Geneva, Switzerland
Many CCW States Parties frequently speak of the need to balance humanitarian concerns and military necessities. But it would appear that those who are arguing for the elimination of the definition of "cluster munition victims" are putting the key humanitarian aspect of the draft protocol to the side.
As the ICRC, UNMAS, and several states have pointed out, this provision is about lessons learned. It reflects a decade and more of experience in the field and in diplomatic fora about the what is needed to adequately provide for those affected by the detritus of war and how best to do it.
The so-called "compromise" proposal by the United States is not much better than the elimination of the provision. The essence of the proposal is that it removes affected families and communities from the definition.
This is not just "simpler" language as a number of states are contending. It is extraordinarily more restrictive - and inadequate - than the current text. It would have a huge impact on how Article 10 on victim assistance is implemented and on its effectiveness.
Several states have said that a definition of victim is not needed, because we all know what a victim means. But in fact, we do not all have the same understanding or conception of what constitutes a victim. Some believe it is only the person killed or injured, while those who have been most deeply involved on the ground know that it is also the family and the community.
These very different concepts must be reconciled, and how they are reconciled will tell us a great deal about what the intent of this draft protocol is, about how effective it will be, and about how much impact it will have.
Thank you.
