Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make a brief statement at the end of this meeting. As a member of the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), we fully associate ourselves with the previous statement, but we take the floor to make a few additional observations.
Human Rights Watch had the displeasure of being in Vienna in October 1995, 10 years ago, when the CCW negotiations on Amended Protocol II collapsed and were suspended to resume the following year. History does have a way of repeating itself, especially in CCW. Hopefully this parallel will not play out further - CCW reconvened in 1996 and concluded a new protocol that was widely criticized by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and even many States Parties, as wholly inadequate in addressing the humanitarian concerns associated with antipersonnel mines. This failure led to the Ottawa Process and the Mine Ban Treaty.
It is all too easy to envision resumption of discussions or negotiations on mines other than antipersonnel mines (MOTAPM) leading to an already weak text becoming even weaker, unacceptably weak for NGOs and those suffering from the effects of antivehicle mines (AVM). This should be avoided at all costs. No protocol is better than a fatally flawed protocol.
But this is not to say MOTAPM discussions have been useless. They have recognized the humanitarian problems caused by AVM and have identified possible solutions. Discussions have helped create the environment in which many states are already changing practice on matters such as detectability and the active life of MOTAPM.
But Mr. Chairman, it is time for CCW States Parties to shift focus; consideration of MOTAPM can of course continue at some level, but emphasis from a humanitarian perspective should clearly and considerably be on cluster munitions.
Just as States Parties failed on MOTAPM, States Parties also failed to respond to the CMC call for a submunitions-specific mandate for 2006. Nevertheless, the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) work in 2006 should primarily be devoted to discussion of cluster munitions - issues related to targeting and use as well as reliability.
Some progress was made in the past year on cluster munitions, though far short of what could or should have taken place. The international humanitarian law (IHL) questionnaire was useful and we encourage more responses, but we even more so encourage a new, more detailed questionnaire focused on submunitions. HRW has proposed, and last week distributed, possible elements of such a questionnaire.
We very much want CCW to be a relevant and dynamic international instrument. Protocol 5 was an important step in restoring CCW credibility, but the MOTAPM outcome, so far, and the reluctance to address cluster munitions in any meaningful way sharply undercuts that credibility.
We urge States Parties in the strongest possible way to make cluster munitions the focus of work in 2006; work with a view to agreement on a negotiating mandate at the Review Conference.
Mr. Chairman, this is the only way that States Parties can demonstrate to the world that CCW is capable of dealing with emerging humanitarian threats, as it is designed to do.
Thank you.
