A historic conference in Dublin saw 111 countries agreeing to outlaw the use of cluster bombs, but the biggest producers of the weapons stayed away
IT WAS JUST one word but it threatened to drag out even further what had been almost two weeks of delicate diplomatic manoeuvring to secure a draft treaty outlawing cluster munitions. The word was "strongly".
Just before representatives from more than 100 countries took their seats at Croke Park last Wednesday afternoon for what was expected to be the definitive session of the conference, the Lebanese delegation raised one last concern. They pointed to paragraph 4 (a) of Article 4, which deals with the responsibilities of countries that have used cluster munitions prior to the ban. The text read that such states are "encouraged to provide, inter alia, technical, financial, material or human resources assistance" to facilitate the clearance of cluster bomb remnants they have left behind. The Lebanese demanded that the text should read "strongly encouraged". This was deemed problematic by another country participating in the conference, but, after calls to its capital, the message came through to proceed. Thus the final wrinkle in this painstakingly woven treaty was smoothed out.
The pact, which was formally endorsed yesterday by the 111 nations attending the Dublin conference, creates a new international convention prohibiting the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions. It also sets an eight-year deadline for signatory countries to destroy their stockpiles of the weapons. After the convention is signed in Oslo in December, the ban will enter into force after 30 states have ratified it.
Cluster munitions consist of canisters packed with as many as 650 small bombs, or "bomblets," that scatter over a large area when a canister is dropped from an aircraft or fired from the ground. The bomblets often don't explode until long after a conflict is over. Some campaigners for a ban wryly refer to the bombs as the gifts that keep on giving.
President of the conference Daithi O'Ceallaigh, Ireland's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, told the final session that the text struck a balance between the interests of all states participating in the negotiations, adding that it was "not open to amendment as such". The first to respond was Zambia, speaking on behalf of African nations attending the conference. Though pointing out that they were unhappy with some elements of the text, Zambia said the group, in the spirit of compromise, would endorse it. Most of the countries that followed echoed these sentiments.
"It was an uplifting experience to sit in the conference room as a wave of support for the president's text broke over it," wrote attendees on the Disarmament Insight blog. "A number of states were also clearly moved by the experience and made inspiring interventions."
'FROM NOW ON, cluster munitions are stigmatised," the Swiss said. Austria compared the agreement to a child: "not perfect in every way, not beautiful perhaps, but we are proud of it." Norway declared it a "breakthrough". The UK said it would "make a real change to the conduct of war and to the lives of civilians". Belgium pointed out that it "clearly combines prevention with cure" and that it was a "fair yet ambitious compromise". Germany described it as "the best possible compromise" and "an important milestone for international humanitarian law". Laos, a country where millions of cluster bombs still lie unexploded from the Vietnam War, said that the treaty would help to "heal open wounds" caused by past use of the weapons.
The convention "means that these weapons are not only morally unacceptable but also now illegal under international humanitarian law," Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said in a statement. "When implemented, it will prevent tremendous civilian suffering."
The Red Cross urged a ban on the use of cluster bombs in 2000 after the conflict in Kosovo. The munitions were used in Eritrea and Ethiopia in 1998, Serbia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and by Israel in the final days of its war with Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006.
It was the latter conflict that provided the momentum for a comprehensive ban similar to that adopted for landmines in 1997. The Dublin agreement was the culmination of a process begun by a relatively small group of nations, including Ireland, in February 2007 in Oslo. Many more countries took part in subsequent meetings in Peru, Austria and New Zealand. At every stage Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs helped guide the process, with Irish ambassadors to participating countries sounding out the likely challenges and possibilities of securing agreement.
"I knew from the outreach we had done that the people in that room last week wanted a deal," says Daithi O'Ceallaigh. "Lots of people said we would not be able to get a deal in Dublin. They said this was too big for Ireland, but we succeeded. There was an extraordinary determination on the part of the Irish. It's a very proud moment. In my view this is one of the most important things the State has done since independence."
Absent from the Dublin conference, however, were some of the top manufacturers and users of cluster munitions - the US, Israel, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan - prompting sceptics to wonder how useful the convention will actually prove to be.
The US State Department said the weapons remain an important part of its arsenal. "While the United States shares the humanitarian concerns of those in Dublin, cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility, and their elimination from US stockpiles would put the lives of our soldiers and those of our coalition partners at risk," spokesman Tom Casey said.
BUT ACTIVISTS BELIEVE the treaty draws a moral line in the sand and will influence non-signatories in the same way as did the outlawing of landmines. Of the nations, including the US, that refused to sign up to the 1997 ban, they point out, only Burma still uses landmines.
The US lobbied hard to persuade its allies not to sign up to this week's agreement. "There were not-so-subtle attempts to prevent countries getting involved," says one delegate. "A number of countries were reminded of their connections and relationship with the US." Slovenia was reminded that its de-mining and aid programme to assist mine-affected countries in the Balkans region is funded by the US, for example.
Despite pleas from Washington, the UK, after years of resistance, endorsed the ban, in a major breakthrough that encouraged undecided nations and helped clear the way for the convention's passage.
A group of former British military commanders had earlier this month urged the scrapping of Britain's stock of cluster munitions, declaring: "If we are to be accepted as legitimate users of force then we must demonstrate our determination to employ that force only in the most responsible and accountable way."
In response to US lobbying and concerns raised by British diplomats, however, the final text contains a loophole allowing states party to the ban to conduct joint military operations with countries that are not, such as the US. Several anti-cluster bomb groups were disappointed with this concession, with one describing it as a "stain in the fine fabric" of the agreement.
Daithi O'Ceallaigh acknowledges such criticisms but defends the agreement as "our best shot".
"Every treaty of this kind is a compromise and many countries had to make real compromises on this," he says. "We wanted a compromise that would allow us to be as ambitious as possible and I believe we achieved that."