Vienna, Austria
Thank you for the floor.
The Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) fully agrees with the comments of most delegations about the importance of annual Meetings of States Parties and regular Review Conferences. We also believe it is essential to have a vibrant intersessional work program, as this is the best way to ensure full implementation of the treaty and also to encourage ever-wider adherence by the largest number of states. The intersessionals are where the real work will get done.
We agree with Canada and others that 20 ratifications is a sufficient and credible number to trigger entry into force, as is the case with the Convention on Conventional Weapons. It is worth noting though that, given the extremely high level of participation and commitment demonstrated here in Vienna, it is likely that a higher number can be easily and rapidly achieved.
A number of comments have been made in this session and earlier ones about the importance of having major user, producer, and stockpiling states involved in the effort to address the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions. The implication has been that such states are somehow missing from the Oslo Process. Nothing could be further from the truth.
While there is no question some highly visible states have not yet taken part in the Oslo Process, the fact is that only four states that have used cluster munitions are not here in Vienna: the United States, Russia, Israel, and Eritrea. Moreover, 23 of the 34 states that have produced cluster munitions are here, as are 55 of the 79 that have stockpiled the weapon. And some of the most prolific users and biggest stockpilers are in our midst. So we should not allow a myth to perpetuate that this process is only for those states with nothing at stake.
Finally, we have heard some concerns about the need to ensure that the new cluster munition ban treaty is compatible with Convention on Conventional Weapons Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War, and that treaty language to that effect may be necessary. While we certainly agree with the sentiment, we cannot recall that any such concerns were raised or language demanded about the need for compatibility of Protocol V with the pre-existing Mine Ban Treaty, despite extensive overlap in the two instruments.
Thank you.
