Belgrade, Serbia
This is a rather extraordinary gathering. The very concept of it is quite radical in international affairs. With this meeting, we are saying that the interests of those who have suffered the effects of an indiscriminate weapon-effects that sometimes last for decades on end-their interests are paramount, not the interests of those who want to continue to use, produce, stockpile, and trade in that pernicious weapon.
This boldness in approach-putting humanitarian concerns above all else-is why we will succeed in concluding a new treaty banning cluster munitions in 2008.
This Oslo Process dares to be different. This Oslo-Lima-San Jose-Belgrade and more to come Process dares to be different in many ways. It does not have to meet only in Geneva or New York in mind-numbing disarmament fora, which in fact, of course, are anti-disarmament. It does not have to endure the chilling impact of consensus rules, where the worst position becomes the accepted position.
It does have the audacity to listen to the demands of civil society, to listen to the voices of civil society, to listen to the voices of the individuals who have lost part of their lives to cluster munitions, like Branislav Kapetanovic earlier this morning, to listen to the concerns of affected states, to learn from their experiences, and to craft a treaty that will serve their interests as the top priority, not as an afterthought.
The chorus of voices is growing louder each day. Cluster munitions that blanket wide areas indiscriminately are simply not acceptable. Cluster munitions that leave behind large numbers of deadly duds that function as antipersonnel mines are simply not acceptable. These weapons do not need to be used responsibly, they do not need to be better regulated, they must be banned.
Can we achieve an effective treaty-a treaty that according to the Oslo Declaration mandate will prohibit cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians? Yes, we can. Two weeks ago in Oslo, at the time of the 10th anniversary of the conclusion of the negotiations of the Mine Ban Treaty, Norway's Foreign Minister said there is no longer any question about whether we will be able to achieve a new treaty.
I share his optimism, but also believe that it will not be easy and will take extraordinary effort on all our parts-governments, NGOs, the ICRC, and UN agencies-and will require close cooperation among us.
There will be many challenges to and perhaps some direct attacks on the process and the emerging treaty by those who wish to hold on to their vast stocks of cluster munitions, and not see them stigmatized and de-legitimized by the rest of the world.
But we can get there. The question is not really if we will have a treaty, but how good it will be.
Some people talk about the "trade-off" between a strong treaty and the need to bring as many countries on board as possible, or talk about the need to "balance" these two elements. The lesson that we learned 10 years ago with Ottawa Process on antipersonnel mines is that it is the integrity of the treaty that matters most. If you set the bar low to appeal to certain nations, they will only drag the bar down to a lower level, if they deign to join at all. If you set the bar high, most nations will, over time, rise up to that level and embrace it, as the international community more broadly does so. If there are governments that will not accept the humanitarian standard that we are aspiring to with this treaty, we should not want them to be part of the process.
What constitutes a good, strong treaty on cluster munitions? We have a pretty clear picture of that in the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC). We know that it will be a bad treaty if it includes an exception for submunitions with self-destructing devices. As we saw in Lebanon, far too many self-destructing submunitions do not in fact self-destruct. We know that it will be a bad treaty if it permits submunitions with a certain arbitrary failure rate. Pick a number, 10 percent, 5 percent, even 1 percent, none are acceptable because none will function as advertised. There is simply no relationship between the failure rates promised under test conditions and those found in actual combat conditions. Of course there will be many things to negotiate in the new treaty, but these should not be among them.
We understand that governments are going to have discussions about various types of cluster munitions, and whether they should be prohibited by a new treaty. The CMC believes that the mindset from the start should be that all cluster munitions cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and that all cluster munitions are inaccurate and unreliable. The burden of proof should then be on governments and militaries to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a cluster munition that will not cause unacceptable harm, that is indeed accurate and reliable. If governments want exceptions, they must make the humanitarian case and prove that such weapons do not have the same indiscriminate and long-lasting effects as other cluster munitions.
A strong and effective treaty-as has been recognized by states during the Oslo, Lima, and San Jose meetings-will be comprehensive and integrated in its approach. It will be humanitarian in nature and not just disarmament. It will not really be a treaty aimed at a weapon, but aimed at protecting civilians and helping them cope with the consequences of war. It should have the shortest possible deadlines for stockpile destruction and clearance of contaminated areas.
Building on many years of experience in implementing the Mine Ban Treaty, it should have even stronger provisions than in that convention regarding victim assistance, clearance, risk education, and cooperation and assistance. These will of course be the prime topics of discussion during this meeting, and my colleagues with great expertise on these matters will have many ideas and suggestions to propose.
In closing, let me reiterate the importance of affected states playing an expanded role in the Oslo Process in the months to come, indeed playing a leadership role, providing guidance and inspiration to others.
To those affected states here participating in an Oslo Process meeting for the first time, we very much welcome your presence and urge you to pledge your support for the process and the Oslo Declaration. This is in your best interests, more so than non-affected states.
By achieving an effective treaty in 2008 through the Oslo Process, we can ensure that the needs of those states already suffering from cluster munition contamination will be met and we can fulfill our shared hope that in the future there will be no new states affected by cluster munitions.
Thank you.
