Statement to the CCW Group of Governmental Experts

Mr. Chairman designate,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the Group.

On behalf of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), I would like to intervene briefly on the important issues being addressed by this Group of Governmental Experts to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Within the scope of the UN’s work in the area of humanitarian operations related to mines and explosive remnants of   war (ERW) – currently in over 30 countries -- we have had the misfortune of witnessing the impact of these weapons on civilians in many post-conflict settings.   The Secretary-General made his concerns in this regard quite clear in a recent speech when he emphasized the unacceptable human toll that ERW and anti-vehicle mines are taking on civilians. The Secretary-General has also noted the importance of the CCW framework in addressing the global humanitarian and development impact of those weapons.

As we search for a means to minimize the impact of mines and ERW on civilians, we see the CCW as an important forum in which humanitarian concerns relating to conventional warfare can be addressed. We are very encouraged by the fact that States Parties to the CCW have taken steps to address ERW by adopting Protocol V.   Can we conclude from this that concrete progress is equally possible on the remaining issues on your agenda? We hope so.

Specifically, during this year’s sessions,   we would like to see concrete progress made on three key fronts:

1)        A rapid entry into force and implementation of Protocol V,

2)        Further regulation of Mines Other Than Anti-Personnel Mines, and

3)        Measures to stop the humanitarian and development impact of cluster munitions and their accompanying sub-munitions.

I would like to direct my remarks to each of these three areas.

Protocol V

The accumulated experience of UN humanitarian operations is that ERW in post conflict settings are injuring, and just as often killing, civilians long after wars are over.   The provisions of Protocol V will not be effective if this protocol does not enter into force.   At present, only five states have ratified the protocol, with others in the process of completing the legal steps required for ratification.   We urge all states to ratify as soon as possible. It would be useful to hear later today from States when they expect to be able to do so. In this connection the UN is ready to provide any technical assistance required by states to assist in this process. We have already asked our experts in ERW-affected states to begin addressing issues involved in ratification of the protocol, and compliance with its provisions. We will also encourage these States to prepare appeals for funding of clearance operations under Article 7.

MOTAPM

A common UN position has already been presented to this forum regarding MOTAPM in March 2004. I would like to take this opportunity to recall some key elements of that position:

The IACG-MA’ s position is that all MOTAPM should have a limited lifespan. We are glad that some countries are already taking action in this direction. We have indicated why we support this view from a humanitarian, development and mine clearance angle. In addition, it should also be taken into account that MOTAPM with a limited lifespan are less likely to be used by non-State actors.

Detectability of all MOTAPM by commonly available technical mine-detection equipment should be the rule, with no exception. The IACG is glad to note that there is broad support for this idea among States Parties to CCW.

We continue to call for not fitting MOTAPM with anti-handling devices and with sensitive fuzes that can be activated by the presence, proximity or contact of a person. However, we recognize the complexity of these features, and the absence of agreement on this position should not be used as a reason for delaying agreement on other issues. We think that a reasonable way to address these issues could be to agree on best practices to be attached to a main instrument as an Annex, as with Protocol V’s Technical Annex.

The impact of MOTAPM in humanitarian settings is well documented – in research carried out by the UN and other entities. It is clear to us that their use is currently resulting in unnecessary harm to civilians, both directly and indirectly – directly when a civilian bus in Angola detonates a mine causing multiple deaths and horrific injuries, and indirectly when humanitarian agencies are prevented from delivering essential aid because roads cannot be used. The World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that delivery of food aid to 2 million people in Sudan has been compromised by mined roads. If we have not yet convinced all States Parties here today that the humanitarian consequences of MOTAPM require regulation of their use, then I am afraid we have not been effectively communicating the evidence that we have seen.   We urge States Parties to take the steps needed to develop an instrument that will keep MOTAPM out of the hands of irresponsible users.

Several of you have told us that the CCW can really only handle one issue at a time. We see an urgent need for progress on MOTAPM, as I have described, and believe that this should be within reach.

 
However, I would like to raise one other issue today, because we believe it is equally significant. However, none of us wants to see this issue used to justify delaying or derailing efforts on MOTAPM. The issue is cluster munitions.

Cluster Munitions

At previous meetings the UN has spoken of the casualties sustained among civilian populations during and after cluster munitions strikes. The clearance of unexploded sub-munitions is always hazardous for demining personnel, and their presence constitutes an obstacle to post-conflict humanitarian and development operations.   In Kosovo , Afghanistan , Iraq and now Sudan we have seen that this class of weapons has presented particular humanitarian problems.

For clarity’s sake, UNMAS has defined cluster munitions to pertain to “containers designed to disperse or release multiple sub-munitions” and has defined sub-munitions as “any munition that, to perform its task, separates from a parent munition”.   This definition and its accompanying technical notes will be provided in a Working Paper to be circulated separately. The definitions refer both to air-dropped, as well as to artillery-delivered systems.

UN agencies are concerned with the hazards that cluster munitions pose as ERW, but also with the immediate threat posed to the lives of civilians during cluster munition-strikes.   In cases when this area weapon is used within or near populated areas, the inability to target it accurately can result in an unacceptable toll in civilian casualties, as well as destruction of basic infrastructure.

In this context, I wish to reiterate the call for a freeze on the use of cluster munitions, first made by the Inter Agency Standing Committee to the Meeting of States Parties to the CCW in November 2003.

While Protocol V provides a good framework for post-conflict remedial measures, addressing some problems posed by cluster munitions and their associated sub-munitions would, in our view, require a strengthening of the international humanitarian law that currently governs their use.   An additional legal instrument within the CCW framework could achieve this aim.  

At the same time, action should not wait for the completion of legal deliberations.   We urge all States Parties to honour their current obligations under International Humanitarian Law, as they pertain to the use of these weapons. All weapons that cannot be used in a manner fully compliant with International Humanitarian Law should clearly be destroyed.

Thank you for your attention, and for your commitment to these important humanitarian issues.  

Martin Barber, Director, UN Mine Action Service