Dublin, Ireland
It is still not clear why the proposed stockpile destruction deadline of six years is appropriate, as opposed to a shorter period. We have never seen the rationale for that particular number. The Mine Ban Treaty experience has shown us that difficulties in meeting deadlines have come not from too little time, or technical issues, or financial issues, but rather the political will and prioritizatoin to start early enough to finish on time.
Moreover, the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) believes that the provision allowing for a ten-year extension of the deadline is a mistake, as it will encourage states that do not need extra time to utilize it nevertheless. Again, the Mine Ban Treaty is instructive. For stockpile destruction, no extension is allowed and many states have finished just barely ahead of the deadline. Without doubt, if an extension were allowed, many would have used it. For clearance, the treaty allows an extension of the deadline and far too many states are utilizing it, including many that could have finished on time if they had the will.
If states do decide to have an extension provision, then the measures proposed by Canada are essential, including that any requested extension must be for the minimum time necessary, that states parties can grant a shorter extension than requested, and other aspects of how the extension process should work.
With respect to retention, the CMC opposes proposals to add a new provision that would allow the retention of cluster munitions and submunitions for training, development, and military counter-measures. We do not believe any of these three purposes are essential so as to justify an exception to the prohibition on stockpiling. To our knowledge, no clearance organization accredited to the UN uses live submunitions for training. Adequate technologies already exist to detect unexploded submunitions. The need for live submunitions for counter-measures is not established; if it were a vital requirement, states would already have samples in their possession, as nearly all have been available for many years.
It is important to note that the retention provision in the Mine Ban Treaty has been problematic, with many states keeping mines even though they have no discernable need for them, and many simply keeping them in store without ever using them for permitted purposes, or any purposes.
If states decide to insert a retention provision, then the kind of measures proposed by Australia would be crucial, including that only the minimum number absolutely necessary be allowed, perhaps even a specific numerical limitation, and detailed transparency requirements, including delineation of how the retained number was calculated, and the intended purposes and actual uses of the submunitions.
Thank you.
