Council Member
Posts: 1,679 
May 28th, 2008, 07:49 PM
Most countries have just now agreed in principle to ban cluster bombs:
From The Scottsman
Most countries have just now agreed in principle to ban cluster bombs:
From The Scottsman
Quote:
Canada has signed on with reservations:
Cluster bomb ban by 100 nations – but US opts out
Date: 29 May 2008
By Rhiannon Edward
DIPLOMATS from more than 100 countries including Britain unanimously passed a treaty last night to ban the use of cluster bombs around the world.
Delegates meeting in Dublin also agreed to destroy any stockpiles of the weapons within the next eight years.
Earlier, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, announced Britain would be taking cluster bombs out of service.
And last night he called tADVERTISEMENThe agreement a "big step forward to make the world a safer place".
However, some of the world's main producers and stockpilers – including the US, Russia and China – oppose the move.
The weapons have been used in countries including Cambodia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon. They are made up of a large container which opens in mid-air, dropping hundreds of smaller individual sub-munitions, or "bomblets", across a wide area.
Countries such as the US, India, Pakistan and Israel claim the munitions are useful on the battlefield, but opponents say bomblets which fail to explode prove deadly for civilians...
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Clust...-by.4130153.jp
Date: 29 May 2008
By Rhiannon Edward
DIPLOMATS from more than 100 countries including Britain unanimously passed a treaty last night to ban the use of cluster bombs around the world.
Delegates meeting in Dublin also agreed to destroy any stockpiles of the weapons within the next eight years.
Earlier, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, announced Britain would be taking cluster bombs out of service.
And last night he called tADVERTISEMENThe agreement a "big step forward to make the world a safer place".
However, some of the world's main producers and stockpilers – including the US, Russia and China – oppose the move.
The weapons have been used in countries including Cambodia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon. They are made up of a large container which opens in mid-air, dropping hundreds of smaller individual sub-munitions, or "bomblets", across a wide area.
Countries such as the US, India, Pakistan and Israel claim the munitions are useful on the battlefield, but opponents say bomblets which fail to explode prove deadly for civilians...
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Clust...-by.4130153.jp
Quote:
The movement to ban cluster bombs gained momentum in 2006:
Canada signs on to cluster bomb treaty with reservations
Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent , Canwest News Service
PARIS - Crippled civilian victims of cluster bombs helped convince Canada and more than 100 other nations to move a step closer Wednesday to a treaty that would ban the production and use of the weapon, according to a lobbyist participating in the negotiations.
The participating countries agreed to the wording of a text Wednesday and all will be asked to formally endorse the wording during the final day of negotiations in Dublin on Friday, according to officials involved in the talks.
But countries won't be locked into the treaty until they attend a signing ceremony in Oslo in December...
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...9-b3584931d359
Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent , Canwest News Service
PARIS - Crippled civilian victims of cluster bombs helped convince Canada and more than 100 other nations to move a step closer Wednesday to a treaty that would ban the production and use of the weapon, according to a lobbyist participating in the negotiations.
The participating countries agreed to the wording of a text Wednesday and all will be asked to formally endorse the wording during the final day of negotiations in Dublin on Friday, according to officials involved in the talks.
But countries won't be locked into the treaty until they attend a signing ceremony in Oslo in December...
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...9-b3584931d359
Quote:
The ban is for the same reason as landmines. Cluster bombs kill and maim long after the conflict ends.
...Momentum for a comprehensive ban similar to that adopted for land mines in 1997 grew after the 2006 war in Lebanon, when Israel deployed large quantities of cluster munitions, which release a spray of more than 200 small, harmless-looking bomblets that often don't explode until long after a conflict is over.
International investigators said that at least 200 civilians were killed or injured in Lebanon as a result of cluster bombs after the war...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6543432.story
International investigators said that at least 200 civilians were killed or injured in Lebanon as a result of cluster bombs after the war...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6543432.story
Quote:
Should cluster bombs be banned?
February 7, 2007
Cluster bombs: a war's perilous aftermath
UN figures estimate that 26 percent of south Lebanon's cultivatable land is affected by the ordinance.
MAARAKEH, LEBANON - Cease-fires end wars. Or so the Zayoun family thought, when Israel and Hizbullah agreed nearly six months ago to stop battling.
But instead, this poverty-stricken Lebanese Shiite household found new agony when a remnant of this war was brought into their living room: one Israeli cluster bomblet, out of an estimated 1 million such unexploded munitions that carpet southern Lebanon.
The US State Department said last week that Israel "likely could have" misused American-supplied cluster bombs by peppering civilian areas from which, Israel says, Hizbullah was operating. Similar Israeli usage in 1982 led to a six-year ban of US sales of the controversial weapon, though analysts do not expect such a sanction of the US ally today.
But as UN-organized demining teams toil across olive groves and tobacco farms to destroy what they call an "unprecedented" concentration of the controversial cluster bombs here, the casualties continue to mount.
The Zayoun family alone accounts for three of a postwar Lebanese toll that today stands at 184 wounded and 30 dead...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0207/p01s01-wome.html
Cluster bombs: a war's perilous aftermath
UN figures estimate that 26 percent of south Lebanon's cultivatable land is affected by the ordinance.
MAARAKEH, LEBANON - Cease-fires end wars. Or so the Zayoun family thought, when Israel and Hizbullah agreed nearly six months ago to stop battling.
But instead, this poverty-stricken Lebanese Shiite household found new agony when a remnant of this war was brought into their living room: one Israeli cluster bomblet, out of an estimated 1 million such unexploded munitions that carpet southern Lebanon.
The US State Department said last week that Israel "likely could have" misused American-supplied cluster bombs by peppering civilian areas from which, Israel says, Hizbullah was operating. Similar Israeli usage in 1982 led to a six-year ban of US sales of the controversial weapon, though analysts do not expect such a sanction of the US ally today.
But as UN-organized demining teams toil across olive groves and tobacco farms to destroy what they call an "unprecedented" concentration of the controversial cluster bombs here, the casualties continue to mount.
The Zayoun family alone accounts for three of a postwar Lebanese toll that today stands at 184 wounded and 30 dead...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0207/p01s01-wome.html
Time Out
Posts: 2,948
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
May 28th, 2008, 08:44 PM
It goes without saying of course they should, and every other type of land mine and other junk left around from the after effects of war ,the trouble is who is gonna clean up the mess it takes time and money, so who would pay.?
It goes without saying of course they should, and every other type of land mine and other junk left around from the after effects of war ,the trouble is who is gonna clean up the mess it takes time and money, so who would pay.?
Council Member
Posts: 2,301
May 28th, 2008, 09:13 PM
What I would like to know, does Canada have stockpiled cluster-bombs??? And why are we reluctant to sign on??
Quoting quandary121
The same people who ordered them thrown about!!! Government of Israel, the White House/Pentagon/Congress...
It goes without saying of course they should, and every other type of land mine and other junk left around from the after effects of war ,the trouble is who is gonna clean up the mess it takes time and money, so who would pay.?
What I would like to know, does Canada have stockpiled cluster-bombs??? And why are we reluctant to sign on??
Council Member
Posts: 1,679
May 29th, 2008, 08:25 AM
Canada wanted assurances that signing the ban wouldn't prevent Canadian soldiers from working with the US military. Canada successfully negotiated that concession. Canada is more or less obligated to sign the treaty now. Canada probably has some cluster bombs, but I doubt Canada has large stockpiles. The ban means Canada would have to destroy those bombs.
Canada wanted assurances that signing the ban wouldn't prevent Canadian soldiers from working with the US military. Canada successfully negotiated that concession. Canada is more or less obligated to sign the treaty now. Canada probably has some cluster bombs, but I doubt Canada has large stockpiles. The ban means Canada would have to destroy those bombs.
Quote:
China, India, Russia, Israel and Pakistan - countries that produce and stockpile the weapons - have, like the U.S., refused to participate in the talks.
Time Out
Posts: 2,948
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
May 29th, 2008, 05:11 PM
Cluster Munitions – basic facts and the UN Secretary-General’s Statements
1 Cluster Munitions
While there is no internationally accepted definition, in general, cluster munitions (also called cluster bombs or cluster weapons) are conventional weapons, used against a range of targets, including armour, materiel or personnel. They consist of a container or dispenser (sometimes referred to as the “parent munition”) projected from air, ground or sea-based systems, from which sub-munitions (clusters, or bomblets) are scattered over wide areas. Sub-munitions are designed to detonate prior to or immediately after impact (some systems also have a time-delay).
2 The Issues
The controversy over cluster munitions mainly resides in the potential humanitarian impact on civilian populations of these weapons both during conflict as well as hazardous unexploded ordnances remaining after the end of hostilities.
Cluster weapons are widely seen as having an indiscriminate effect given the diffuse manner of their dispersal. By their very nature, these weapons are inaccurate as they usually lack autonomous target detection capability. Scattered on the surface over a wide area they create ‘footprints’ – large areas sometimes the size of 2-4 soccer fields - often contaminated with numerous duds. Used in urban settings or near populated areas they are likely to cause excessive civilian harm.
In general, cluster sub-munitions contain more explosive power than anti-personnel mines. In addition the shapes and small sizes of bomblets make it more likely that children will pick them up or handle them compared to other unexploded munitions. According to published reports, children made up 62% of cluster bomb casualties in central Vietnam from 2000-2005.
Many cluster weapons are unreliable and often fail to explode. According to the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre in South Lebanon, it is reasonable to assume that between 10 and 20% of bomblets fail to explode and it is estimated that up to one million items of unexploded sub-munitions were left on the ground in 2006. There are a number of reasons for this. For example, sub-munitions that fail to hit a hard surface (and land instead in fields or in treetops) may not explode. Also, faulty delivery systems or processes could affect the arming sequence of sub-munitions. When this occurs, sub-munitions may not explode. Unexploded munitions can be unstable and are susceptible to exploding unexpectedly.
Unexploded bomblets, like other explosive remnants of war and landmines, have the potential also to cause long-term hardships to communities which are unable to farm land or use roads that are believed to be littered with these weapons.
3 International efforts to deal with the problem of cluster munitions
Efforts toward supplementing international law are taking place in two multilateral fora: one is the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), and the other is commonly referred to as the “Oslo process”.
The States that are parties to the Conventional Weapons Convention (CCW), that is concerned with weapons “which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects”, have for several years been examining the adequacy of existing international humanitarian law, as well as possible preventive measures aimed at improving the design of certain munitions, including cluster munitions, with a view to minimizing the humanitarian risk of these munitions becoming explosive remnants of war. At their annual meeting which concluded on 13 November 2007, the Parties adopted the following mandate on cluster munitions:
“The High Contracting Parties to the CCW decided that the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) will negotiate a proposal to address urgently the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions, while striking a balance between military and humanitarian considerations. The GGE should make every effort to negotiate this proposal as rapidly as possible and report on the progress made to the next meeting of the High Contracting Parties in November 2008. The work of the GGE will be supported by military and technical experts. The GGE will meet in 2008 not less than three times for up to a total of seven weeks.”
Since January 2007, a number of like-minded States have responded to a Norwegian initiative, the “Oslo Process”, which would
“prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians and establish a framework for cooperation and assistance that ensures adequate provision of care and rehabilitation to survivors and their communities, clearance of contaminated areas, risk education and destruction of stockpiles of prohibited cluster munitions”.
The group has held two meetings to date – in Oslo, Norway in February and in Lima, Peru in May, respectively attended by some 49 and 68 States The Lima conference discussed the main elements of a new treaty including obligations to provide assistance to victims, clear contaminated land, destroy stockpiles and provide international cooperation and assistance. It also addressed the scope of the treaty and definitions of cluster munitions, i.e. which sub-munitions that will be prohibited. The follow-up meeting opened in Vienna on 5 December and further meetings are planned for New Zealand (February 2008) and Dublin (May 2008).
The relationship between the two processes
Many States involved in the Oslo process believe that their efforts will come to fruition more quickly than within the larger CCW context where decisions are traditionally taken by consensus by the 103 States parties. States engaged in the Oslo process aim to conclude a legally-binding treaty during 2008. On the other hand, several CCW States parties consider that the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions would be best addressed within the CCW context, which comprises all major military powers including the main producers of cluster munitions.
Both processes recognize the serious humanitarian concerns associated with the use of cluster munitions and share the same broad humanitarian objectives – to overcome the unacceptable harm to civilians caused by these weapons. To that extent, they have a mutually reinforcing effect and should be seen as complementing each other.
The UN Secretary-General’s position
On 7 November 2007, in a message to the meeting of States Parties to the CCW Convention meeting in Geneva, the Secretary-General said:
“The atrocious, inhumane impact of cluster munitions requires urgent action. The characteristics of these munitions, with their inherent inaccuracy and their frequent malfunctioning, make them particularly indiscriminate both at the time of use and long after conflicts have ended. They pose significant challenges for international humanitarian law.
I urge you to address the horrendous humanitarian, human rights and developmental effects of cluster munitions by concluding a legally binding instrument of international humanitarian law. The instrument should prohibit the use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. It should require the destruction of current stockpiles of those munitions. And it should provide for clearance and risk mitigation activities, victim assistance, cooperation and compliance and transparency measures.
Until such a legal instrument is adopted, I ask that you take domestic measures to immediately freeze the use and transfer of all cluster munitions.”
The following is a statement by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on 4 December 2007, on the occasion of the Vienna Meeting on Cluster Munitions:
“I am watching closely the international community’s efforts to address the issue of cluster munitions. I have on several occasions made known my views that the inhumane impact of these weapons requires urgent action. I have urged Member States to prohibit cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and to take domestic measures to freeze the use and transfer of all cluster munitions until a new legal instrument is adopted.
I very much hope that all efforts to deal decisively with this issue will intensify over the year ahead. Member States gathering in Vienna at the beginning of December will have an opportunity to give further impetus towards the success of these efforts, and I wish them well. These are humanitarian, human rights and developmental stakes.”
Cluster Munitions – basic facts and the UN Secretary-General’s Statements
1 Cluster Munitions
While there is no internationally accepted definition, in general, cluster munitions (also called cluster bombs or cluster weapons) are conventional weapons, used against a range of targets, including armour, materiel or personnel. They consist of a container or dispenser (sometimes referred to as the “parent munition”) projected from air, ground or sea-based systems, from which sub-munitions (clusters, or bomblets) are scattered over wide areas. Sub-munitions are designed to detonate prior to or immediately after impact (some systems also have a time-delay).
2 The Issues
The controversy over cluster munitions mainly resides in the potential humanitarian impact on civilian populations of these weapons both during conflict as well as hazardous unexploded ordnances remaining after the end of hostilities.
Cluster weapons are widely seen as having an indiscriminate effect given the diffuse manner of their dispersal. By their very nature, these weapons are inaccurate as they usually lack autonomous target detection capability. Scattered on the surface over a wide area they create ‘footprints’ – large areas sometimes the size of 2-4 soccer fields - often contaminated with numerous duds. Used in urban settings or near populated areas they are likely to cause excessive civilian harm.
In general, cluster sub-munitions contain more explosive power than anti-personnel mines. In addition the shapes and small sizes of bomblets make it more likely that children will pick them up or handle them compared to other unexploded munitions. According to published reports, children made up 62% of cluster bomb casualties in central Vietnam from 2000-2005.
Many cluster weapons are unreliable and often fail to explode. According to the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre in South Lebanon, it is reasonable to assume that between 10 and 20% of bomblets fail to explode and it is estimated that up to one million items of unexploded sub-munitions were left on the ground in 2006. There are a number of reasons for this. For example, sub-munitions that fail to hit a hard surface (and land instead in fields or in treetops) may not explode. Also, faulty delivery systems or processes could affect the arming sequence of sub-munitions. When this occurs, sub-munitions may not explode. Unexploded munitions can be unstable and are susceptible to exploding unexpectedly.
Unexploded bomblets, like other explosive remnants of war and landmines, have the potential also to cause long-term hardships to communities which are unable to farm land or use roads that are believed to be littered with these weapons.
3 International efforts to deal with the problem of cluster munitions
Efforts toward supplementing international law are taking place in two multilateral fora: one is the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), and the other is commonly referred to as the “Oslo process”.
The States that are parties to the Conventional Weapons Convention (CCW), that is concerned with weapons “which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects”, have for several years been examining the adequacy of existing international humanitarian law, as well as possible preventive measures aimed at improving the design of certain munitions, including cluster munitions, with a view to minimizing the humanitarian risk of these munitions becoming explosive remnants of war. At their annual meeting which concluded on 13 November 2007, the Parties adopted the following mandate on cluster munitions:
“The High Contracting Parties to the CCW decided that the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) will negotiate a proposal to address urgently the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions, while striking a balance between military and humanitarian considerations. The GGE should make every effort to negotiate this proposal as rapidly as possible and report on the progress made to the next meeting of the High Contracting Parties in November 2008. The work of the GGE will be supported by military and technical experts. The GGE will meet in 2008 not less than three times for up to a total of seven weeks.”
Since January 2007, a number of like-minded States have responded to a Norwegian initiative, the “Oslo Process”, which would
“prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians and establish a framework for cooperation and assistance that ensures adequate provision of care and rehabilitation to survivors and their communities, clearance of contaminated areas, risk education and destruction of stockpiles of prohibited cluster munitions”.
The group has held two meetings to date – in Oslo, Norway in February and in Lima, Peru in May, respectively attended by some 49 and 68 States The Lima conference discussed the main elements of a new treaty including obligations to provide assistance to victims, clear contaminated land, destroy stockpiles and provide international cooperation and assistance. It also addressed the scope of the treaty and definitions of cluster munitions, i.e. which sub-munitions that will be prohibited. The follow-up meeting opened in Vienna on 5 December and further meetings are planned for New Zealand (February 2008) and Dublin (May 2008).
The relationship between the two processes
Many States involved in the Oslo process believe that their efforts will come to fruition more quickly than within the larger CCW context where decisions are traditionally taken by consensus by the 103 States parties. States engaged in the Oslo process aim to conclude a legally-binding treaty during 2008. On the other hand, several CCW States parties consider that the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions would be best addressed within the CCW context, which comprises all major military powers including the main producers of cluster munitions.
Both processes recognize the serious humanitarian concerns associated with the use of cluster munitions and share the same broad humanitarian objectives – to overcome the unacceptable harm to civilians caused by these weapons. To that extent, they have a mutually reinforcing effect and should be seen as complementing each other.
The UN Secretary-General’s position
On 7 November 2007, in a message to the meeting of States Parties to the CCW Convention meeting in Geneva, the Secretary-General said:
“The atrocious, inhumane impact of cluster munitions requires urgent action. The characteristics of these munitions, with their inherent inaccuracy and their frequent malfunctioning, make them particularly indiscriminate both at the time of use and long after conflicts have ended. They pose significant challenges for international humanitarian law.
I urge you to address the horrendous humanitarian, human rights and developmental effects of cluster munitions by concluding a legally binding instrument of international humanitarian law. The instrument should prohibit the use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. It should require the destruction of current stockpiles of those munitions. And it should provide for clearance and risk mitigation activities, victim assistance, cooperation and compliance and transparency measures.
Until such a legal instrument is adopted, I ask that you take domestic measures to immediately freeze the use and transfer of all cluster munitions.”
The following is a statement by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on 4 December 2007, on the occasion of the Vienna Meeting on Cluster Munitions:
“I am watching closely the international community’s efforts to address the issue of cluster munitions. I have on several occasions made known my views that the inhumane impact of these weapons requires urgent action. I have urged Member States to prohibit cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and to take domestic measures to freeze the use and transfer of all cluster munitions until a new legal instrument is adopted.
I very much hope that all efforts to deal decisively with this issue will intensify over the year ahead. Member States gathering in Vienna at the beginning of December will have an opportunity to give further impetus towards the success of these efforts, and I wish them well. These are humanitarian, human rights and developmental stakes.”
Time Out
Posts: 2,948
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
May 29th, 2008, 05:18 PM
Dublin, Ireland, 19 May 2008 - Secretary-General's video message to Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions
Excellencies,
Building a safer world is an overriding goal of the United Nations. Disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control are central to this mission.
But these activities have proved to be particularly challenging in recent years. Successes have been few and far between.
There have been exceptions, including in the area of international humanitarian law. We have the mine ban treaty, now signed by 156 countries. We have the recent Protocol on explosive remnants of war, which States agreed to under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
But the quest for a safer world continues.
For a number of years, the United Nations has voiced its concern over the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions. Because they are inherently inaccurate and often malfunction, they are particularly indiscriminate and unreliable. This poses a very real danger to civilians, both at the time of use and long after conflicts have ended.
By dealing decisively with cluster munitions, we can reduce deaths, suffering and deprivation among civilians caught up in conflict.
We can help free communities from the hidden horrors of these weapons.
We can allow refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes.
We can free up their land for productive use.
And we can add a new chapter to international humanitarian law, alongside those on landmines and explosive remnants of war.
That is why I call for a legal instrument prohibiting the use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.
This instrument should require that current stockpiles be destroyed. It should provide for activities to clear munitions, mitigate risks and assist victims. And it should provide for measures to advance cooperation, transparency and compliance.
The UN family of agencies, in its work on the ground, has come across many types of cluster munitions. From our experience, all cluster munitions used so far cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and should be prohibited.
Today, my thanks go to the Government of Ireland for convening this important conference, to Norway for its leadership, and to all of you for taking up the challenge. I hope you will be bold and visionary in your deliberations, and wish you every success.
Thank you very much.
Dublin, Ireland, 19 May 2008 - Secretary-General's video message to Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions
Excellencies,
Building a safer world is an overriding goal of the United Nations. Disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control are central to this mission.
But these activities have proved to be particularly challenging in recent years. Successes have been few and far between.
There have been exceptions, including in the area of international humanitarian law. We have the mine ban treaty, now signed by 156 countries. We have the recent Protocol on explosive remnants of war, which States agreed to under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
But the quest for a safer world continues.
For a number of years, the United Nations has voiced its concern over the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions. Because they are inherently inaccurate and often malfunction, they are particularly indiscriminate and unreliable. This poses a very real danger to civilians, both at the time of use and long after conflicts have ended.
By dealing decisively with cluster munitions, we can reduce deaths, suffering and deprivation among civilians caught up in conflict.
We can help free communities from the hidden horrors of these weapons.
We can allow refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes.
We can free up their land for productive use.
And we can add a new chapter to international humanitarian law, alongside those on landmines and explosive remnants of war.
That is why I call for a legal instrument prohibiting the use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.
This instrument should require that current stockpiles be destroyed. It should provide for activities to clear munitions, mitigate risks and assist victims. And it should provide for measures to advance cooperation, transparency and compliance.
The UN family of agencies, in its work on the ground, has come across many types of cluster munitions. From our experience, all cluster munitions used so far cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and should be prohibited.
Today, my thanks go to the Government of Ireland for convening this important conference, to Norway for its leadership, and to all of you for taking up the challenge. I hope you will be bold and visionary in your deliberations, and wish you every success.
Thank you very much.
Time Out
Posts: 2,948
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
May 29th, 2008, 05:31 PM
WEAPONS EXPERTS ON TRACK TO REACH AGREEMENT ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS
11 April 2008
International efforts to address the humanitarian challenges posed by cluster munitions received an additional boost this week. The Group of Governmental Experts to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons concluded its second 2008 Session today at the Palais des Nations. In a productive atmosphere of increasing activity and engagement, the weeklong meeting succeeded in building political momentum and laying the foundation for further negotiations at its next meeting in July.
The Group was chaired by Ambassador Bent Wigotski of Denmark. During the session, the work of the Group of Governmental Experts centered on meetings of its Military, Legal, and Technical Experts conducted under the chairmanship of Major General Lars Fynbo of Denmark, as well as intensive consultations by three Friends of the Chair: Ryuichi Hirano of Japan, on International Humanitarian Law, Markus Reiterer of Austria, on Victim Assistance, and Craig Maclachlan of Australia, on Cooperation and Assistance. In total, 72 States Parties, 3 signatory States, 22 observer States and 10 non-governmental organizations took part in the meeting.
In the course of 8 meetings of the Military, Legal and Technical Experts, delegates took part in an exchange of views on the topics of implementation of International Humanitarian Law; technical aspects of cluster munitions; types of cluster munitions that may cause particular humanitarian harm; victim assistance, cooperation and assistance; definitions, stockpile management, and transfers. The group also benefitted from two presentations on new technologies provided by Textron Defense Systems and Instalaza S.A. as well as a presentation on victim assistance by Dr. Ken Rutherford of the Landmine Survivors Network.
Noteworthy progress was made in the area of International Humanitarian Law implementation through auxiliary informal open-ended meetings and bilateral consultations carried out by Japan in its capacity as Friend of the Chair. The efforts resulted in Draft Elements on International Humanitarian Law and Draft Elements of Best Practice Guide. Considerable progress was also made thanks to the efforts of the Austrian Friend of the Chair on victim assistance – the humanitarian core of the future proposal. Another Friend of the Chair, Australia, produced a food-for-thought paper on International Cooperation and Assistance. The results of the consultations led by the three Friends of the Chair are annexed to the procedural report adopted by the Group of Governmental Experts at its final meeting and will serve as a basis for its work when it meets again in Geneva from 7 to 25 July to conduct the main portion of its negotiations on a new proposal.
The humanitarian impact of cluster munitions has been discussed within the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects since 2001, first - under a broader theme of explosive remnants of war, and since last year – as the main item of the agenda of the Group of Governmental Experts. In particular, the Group is entrusted to “negotiate a proposal to address urgently the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions, while striking a balance between military and humanitarian considerations.”
The 1980 Convention was opened for signature at New York on 10 April 1981 and entered into force on 2 December 1983. It currently has 105 States Parties, and six countries have signed but not yet ratified the Convention. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the depositary of the Convention.
For use of information media; not an official record
DC/08/26E
WEAPONS EXPERTS ON TRACK TO REACH AGREEMENT ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS
11 April 2008
International efforts to address the humanitarian challenges posed by cluster munitions received an additional boost this week. The Group of Governmental Experts to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons concluded its second 2008 Session today at the Palais des Nations. In a productive atmosphere of increasing activity and engagement, the weeklong meeting succeeded in building political momentum and laying the foundation for further negotiations at its next meeting in July.
The Group was chaired by Ambassador Bent Wigotski of Denmark. During the session, the work of the Group of Governmental Experts centered on meetings of its Military, Legal, and Technical Experts conducted under the chairmanship of Major General Lars Fynbo of Denmark, as well as intensive consultations by three Friends of the Chair: Ryuichi Hirano of Japan, on International Humanitarian Law, Markus Reiterer of Austria, on Victim Assistance, and Craig Maclachlan of Australia, on Cooperation and Assistance. In total, 72 States Parties, 3 signatory States, 22 observer States and 10 non-governmental organizations took part in the meeting.
In the course of 8 meetings of the Military, Legal and Technical Experts, delegates took part in an exchange of views on the topics of implementation of International Humanitarian Law; technical aspects of cluster munitions; types of cluster munitions that may cause particular humanitarian harm; victim assistance, cooperation and assistance; definitions, stockpile management, and transfers. The group also benefitted from two presentations on new technologies provided by Textron Defense Systems and Instalaza S.A. as well as a presentation on victim assistance by Dr. Ken Rutherford of the Landmine Survivors Network.
Noteworthy progress was made in the area of International Humanitarian Law implementation through auxiliary informal open-ended meetings and bilateral consultations carried out by Japan in its capacity as Friend of the Chair. The efforts resulted in Draft Elements on International Humanitarian Law and Draft Elements of Best Practice Guide. Considerable progress was also made thanks to the efforts of the Austrian Friend of the Chair on victim assistance – the humanitarian core of the future proposal. Another Friend of the Chair, Australia, produced a food-for-thought paper on International Cooperation and Assistance. The results of the consultations led by the three Friends of the Chair are annexed to the procedural report adopted by the Group of Governmental Experts at its final meeting and will serve as a basis for its work when it meets again in Geneva from 7 to 25 July to conduct the main portion of its negotiations on a new proposal.
The humanitarian impact of cluster munitions has been discussed within the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects since 2001, first - under a broader theme of explosive remnants of war, and since last year – as the main item of the agenda of the Group of Governmental Experts. In particular, the Group is entrusted to “negotiate a proposal to address urgently the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions, while striking a balance between military and humanitarian considerations.”
The 1980 Convention was opened for signature at New York on 10 April 1981 and entered into force on 2 December 1983. It currently has 105 States Parties, and six countries have signed but not yet ratified the Convention. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the depositary of the Convention.
__________
For use of information media; not an official record
DC/08/26E
