Mr. Chairman, Coordinators, delegates,
As you deliberate over the next two weeks, it is vital that you keep in mind that this Convention is grounded in the principles of international humanitarian law. While everyone is aware of that, it is nevertheless good to re-iterate it often, and to integrate it into your thinking and into whatever language is adopted on the issues before you. Above all, the Convention is aimed at minimizing harm to civilians from warfare and weaponry. This is both a noble ideal and a legal obligation.
It is regrettable that the CCW is best known for what many States in this room called the outright failure of the negotiations on antipersonnel mines in 1995 and 1996. The CCW is in fact an important international instrument dealing with dum-dum bullets, incendiary weapons, antivehicle mines and blinding lasers. But States Parties have before them now a grand opportunity -- an opportunity to show that the CCW is a live and growing convention that is responsive to global humanitarian needs.
An effective new protocol dealing with all aspects of explosive remnants of war could be the greatest CCW achievement, one that might make the most significant difference in protecting civilians and saving lives. We implore governments to seize this moment in time and make the most of it. Do not repeat the mistakes of 1995 and 1996 and make the least of it.
In saying that, we don't mean that negotiations have to be aimed at banning any new class or classes of weapons, but they must be aimed at new rules, regulations and restrictions that will have a truly meaningful impact on the ground, that will make a real difference to war-affected communities.
It is our hope that you will walk away from the next two weeks with a clear mandate to begin immediate negotiations on a new legally binding instrument that addresses all aspects of explosive remnants of war. We might as well start calling it Protocol 5. You should challenge yourselves to complete negotiations in one year's time, as would be appropriate to the humanitarian imperative. There is the added advantage that with respect to ERW, military interests and humanitarian needs largely coincide and are reinforcing.
Human Rights Watch believes that the negotiations should address both preventive and remedial measures, and should address both generic and weapons-specific issues. We would much prefer that a dual track approach would mean fast-track negotiations on the remedial and generic measures, and perhaps necessarily slower track negotiations for the more complicated weapons-specific issues - but negotiate rather than merely discuss these more difficult matters, as is currently envisioned.
The ERW mandate would be strengthened by delineating the types of remedial measures that are to be the subject of negotiations. It is important that these include not just clearance, but also advance warnings to civilian populations, and the rapid provision of relevant information to clearance and risk assessment professionals. They should also include victim assistance.
These remedial measures are essential, and will be easier to agree on, but preventive measures must not be ignored. Ultimately, preventive measures are likely to offer greater protection to civilian populations, saving the most lives and limbs, while also being the most cost-effective when one factors in not just the cost of clean-up, but the human toll and the socio-economic costs of ERW.
Preventive measures should include technical approaches, mainly aimed at reducing the failure rate of munitions, as well as targeting issues. Assessments of recent conflicts have shown that new targeting restrictions are needed to better protect civilians, particularly with regard to use in or near populated areas.
It is important that special attention be paid to explosive submunitions, or cluster bombs as they are commonly known. We have ample evidence from numerous conflicts, most recently Afghanistan, that cluster bombs pose grave dangers to civilian populations both during strikes - due to the wide footprint and lack of accuracy - and after the attack due to the large number of explosive duds inevitably left behind. Human Rights Watch has a new report on cluster bomb use in Afghanistan to share with delegates.
If States Parties choose not to address cluster bombs in a meaningful fashion, then their efforts of the past year and the coming year are likely to be viewed by the general public as a humanitarian cop-out, with governments doing the easy, but avoiding the hard. This may or may not prove to be an accurate assessment, but it is likely to be the public relations reality.
For its part, Human Rights Watch hopes to be able to engage constructively with States Parties in the coming weeks and years to bring about the most effective humanitarian law possible.
In closing, I would like to note that today is the fifth anniversary of the opening for signature of the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa, Canada. Nearly every government in this room is a State Party to that treaty, which provides the only viable framework for eradicating antipersonnel mines. We wish you all a happy anniversary.
Thank you.
