Statement to the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions: Intervention to the Committee of the Whole on Interoperability

Dublin, Ireland  
May 19, 2008  
 
Like many states, the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) believes that interoperability is an important issue and one that we would like to see resolved as early as possible in these negotiations. We also think that an early solution is indeed possible.  

Related Material Save Civilians: Ban Cluster Munitions by 2008 Special Focus Final Talks on Cluster Munition Ban Treaty Press Release, May 16, 2008 More on Human Rights Watch's work on cluster munitions Thematic Page Cluster Munition Coalition Web Site Free Email Newsletter

For us, the most important thing is that states do not delete or undercut the prohibition on assisting non-signatories with the use of cluster munitions. This is a core prohibition that is essential to the strength of the treaty and to the promotion of the norm against the weapon. We understand that states want to ensure legal protections to their soldiers for any unintentional assistance that could occur during joint military operations. And we do not believe that mere participation in joint military operations is prohibited. But, we do not understand why the legal concerns cannot be addressed as they were for the Mine Ban Treaty, which contains identical language, through national declarations and implementation laws.  
 
From our discussions with governments, the only reasons they seem to give about why this convention must be approached differently than the Mine Ban Treaty is that the lawyers got it wrong 11 years ago, and that the United States is much more likely to use cluster munitions than it was landmines – though at the time the US told everyone that it absolutely had to be able to use scatterable antipersonnel mines and that it would use them.  
 
If states do decide that new text is essential on this matter, it is crucial that they make it clear that they object to and will discourage any use of cluster munitions by any armed force, that they will not engage in any activities that run counter to the object and purpose of the convention, and that they are only seeking better legal protections, not greater freedom for another party to use the weapon.  
 
Thank you.  

 

 

Suggest This Page to a Friend Your Email (required) Your Friend's Name Friend's Email (required) Email addresses are not stored. Your Message Enter Security Code (case sensitive) Please read the HRW Privacy Policy