Vienna, Austria
December 6, 2007
Thank you Mr. Ambassador. In keeping with your request, we will focus our remarks at this time on the issues of non-explosive submunitions and landmines.
But we would first like to express our concurrence with the many states that have said this discussion on definitions is at the center of our deliberations here in Vienna—and beyond. Indeed, it is about what is to be banned and what is not. The ability of any future treaty to really make a difference depends on this. As we have already seen today, there is a natural inclination for states to try to defend and protect their own arsenals. But we will only be successful if all recognize that ultimately the entire purpose of this process is the protection of civilians, not the protection of national stocks.
|
The CMC has proposed its own definition, which is similar to though not identical to the draft Vienna text. Our definition does not capture non-explosive or inert or pyrotechnic submunitions, such as smoke, chaff, flare, or illuminating submunitions. We do note that some non-explosive cluster munitions, such as those with steel rods, could have a dangerous wide area effect and it will be essential to take special care that they be used in conformity with international humanitarian law.
With respect to landmines, we note that some remotely-delivered antivehicle mines are formally designated as cluster bomb units by many countries. They can have the same deleterious wide area effect as cluster munitions. They can leave behind significant amounts of unexploded ordnance, as with cluster munitions. At this point, we simply ask if states feel confident that these weapons, which have similar effects to cluster munitions, do not cause unacceptable harm to civilians. We suggest that it is too early to take them off the negotiating table.
Thank you.
