

Firstly, we learned how individuals affected by cluster munitionscould play a key role in shaping what will now be a new internationalnorm. When we launched the Ban Advocates initiative,2 we knew thatwe had a lot to learn from working with individuals whose lives havebeen dramatically changed because cluster munitions were onceused against their community. More than us, cluster munition victims know what a cluster munition is and why it should be banned. They

know what the needs of their communities are. And beyond thetheoretical discussions that often take place in multilateral talks, theycan inject a much-needed sense of reality. All along, we have beenimpressed by their intelligence, courage and determination. Webelieve that they played a crucial role in the whole process. In Dublin,the Ban Advocates team concentrated its time and efforts on workingtogether with countries that had reservations about a comprehensiveban on cluster munitions. We rapidly realized that the regularmeetings that the Ban Advocates had with delegations were having amajor impact since we could see the positions and attitudes of thosedelegations evolving on a daily basis. This tells us something abouthuman beings from different backgrounds connecting with each otherand developing new policies for future generations.

Secondly, we saw for the second time the huge potential of apartnership between states and civil society. As Norway put it in itsclosing statement in Dublin, “The key to the success of thispartnership lies in the mutual respect for our different roles, while at

1See www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/ClusterUNIDIR%20Lewis.pdf

2We launched the Ban Advocates initiative in October 2007 in order to enable women and men

from cluster munitions affected communities to have a voice in the Oslo process. For moreinformation, see www.banadvocates.org

B AN NEWSLETTER Newsletter on Landmines & Cluster Munitions

Founding Member of the ICBL,

Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureate



2

the same time being able to listen with an open mind thus creating a common perception ofthe problem and its response. Including civil society at the negotiation table is an efficientway of ensuring that what we do is checked against reality; the humanitarian organisationsprovide competence and experience as implementers of humanitarian assistance. Asdonors we know that seeing and being in affected countries changes the whole perceptionand gives understanding of the problems that no presentation can equal. Recognising thisis an essential part of the partnership.”

Thirdly, the Oslo process and the Convention on Cluster Munitions show once more thatdisarmament issues can be tackled from a humanitarian perspective. When we releasedour two reports, Fatal Footprint and Circle of Impact , we realized that the collection,publication and dissemination of information on the humanitarian impact of a weapon couldhave a significant influence on the perception – or the negation – of the problemsassociated with this weapon. Similarly, the involvement of countries affected by clustermunitions challenged user (and producer) states and obliged them to rethink the way theyviewed their security. We believe that the voices of affected countries were of paramountimportance in the whole process.

Finally, eleven years after the adoption of the Mine Ban Treaty, we collectively produced anew set of rules concerning victim assistance. The provisions on victim assistance may bethe most groundbreaking element of the new convention. These provisions are the result ofconcerted thinking and drafting by donor and affected states, cluster munition victims,researchers, victim assistance providers and legal experts. But these provisions now needto be implemented and all actors involved in the process must continue their concertedefforts to ensure that cluster munition survivors, affected families and communities actuallyreceive the assistance they are now entitled to. In many ways, the work is now reallybeginning…

Photo : Mar Wareham



3

107 STATES ADOPTED THE CONVENTION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS

On 30 May 2008, after two weeks of negotiations held in Dublin (Ireland), 107states3 adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM).4 The CCM bans clustermunitions forever and provides groundbreaking provisions to assist victims. TheCCM will be opened for signature in Oslo on 3 December 2008 and enter into force sixmonths after 30 states have deposited their instruments of ratification with the UN SecretaryGeneral.

A new international standard based on the voices of the victims At the final plenary meeting of the Dublin Conference, the Irish Foreign Minister

said, “Rarely if ever in international diplomacy have we seen such single-mindeddetermination to conclude a convention with such high humanitarian goals in such aconcentrated period of time.” Norway described the CCM as “a strong convention that willhave concrete impact on the ground” and said, “there will not be another minute before westart implementing the Convention. In practical terms the implementation starts today andwill prove the value of our work. (…) In essence, this process and the new Convention onCluster Munitions, is disarmament as humanitarian action.” Cambodia also called for theeffective implementation of the Convention’s provisions on victim assistance and clearance,

“very important articles for Cambodia.” Lebanon spoke of the CCM as a “new way” to tacklehumanitarian concerns and paid tribute to the victims “thanks to whom future suffering willbe avoided.” The Lebanese ambassador then thanked all delegates in the name of Zahra, a12-year old girl from South Lebanon and Raed, a member of the Ban Advocates teampresent in Dublin and the father of a five-year old boy who was killed by a submunition. TheUnited Kingdom said, “Finally, and most importantly of all, this delegation would like to paytribute to the victims of cluster munitions; both those who have come here to Dublin andthose around the world whom they represent. What each and every one of them has done:to raise awareness; to make us all think; and now, together, to act, represents anoutstanding service to the citizens of the world. Their extraordinary courage, cheerfulnessand sheer human dignity can never be forgotten by any here who have had the privilege towitness it. It is they who have been our inspiration. It is they who have made this happen.”In a written message of the Secretary-General, the United Nations spoke of “a new

international standard that will enhance the protection of civilians, strengthen human rightsand improve prospects for development.” He encouraged States “to sign and ratify thisimportant agreement without delay.”

Groundbreaking provisions on victim assistance Under the leadership of Austria, the victim assistance provisions of the CCM grew in

detail and strength as we got closer to the Dublin negotiations. In our May 2007 reportCircle of Impact , we had identified challenges for victim assistance; we also made a seriesof suggestions and established a number of principles, “which need to be addressed intreaty text.”5 At the Wellington Conference (February 2008), many states described victimassistance as a “core obligation” of the future treaty and victim assistance provisions could

3Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei

Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, Comoros, Republic of Congo,Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, HolySee, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho,Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (FYR), Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova,Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama,Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Phi lippines, Portugal, Qatar, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal,Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania,Timor-Leste, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela and Zambia.4

The Dublin Diplomatic Conference was attended by 127 States, including 20 observers: Colombia, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece,Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Libya, Oman, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand,Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam.5

See also “A way forward to comprehensive victim assistance,” in Handicap International, Circle of Impact: The Fatal Footprint of Cluster Munitions on People and Communities , Brussels, May 2007, pp.12-14.



4

be found under four different articles of the draft treaty: this included a specific article onvictim assistance, as well as a broad definition of “victim” that covered “those personsdirectly impacted by cluster munitions as well as their families and communities.”

In Wellington though a cluster munition survivor from the Ban Advocates team said,“I challenge States Parties to the future Treaty to work with us, the victims, so that victimassistance provisions in the treaty will really make a positive difference to our lives. (…) Afew practical steps to improve victim assistance implementation would be: Establish or use

an existing victim assistance implementation framework; Nominate a focal point withresponsibility for the implementation framework; Develop and implement a national plan ofaction with clear objectives and timelines, as part of the framework; Incorporate nationaland international laws as well as public policies into victim assistance planning andimplementation. Last but not least: Guarantee the inclusion of survivors, their families andcommunities in all aspects of victim assistance planning and implementation. Furthermore,and this is an especially important point, clear reference should be made to the fullparticipation of survivors and persons with disabilities in decision-making, monitoring andimplementation of the future Treaty.”6

In Dublin, a group of 14 countries tabled a proposal to reinforce the implementationof victim assistance.7 This proposal was discussed, received broad support and was evenstrengthened. As a result, the final text of the CCM now includes a detailed list of actionsthat each State Party must complete “in fulfilling its [victim assistance] obligations.” Acluster munition survivor from the Ban Advocates team welcomed the new text on victimassistance: “The text of the new treaty on CM victims is based on our experiences and ourexpectations. I expect, and as a survivor I request, that States Parties accept theirobligation to provide assistance to the victims, including affected families and communities.I want to see full responsibility taken for victims by affected states and at the same time bythe international community, especially the countries that use cluster munitions. The text onvictim assistance is a great victory of human rights and solidarity. We can be proud of this,especially my friends from the CMC. The new text is very strong because CM survivorshave been involved in writing it. I hope that other remaining issues will also take our viewsinto account.”8

“A comprehensive ban on cluster munitions as a class of weapons”

The treaty prohibits “all cluster munitions ever used in armed conflict.”

9

The treaty“does not cover new weapons which do not carry the same risk to civilians because of theirlarger size, low numbers and the fact that they have sensor targeting and two fail-safesystems.”10 The Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) welcomed the “effects oriented language”used to define cluster munitions, but said that it would “watch closely” to ensure that thetreaty “does not allow the use or future development of any weapons that could cause theindiscriminate area effects or unexploded ordnance risks of cluster munitions.”11

Interoperability: “the only stain on the fine fabric of the treaty text” The final text of the treaty includes an article on “Relations with States not Party to

this Convention .” According to this article “(…) States Parties, their military personnel ornationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to thisConvention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party.” On 28 May, the

CMC described the “clumsy wording”

12

of this article as a “stain on the fine fabric” of theconvention and called on all states to clarify for the diplomatic record that Article 21 does

6The full statement is available on http://blog.banadvocates.org/index.php?post/2008/02/20/Dejans-Statement-Wellington-

February-20087

See www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/pdf/CCM70.pdf8

See http://blog.banadvocates.org/index.php?post/2008/05/27/Ban-Advocates-Press-Conference-Dublin-Monday-26-May-20089

See www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/pdf/CoW16May28pm.pdf10

See www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-06-05b.208648.h#g208648.r011

See www.stopclustermunitions.org/news/?id=30312

See http://disarmamentinsight.blogspot.com/2008/06/cluster-ban-treaty-interoperability-in.html



5

not allow indefinite foreign stockpiling or intentional assistance and added that it would be“watching very carefully to ensure that no state party engages in deliberate assistance withprohibited acts, or allows foreign stockpiling of cluster munitions on their territory inperpetuity, or undermines the fundamental obligations of the treaty in any way.” On 30 May2008, Canada referred to Article 21 as “an essential element of legal protection, toaccommodate situations in combined operations which may be beyond our control” andsaid, “If these circumstances ever obtain, we believe they will be rare. Why? Because we

are in the midst of a major paradigm shift in how the world regards cluster munitions;Because this Convention when it enters into force will render all cluster munitions illegal forStates Parties - and we speculate that close to two thirds of the world’s nations will likelyassume these legal obligations from the beginning of the formal process of signature andratification. And more will join over time as we work to universalize the Convention;Because some very large producers of this weapon have already ceased production, endedexport, and are phasing it out of there own arsenals; Because we know, and will ensure,that our allies take our legal obligations seriously and will try not to put us in situationswhere they might be abrogated.”

On 30 May, the Ambassador of Iceland – the international legal expert GudmundurEiriksson – made the only interpretive statement of the diplomatic conference, stressingthat “States Parties will thus be guided in their interpretation and application of theConvention by the rules of international law, in particular, International Humanitarian Lawand the Law of Treaties, including the overarching principle of good faith performance(1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, article 26), with the concomitant rules onState Responsibility, including on attributability (e.g. International Law Commission Articleson State Responsibility, Chapter II). (…) While the article sets out an appeal to States whichare not parties to join the regime of the Convention, it recognizes the need for continuingcooperation in what is hoped will be a short transition period. This intention is capturedclearly in paragraph 3 of the Article which should not be read as entitling States Parties toavoid their specific obligations under the Convention for this limited purpose. The decisionto reinforce this position by listing some examples in paragraph 4 cannot therefore beinterpreted to allow departures in other respects.”13

On the same day, Norway noted that “delegations from all regions agree that thisconvention does not hinder future international military operations, even if some

participating states may not be party to the convention. Moreover, we note that theexpression of this principle in the convention does not create loopholes that could havediminished confidence among other States Parties.” Zambia also expressed itsunderstanding that Article 21 would not create a loophole allowing “stockpiling, investingand transit of cluster munitions.” The British Defense Minister said on 5 June, “in keepingwith our commitment to uphold the norms of the treaty, we will be discussing with the USthe longer-term status of their stockpiles on UK territory.”14 In addition, the British ForeignMinister said on 3 June: “The reading of the treaty indicates that there are overridingpolitical reasons to expect that there will be no such weapons on British territory at the endof that eight-year period. That includes other people’s bases situated on our territory” andhe concluded that “even a country such as the US, were it not a signatory, would no longerbe able to keep such weapons on UK territory.”15

Although the article “limits the scope of the prohibition of assistance in the use of

cluster munitions contained in the Convention,” according to the ICRC “The potential impactof this provision is limited to some degree by the requirement on States Parties todiscourage use of cluster munitions in joint operations.”16 Nevertheless, the CMC warned:“We will be watching very carefully to ensure that no State Party to this treaty everintentionally assists another state with a prohibited act and we will press hard to ensure

13See www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/pdf/IcelandStatementGE.pdf

14See www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-06-05b.208648.h#g208648.r0

15See www.landmineaction.org/resources/cluster_munitions_on_us_bases_in_the_uk.pdf

16See www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/cluster-munitions-interview-290508?opendocument



6

foreign stocks of cluster munitions are removed or destroyed within the 8-year stockpiledestruction deadline.”

Cluster munitions stigmatized The Irish Foreign Minister said on 30 May, “(…) even though we all know that there

are important states not present, I am also convinced that together we will have succeededin stigmatizing any future use of cluster munitions.” Austria stated on 7 July, “In our view,

there is no doubt that with the adoption of the new Convention on Cluster Munitions inDublin we have entered a new era: cluster munitions can no longer be regarded as legal, letalone legitimate weapons. Cluster munitions are banned weapons: they are illegitimate andthey will be illegal.”

The way forward After adopting the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Irish Foreign Minister called

upon states to set themselves three immediate goals, namely: “First, we need to do all thatis necessary nationally to allow us to ratify the Convention as soon as possible aftersignature. (…) The second goal must be to ensure the greatest possible number ofaccessions to the Convention. (…) Third, we need to plan to do what is necessary toimplement the Convention in full, not least in regard to victim assistance and clearance.”

More information:• Ban Advocates blog: www.banadvocates.org • Cluster Munition Coalition: www.stopclustermunitions.org

• Convention on Cluster Munitions and Oslo process: www.clusterconvention.org

• Dublin Conference: www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie • International Campaign to Ban Landmines: www.icbl.org

MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT THE CONVENTION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS

Belgium announced on 19 May that “the process of destruction of stockpiles of clustermunitions is well under way and will be finalized at the latest by spring 2009. The Belgianexperience, involving concerted offers and bidding, shows that a multilateral approach tostockpile destruction can be advantageous, considering the size of the stockpiles and the

destruction deadlines.” Belgium added that “the financial cost is approximately 2.8 millioneuro.” On 30 May, the European Commission stated in a press release that it “standsready to assist in implementing the convention.”17 Germany announced on 29 May that it“will, with immediate effect, unilaterally renounce the use of all types of cluster munitionsand will destroy its remaining stocks as fast as it can.”18 Ireland announced on 30 May that“the preparation of the required domestic legislation” in order to ratify the CCM as soon aspossible “has already begun.” In Japan the Asahi Shimbun reported on 6 August that theMinistry of Defense was going to destroy its stockpile of cluster munitions.19 TheNetherlands announced on 30 May that it “will now destroy all the remaining clustermunitions in its possession (the CBU-87 aircraft bomb and the M-261 rocket used byApache helicopters). (…) Once the convention has been signed, the Netherlands will call onthe countries that were not represented in Dublin to accede to it.’20 Various sourcesreported in July that Spain was about to pass legislation banning the production, use andstorage of cluster bombs and would then destroy about 5,000 cluster bombs. 21 In theUnited Kingdom the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said on 5 June, “In line withthe Prime Minister’s statement of 28 May 2008 and the Convention text adopted by 109states in Dublin on 30 May 2008, the UK is withdrawing from service its sub-munitions;

17See www.europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/826&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

18See www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/Service/Search/Functions/FilterFormular,templateId=processForm.html

19See www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200808060047.html

20See www.minbuza.nl/en/news/newsflashes,2008/05/Verhagen--ban-on-cluster-bombs-is-boost-for-law-of.html

21See www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/08/europe/EU-Spain-Cluster-Bomb.php;

www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_104634/life/LEGISLATION-Spain-will-ban-production-use-and-storage/



7

namely the L20A1 Extended Range Bomblet Shell (M85) and the CRV-7 Multi-PurposeSub-Munition (M73). The UK armed forces will no longer use them operationally.”22

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS

In a paper tabled in Dublin, Ethiopia stated, “The fact that Ethiopia has, for the time being,opted to take an observer seat at this Conference should not, however, cast any doubt onits acceptance of, and commitment to the Oslo Process, (…) the Convention should be ableto offer solid legal guarantees that could be invoked in the event of its possiblecontravention by a state party, as well as through the manipulative manoeuvrings ofthird/external parties (…).” In a press release issued on 30 May, Finland described theCCM as “a major step forward in international efforts to address the problems clustermunitions cause to civilian populations” and stated that it “will define its own stand on theagreement” by the time of the signing in December 2008. The statement continues, “Animportant role has been designed for cluster bombs in the development of the militarycapacity of the Finnish Defense Forces. The agreement will have an immediate impact onthe international cluster munitions market and, consequently, it will also affect Finland’sacquisition plans in any case.”23 Finnish members of the parliamentary assembly of the

OSCE meeting in Kazakhstan on 1 July declined to commit to the appeal to membercountries to ban the use of cluster munitions and destroy stockpiles.24 India stated in Julythat “the use of cluster munitions is lawful and legitimate if such use takes into accountexisting IHL rules (…) of distinction, proportionality and prohibition of indiscriminateattacks.” India focuses on an “effective regulation rather than the prohibition of the use” ofcluster munitions. India opposed “a definitional approach (…) that excludes one class ofcluster munitions only to allow technology more advanced types” and asked to consider aprovision for the “transfer of technology for increasing the reliability and accuracy of clustermunitions.” India supported “a ban on transfer of all cluster munitions to non-state actors.”In Israel Haaretz reported in June about cluster munition use by Israel Defense Forces:“(…) the senior army command was not aware that lower echelons, in the artillery corpsmore than in the air force, had ignored their instructions. Similarly, when there was ashortage of other munitions, some officers opted to use cluster bombs, if for no other

reason than to prevent any criticism that they were unable to carry out their mission.”Concerning the CCM, Haaretz commented, “Even if Israel has avoided being tied up in aninternational treaty that would certainly include an invasive battery of foreign inspectors, itmust behave as if it has joined the treaty - and limit the use of this non-discriminatingweapon to rare and extreme occasions when its use is fully justifiable.”25 The Republic ofKorea stated in July that the problem of cluster munitions “lies in their irresponsible andindiscriminate use rather than in the weapon system itself” and insisted on “stricterapplication, implementation and enforcement of the existing IHL. (…) The Republic ofKorea possesses cluster munitions for self-defense because of the unique securityenvironment if faces.” The Russian Federation restated in July 2008 that “it is prepared tosupport only those proposals that will not lead to a reduction of its defense capabilities inconnection with the use of cluster munitions.” On 15 August Human Rights Watch reported,“Russian aircraft dropped RBK-250 cluster bombs, each containing 30 PTAB 2.5M

submunitions, on the town of Ruisi in the Kareli district of Georgia on August 12, 2008.Three civilians were killed and five wounded in the attack. On the same day, a cluster strikein the center of the town of Gori killed at least eight civilians and injured dozens, HumanRights Watch said. Dutch journalist Stan Storimans was among the dead. Israeli journalistZadok Yehezkeli was seriously wounded and evacuated to Israel for treatment after surgery

22See www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-06-05b.208648.h#g208648.r0

23See www.government.fi/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/tiedote/en.jsp?oid=230910

24See www.yle.fi/news/left/id95144.html

25See www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990786.html; http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-WlP8tRtrFL-

Hi92hEjCQ3CxhMQD920SP703



8

in Tbilisi. An armored vehicle from the Reuters news agency was perforated with shrapnelfrom the attack.”26 Speaking at a press conference on the same day, a Russian seniormilitary official said, “We never use cluster bombs. There is no need to do so.”27 In the run-up to the Dublin negotiations, the United States lobbied at least 114 states to dissuadethem from joining the new treaty.28 According to a memorandum issued on 19 June by theSecretary of Defense, after 2018 the U.S. “will only employ those cluster munitionscontaining submunitions, that after arming, do not result in more than 1% unexploded

ordnance UXO across the range of intended operational environments. Until the end of2018, use of cluster munitions that exceed 1% UXO rate must be approved by theCombatant Commander. After 2018 the Department will not seek to transfer clustermunitions that exceed the 1% UXO rate.”29 In December 2007 however, the U.S. Congressbanned the export of cluster munitions in fiscal year 2008.30 On 3 June, three members ofCongress introduced a joint resolution, co-sponsored by 4 other senators, calling on theU.S. to “embrace efforts to protect innocent civilians from cluster munitions and sign theConvention on Cluster Munitions when it becomes open for signature in December 2008.”31 Vietnam attended the Dublin negotiations as an observer and stated on 30 May 2008 that“Vietnam believes that, as any other international treaty on disarmament, the developmentof such an instrument should involve a broad range of countries and take into account thespecific characters as well as the legitimate needs to manufacture, import and retainconventional weapons for self-defense and security purposes of each state.” Vietnam is“still studying and considering this Convention,” a spokesman of the Foreign Ministry toldreporters on 4 June 2008.32

MINE BAN TREATY UPDATE

As of 15 August 2008, 37 states remain out of the Mine Ban Treaty: Armenia, Azerbaijan,Bahrain, Burma/Myanmar, China, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, Georgia, India, Iran, Israel,Kazakhstan, DPR of Korea, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Libya,Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, SaudiArabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates,United States, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The Marshall Island and Poland have signed

but have yet to ratify the Mine Ban Treaty.

Concerning Poland, the ICBL reported in June that “landmines do not feature in Poland’sdefence doctrine (…) and that the armed forces are planning to destroy over three-quartersof existing stockpiles in the next three-four years, as these weapons are not needed fornational defence.“ In addition, Poland has a moratorium in place and “is abiding de facto bythe treaty’s obligations.” Therefore, the ICBL believes that accession is possible by thetreaty’s Second Review Conference in November 2009.33

According to media reports the Taleban have recently laid antipersonnel and antivehiclemines in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.34 Landmine use by the Taleban has beenreported on a regular basis in recent years. In 2006, 796 landmine/ERW casualties wererecorded in Afghanistan.35

26See www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/14/georgi19625.htm

27See www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4539186.ece

28http://en.handicapinternational.be/Five-weeks-before-the-conclusion-of-the-Cluster-Munition-Treaty_a524.html; diplomatic

sources.29

“Memorandum for the Secretaries of the military departments etc on DOD Policy on Cluster Munitions and UnintendedHarm to Civilians,” Secretary of Defense, 19 June 2008.30

See Ban Newsletter n°22, p.11.31

See http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200806/060308a.html32

See www.mofa. gov.vn/vi/ tt_baochi/ pbnfn/ns08060416 014433

See www.icbl.org/news/pl060834

See www.icbl.org/news/taliban_mines; www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=7886935

Landmine Monitor Report 2007 , p.101.



9

According to a Landmine Monitor fact sheet released in June, children accounted for justover one-third of recorded casualties in 2006 (34 percent or 1.445).36

Three countries missed their 1 March 2008 stockpile destruction deadlines: Belarus,Greece and Turkey. Landmine Monitor indicated in a fact sheet released in June that thethree countries “have so far failed to indicate when they anticipate being in compliant

status.”37

Concerning clearance deadlines and extension requests, the ICBL said on 6 June thatstates “such as Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela clearly asked for much more time than itshould take if the political will were there to get the job done as soon as possible” andsome, “such as Thailand and Zimbabwe, still do not have a clear picture of the size of theremaining problem or a plan on how to raise the large amount of money it will take to finishthe job.”38

On 9 June Iraq (a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty since August 2007) and Iran (a non-signatory) signed a security agreement that calls for the clearance of landmines remainingfrom the 1980-1988 war.39

UPDATE ON INVESTMENTS IN LANDMINES AND CLUSTER MUNITIONS

The Swedish pension fund AP7 said on 1 June to the Associated Press that it will sell all itsholdings in companies making cluster bombs and nuclear weapons, including EADS,Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. The decision would affect the fund'sholdings in around 10 companies in total.40 On 3 June, a representative of HandicapInternational in Brussels was invited by Dexia Asset Management to provide a detailedbriefing on cluster munitions to a group of key European investors. The Irish NationalPensions Reserve Fund wrote on 23 July to the NGO Afri, “the Fund proceeded to divestfrom (…) Alliant Techsystems Inc.; General Dynamics Corp.; Lockheed Martin Corp.; L3Communications Holdings Inc.; and Raytheon Co. The Fund has also excluded two firms in

which it did not have investments: Hanwha Coorperation and Poongsan Corporation.” On 4April, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund announced that it would excludecompanies that remain involved in the manufacture of cluster munitions.41 On 29 May, theDutch pension fund for the oil group Shell, Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds , one of the largestin the Netherlands, reported that it had disinvested from one company that makeslandmines and is currently reviewing companies producing cluster munitions.42

SHORT NEWS

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force on 3May, 30 days after the 20th ratification. As of 15 August 2008, 34 states had ratified the

Convention and 20 the Optional Protocol. Currently, there are 130 signatories to theConvention and 71 signatories to the Optional Protocol.More information: www.un.org/disabilities

36See www.icbl.org/content/download/30322/478642/version/1/file/June+08+Children+and+Landmines+Factsheet.pdf

37See www.icbl.org/content/download/30321/478639/version/1/file/June+08+Stockpile+Destruction+Factsheet.pdf

38See www.icbl.org/news/art50608

39See www2.irna.com/en; www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GCA-iraq/idUSL0925785720080609

40See www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/01/business/EU-FIN-Sweden-Pension-Fund.php; www.ap7.se

41See www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/news.asp?pageID=2145831983&RefId=2141736138

42See www.shell.com/home/content/pensioenfonds-

nl/news_pensfund/nl/2008/beleid_verantwoord_beleggen_29052008.html;www.efinancialnews.com/homepage/content/2451087478



10

Handicap International is an international organisation specialised in the field of disability. Non-governmental, non-religious, non-political and non-profitmaking, it works alongside people with disabilities, whatever the context, offering them ass istance and supporting them in their efforts to become self-reliant.Since its creation, the organisation has set up programmes in approximately 60 countries and intervened in many emergency situations. It has a network ofeight national associations (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States) which provide human andfinancial resources, manage projects and raise awareness of Handicap International's actions and campaigns.For more information and national contacts: www.handicap-international.org

PROVISIONAL

CALENDAR

September

18-19: regionalconference on theConvention on ClusterMunitions,Sofia, Bulgaria

29-30: regionalconference on theConvention on ClusterMunitions,Kampala, Uganda

October

27: Global Week ofAction to Ban ClusterBombs

November

21: Global launch of theLandmine MonitorReport 2008

24-28: 9th

Meeting ofStates Parties to theMine Ban Treaty,Geneva, Switzerland

December

3: International Day ofPersons with Disabilitiesand 11

thanniversary of

the Mine Ban Treaty’ssignature

3: Signature of theConvention on ClusterMunitions,Oslo, Norway

More information:www.stopclustermunitions.org/calendarwww.icbl.org/campaign/calendar

RECENT PUBLICATIONS AND WEBSITES

A convention beyond the Convention: Stigma, humanitarian standards and the Oslo Process , Landmine Action, May 2008. See also Landmine Action’s series of papers on theConvention on Cluster Munitions.Link: www.landmineaction.org/resources/publications/index.asp

“Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition.” CMC New Zealand’s blog.

Link: www.stopclusterbombs.org.nz

“Ban Advocates Blog.” Voices from communities affected by cluster munitions, includingregular updates on the Dublin negotiations and the road to Oslo.Link: www.banadvocates.org

“Cluster munitions: decades of failure, decades of civilian suffering,” ICRC, April 2008. ThisICRC kit includes a 15 minutes film and a series of fact sheets on cluster munitions.Link: www.cicr.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section-ihl-cluster-munition

Counting the cost: The economic impact of cluster munition contamination in Lebanon ,Landmine Action, May 2008.Link: www.landmineaction.org/resources/publications/index.asp

“Clustermunitie proces.” The blog of the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant on the Osloprocess (in Dutch).

Link: www.volkskrantblog.nl/blog/59013

“Disarmament Insight,” the blog created by the Geneva Forum and UNIDIR wroteextensively about the Oslo process on cluster munitions, in particular during the WellingtonConference and the Dublin negotiations.Link: www.disarmamentinsight.blogspot.com

“Dodgy Deals: Cluster Munitions producers,” Banktrack, May 2008.Link: www.banktrack.org/?id=98&show=dodgy

“La Convention sur les armes à sous-munitions est née: Quand le désarmement va de pairavec l’action humanitaire," Groupe de recherche et d’information sur la paix et la sécurité,Brussels, June 2008.Link: www.grip.org/bdg/pdf/g0920.pdf

Landmine Monitor Fact Sheets:

- February 2008: “Victim Assistance in Countries with Cluster Munitions Casualties,” “AProhibition on Assistance in a Future Treaty Banning Cluster Munitions: The Mine BanTreaty Experience;”- May 2008: “Countries that Produce Cluster Munitions,” “Countries that Stockpile ClusterMunitions,” “Transfers of Cluster Munitions,” “Cluster Munition Contamination andClearance;”- June 2008: “Stockpile destruction,” “Mines Retained for Training and Research,” “Article 7Reports Received for 2007,” “Landmines and Children,” “Article 5 Deadline Extension Requests.”Link: www.icbl.org/lm/factsheets

“Sensor-fuzing and SMArt submunitions. An unproven technology?” Austcare and Handicap International,February, 2008.Link: www.sousmunitions.fr/centre-documentaire/espace-expert

“Small States and New Norms of Warfare,” Margarita H. Petrova, European University Institute, Florence, 2007.The author was present during the process to ban cluster munitions in Belgium.Link: http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/7644/1/MWP_2007_28.pdf

“The Ban Bus.” Blogging from Belgrade to Oslo to ban cluster munitions.Link: www.thebanbus.org

“You Tube CMC Page.” This page contains footage and daily updates of the Dublin negotiations.Link: www.youtube.com/user/CMCInternational

ban newsletter 23

Documents