Cluster Munitions – basic facts and the UN Secretary-General’s Statements
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.”
