ISSUE 21

SEPTEMBER 2007

EDITORIAL
IN THIS ISSUE:
‘Unstoppable,’ ‘the responsibility of our times,’ ‘snowball
effect,’ ‘inevitable,’ ‘wide and irrevocable’- these are some of the P1
phrases used by states, civil society and international agencies to EDITORIAL
IN THIS ISSUE
qualify the Oslo process on cluster munitions. Two years ago though
(see Ban Mines Newsletter n°16), just after the adoption of the first PP 2
ever ban on cluster munitions by the Belgian Senate, we asked in “M85, THE MOST
our editorial “Are we on the way to a new Ottawa?” We were not ENVIRONMENTAL
FRIENDLY DEVICE IN
sure, but hoped that parliamentarians from a small country could THE WORLD” (SIC)
trigger an international process leading to the prohibition of an
inhumane weapon, once again. A senior Brussels-based diplomat PP 3-4
had just told us “You are going nowhere with your work on cluster LIMA CONFERENCE:
THE TREATY TAKES
munitions.” But two years later, the Oslo process on cluster
SHAPE
munitions became well established and gained support from about
80 countries. The partnership between states and civil society is PP 4-11
developing, and compelling evidence on the devastating RECENT
consequences of cluster munitions on people and communities is DEVELOPMENTS ON
CLUSTER MUNITIONS:
now available (see Circle of Impact, our latest report on the human CHALLENGES AND
impact of cluster munitions). OBSTACLES

But the job is far from being over. The treaty we call for needs PP 11
to be a strong treaty, a treaty that bans cluster munitions, that INVESTMENTS IN
CLUSTER MUNITIONS
responds to the needs of affected communities and that does not PRODUCERS
leave any loopholes. The weapons we are after are characterized by
their wide area effect and the large number of unexploded P 12
submunitions left after conflict. A treaty that fails to address all these MINE BAN TREATY
UPDATE
features shall not be acceptable. Together with our colleagues from
all over the world we shall be watching future developments very P 12-13
carefully. Our efforts shall only end with an international ban on SHORT NEWS
cluster munitions and effective implementation of provisions to
respond to the needs of affected individuals and communities. P 14
RECENT
PUBLICATIONS
CALENDAR

Founding Member of the ICBL,

Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureate
 “M85, THE MOST ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY DEVICE IN THE WORLD” (sic)
M85 cluster submunitions were used in Iraq (2003) and Lebanon (2006). According
to the Israeli firm Israel Military Industries (IMI), “Our M85 devices are the most
environmental friendly device in the world because they leave no environmental hazardous
behind and only minute of hazardous duds – in fact, much less then conventional munitions
(High Explosive). (…) The proven hazardous dud rate of the M85 bomblet is 0.06%.”1
However, on 19 April 2007, during an expert meeting on cluster munitions organized
by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), a representative of the Norwegian
Defense Research Establishment (NDRE) reported on tests of two types of cluster
munitions stockpiled by the Norwegian Army: the DM642 containing 63 DM1383 bomblets
and the DM662, containing 49 DM1385 bomblets (almost identical to the Israeli M85
bomblets used in Lebanon in summer 2006). “Both have a pyrotechnic self destruct
mechanism that is activated immediately after push-out from the container. (…) All together
the results showed that on average 0.5% of the DM1383 remained as duds, while 1.1% of
the DM1385 did so. This in turn resulted in a moratorium on the Norwegian use of such
weapons.” After a visit to Lebanon, the NDRE representative reported that “It seems quite
probable that the dud rate of the M85 bomblets used by Israeli forces in Lebanon is more
than 5%, which is clearly in conflict with what we observe at the Norwegian tests. Another
observation is that around 30-50% of the duds of M85s found in Lebanon seem to be
armed, while 10% of the Norwegian DM1385 was armed.”
On the same day, a senior UN clearance specialist active in Lebanon reported that
”Whilst several military users maintain that the M85 with self-destruct mechanism has a
failure rate of less than 1%, the evidence on the ground in South Lebanon clearly shows
that this weapon has a reality failure rate of between 5 and 10%. It is common to find at
least 3 unexploded submunition grenades from individual carrier shells (M396/49 per shell)
equating to a 6% failure rate, whilst the M85 without self-destruct mechanism is commonly
found with a 15% failure rate on the ground (M395/63 per shell). Regardless of the actual
failure rate figure for this weapon, it is most definitely higher than the less than 1% figure
doggedly quoted by military users and manufacturer/designers.” According to the ICRC
report of the meeting, the UN representative did not consider self-destruct mechanisms to
be an adequate solution, “due to the fact that the failure rate of self-destruct mechanisms is
rather significant and that the technology is not close to being 100% reliable. He stressed
that in the discussions and development of relevant technology, there needs to be greater
consideration of the reality of using these weapons in battlefield conditions.”2

More information: www.imi-israel.com

http://npaid.websys.no/item5/eng/1170798601
www.landmineaction.org/resources/ActionPacks/m85_factsheet.pdf
www.friendsoflebanon.org/index_files/M85.htm

“We (…) lend our full support to this new process determined to eliminate cluster munitions. We
have no doubt that this effort will succeed. (…) Eliminated now, the world will not face their global
contamination as it has with landmines. (…) work in the CCW (…) cannot and must not be seen
as the “real” answer to the cluster dilemma.
Nor should a purely technical approach be seen as the “real” solution. Self-destruct devices that
won’t always work and deceptive reliability standards that will rarely be met cannot be
considered appropriate humanitarian responses. Hi-tech answers to the landmine problem were
rejected in the Mine Ban Treaty, just as they must be in a cluster munition convention.”
(Statement of the Nobel Women’s Initiative to the Lima Conference, 23 May 2007)

1
Israel Military Industries Ltd submission to the Australian Senate Standing Committee Inquiry into Cluster Munitions
(Prohibition Bill), 14 February 2007.
2
ICRC, Humanitarian, Military, Technical and Legal Challenges of Cluster Munitions, Montreux, Switzerland, 18-20 April 2007,
pp.44-47.

2
 LIMA CONFERENCE: THE TREATY TAKES SHAPE3
The Lima Conference on Cluster Munitions (23-25 May 2007) was attended by 67
countries: 14 from Africa, 14 from the Americas, 8 from Asia and the Pacific, 28 from
Europe and 3 from the Middle East. With 31 new states participating in Lima and San
José,4 most of them making explicit statements endorsing the Oslo declaration and
Malawi’s announcement on 21 August (see below), this brings the number of states
participating in the Oslo process to 81.5 Russia attended the Lima Conference as an
observer. Ten international organizations as well as civil society representatives from 35
NGOs took part in the conference and the civil society forum. There was broad consensus
on the essential elements of a new treaty and the need for articles on victim assistance,
clearance, stockpile destruction, international cooperation and assistance, and
transparency measures, including deadlines for clearance and stockpile destruction.
As the Peruvian Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs said at the opening, “this first
conference after the Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions aimed to identify and realize a
first analysis of the most important elements of the future treaty on the basis of a
combination of the technical aspects and military characteristics of those arms as well as
the humanitarian, social and economical aspects linked to their use.” The presence of some
of the major states affected by cluster munitions contributed to the quality of discussions
and helped the focus remain on humanitarian rather than military issues.
Victim assistance was the first topic to be discussed. In general there was broad
agreement that victim assistance should be a core provision of the new treaty and that the
provisions of the Mine Ban Treaty on victim assistance could and should be strengthened in
a stand alone article of the new cluster munitions treaty. Some states and the Cluster
Muniton Coalition also called for victim assistance to be included in general obligations of
the treaty. Participants recognized that the definition of “victim” should cover not just
affected individuals but their families and communities as well. There was also broad
agreement on the need to adopt a human rights based approach to victim assistance.
States agreed on the importance of clearance operations to enable affected
communities to recover and rebuild. The major issues discussed included clearance
deadlines, risk education, assistance and cooperation, technical support and provision of
strike data by user countries. All states agreed that there should be a provision for a speedy
destruction of stockpiles and that there should be a deadline. Participants noted that the
destruction of cluster munitions may be more costly, complex, and time consuming than the
destruction of antipersonnel landmines.
States and civil society agreed on the utility of the Mine Ban Treaty as a model and
sought to improve areas relating to reporting mechanisms, transparency, and compliance.
While States agreed that the treaty should provide a prohibition, there were divergent views
on how far the prohibition should extend.
There was clear momentum towards an outcome in 2008. The next global
conferences on cluster munitions will take place from 5-7 December in Vienna (Austria),
from 18-22 February 2008 in Wellington (New Zealand) and in the second half of May in
Dublin (Ireland). It is envisaged that governments will sign the treaty in Oslo in September

3
This article is based on reports on the Lima Conference produced by CMC and WILPF, as well as on notes taken during the
conference.
4
For an update on the regional Latin American Conference on Cluster Munitions in San José (Costa Rica), see
www.handicap.be and www.stopclustermunitions.org
5
As of 7 September 2007, 81 states participated in meetings of the Oslo process: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lao DPR, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi,
Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania,
Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen and Zambia.
In addition, four states (Brazil, Japan, Poland and Romania) took part in Oslo process meetings but did not yet support the
Oslo Declaration. Russia attended as an observer in Lima.

3
2008. Regional meetings and initiatives will also be held (see calendar p.14). In addition, an
international conference on states affected by cluster munitions shall take place in Belgrade
in October 2007.

More information:
• Belgrade Conference on States Affected by Cluster Munitions: www.affectedstatesbelgrade2007.org
• Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC): www.stopclustermunitions.org/news.asp?id=51
• International Campaign to Ban Landmines: www.icbl.org
• Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom:
www.wilpf.int.ch/disarmament/ClusterMunitions/LIMA/limaindex.html

“I am blessed to be able to say that as the landmine campaign gained momentum in

the 1990s, Africa played a leadership role in bringing about the Mine Ban Treaty. (…) I
am now calling upon all the States of Africa to show similar leadership in this process to
eliminate cluster munitions. I call upon them to demonstrate that despite the many
problems plaguing our countries we can and must be a leader of hope. It is not news to
any of you that cluster munitions have already been used in about two dozen conflicts,
including six in Africa. Of the 75 countries that have stockpiles of cluster munitions, 13
are African countries. (…) There is still time to deal with this weapon before we see the
nightmare of its proliferation and the horrendous consequences that could only be the
result of that proliferation. Of those 47 [that endorsed the Oslo Declaration], only four
are from Africa. After their outstanding work on the Mine Ban Treaty, how can my
brothers and sisters not be among the first to sign on to the declaration ? (…) African
leadership should be shown again, as it was at Kempton Park in 1997; there should be
a similar continent-wide gathering on cluster munitions.” (Statement to the Lima
Conference by Desmond M. Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize 1984)

DEVELOPMENTS ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS: PROGRESS AND OBSTACLES6

Afghanistan, a country affected by cluster munitions and a state not party to the CCW,
joined the Oslo process in February 2007 but did not attend the Lima Conference. Albania
joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference, where it stated that 10,000 people were
affected by cluster munitions in Albania and emphasized the importance of victim
assistance and risk education. Angola, a state not party to the CCW, attended the Lima
Conference. Argentina said to the Lima Conference that it was still dealing with
unexploded cluster munitions, 25 years after the Falklands War. On 3 September Argentina
wrote to the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) that “our country neither possesses nor
produces any type of cluster bombs.” Argentina attended the regional conference in San
José (Costa Rica) on 4-5 September 2007. Australia called for a negotiating mandate on
cluster munitions within the CCW. However, during a June 2007 session of the CCW,
Australia said that it had wished more than the adopted draft. Australia attended the Lima
Conference. In response to a Senate inquiry, the Australian Department of Defense stated
that “the system that Defence is in process of acquiring [has] precision targeting
capabilities” and “only one or two submunitions.”7 At the Lima Conference Austria co-
chaired the discussion on victim assistance. During this session, the Austrian Co-Chair said
that victim assistance is “about addressing human suffering.” He stressed the overwhelming
support for victim assistance among participants as well as the broad understanding of the
word “victim.” Austria will host the third global meeting of the Oslo process, to be held in
6
This is the Ban Newsletter’s fifth overview of recent developments on cluster munitions. It is largely based on government
statements and notes taken during the Lima Conference (23-25 May 2007), as well as on contributions and reports from CMC
and ICBL members, in particular Campagna Italiana contre le Mine, DanChurchAid, Handicap International sections, Human
Rights Watch, IKV/Pax Christi, Landmine Action Netherlands and the Women' s International League for Peace and Freedom.
Handicap International welcomes comments or corrections. A previous overview is available in our April 2007 Ban Mines
Newsletter.
7
www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fadt_ctte/cluster_bill_2006/report/e03.pdf

4
December 2007 in Vienna. Bangladesh took part in the Lima Conference and expressed
hope that the Oslo process would lead to concrete results. In Lima, Belgium stressed that it
was the first country to ban cluster munitions as well as related investments. Belgium will
host a regional meeting on cluster munitions on 30 October 2007, focusing on victim
assistance and stockpile destruction. Belgium announced at the Lima Conference that it
would complete the destruction of its cluster munitions stockpiles by the end of 2008, before
the end of the 3 year deadline set by its national legislation. Benin expressed support for
the Oslo process and the Oslo Declaration during a Nordic-African meeting in February
2007.8 Bolivia joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference and attended the regional
conference in San José. Bosnia and Herzegovina, an affected country, supports the Oslo
process. Brazil, although initially registered for the Lima Conference, decided not to attend.
Brazil attended the regional conference on cluster munitions in San José, but did not yet
express the will to join the Oslo process.9 Burundi, a state not-party to the CCW, joined the
Oslo process at the Lima Conference. Cambodia stated at the Lima Conference that the
Oslo process has “much more promise than the CCW for countries in our region (…) where
very few belong to the CCW.” Cambodia “is not interested in high tech solutions or
exceptions for submunitions, that are supposed to blow themselves up after they have
failed to work properly, but is instead seeking the most urgent solutions, and that is the Oslo
process. The CCW moves too slowly and does not have enough developing countries
involved.” Cambodia stated also that “the definition of cluster munitions should include
submunitions equipped with self-destruct mechanisms. (…) We also cannot accept the use
of cluster munitions that may or may not be reliable. Anything that can harm civilians must
be outlawed. The treaty should (…) prohibit the provision of assistance to anyone to use,
produce, transfer or stockpile cluster munitions. Stockpiles of cluster munitions should be
destroyed as soon as possible. Contaminated areas should be marked, fenced and cleared
as soon as possible and victims must be provided with assistance, including emergency
and continuing medical care, physical rehabilitation, psychological support and social
inclusion, economic inclusion and reintegration, legal support, disability laws and policies,
and data collection.” At the Lima Conference Canada called for a broad definition of cluster
munition “victims” to include families and communities and said that Mine Ban Treaty
regulations on victim assistance could be improved in a new treaty on cluster munitions.
Canada also questioned the need for retention of large numbers of cluster munitions for
training and research, noting that experience on landmines showed that such a
provision could be open to abuse. Canada declared in June 2007 that it would have
preferred a stronger mandate for the CCW and added that “any weapon must be
reliable and accurate. Cluster munitions that fail to meet this standard in actual operations
should be prohibited. Cluster munitions are more than a disarmament issue: they are
a broader peace and security issue, a human rights issue and a development issue.” On 27
April Canada stated that “one type of cluster munitions remaining in Canada’s possession is
currently being destroyed.” Chad, an affected country and a state not-party to the CCW,
joined the Oslo process in Lima. Chad opposed exceptions to the prohibition on cluster
munitions and stressed the need for continuing financial support for victim assistance. Chile
declared at the Lima Conference that two Chilean companies produced cluster munitions,
but that they had “no intention to continue.” Chile attended the conference in San José.
Colombia attended the Lima Conference and the conference in San José. Costa Rica
called in Lima for a Latin American cluster munition free zone and hosted a regional
meeting for Latin America on 4-5 September 2007 in San José, attended by 18 Latin
American countries. In his summary of the conference the president welcomed “the political
will of the majority of States from the region to be involved in the Oslo process” and “to
search to achieve a declaration on a cluster munition free zone.” Croatia, an affected
country, attended the Lima Conference and supported the creation of a legally binding

8
Email from Annette Abelsen, Senior Adviser, Section of Humanitarian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo, 29 August
2007.
9
For an update on cluster munition production in Brazil and other countries, see Human Rights Watch, Survey of Cluster
Munitions Policy and Practice.

5
instrument on cluster munitions, without mention of the CCW. Cuba declined the invitation
to attend the conference in San José. The Czech Republic said at the Lima Conference
that it destroyed “a number of RBK bombs and KMGU aerial dispensers” and that “a limited
number of stockpiled cluster munitions have been removed from service and is intended for
complete disposal. (…) In preparing a future legally binding instrument on cluster munitions,
it will be important to set transitional periods and decide from the outset, which cluster
munitions will be covered by the instrument.” Denmark attended the Lima Conference. On
31 May the Danish parliament adopted a resolution that “encourages the Government to
continue the previous effort in all international fora in order to, as quickly as possible,
establish an international legally binding ban on all types of cluster munitions, which cause
unacceptable harm to civilians. The Parliament furthermore encourages the Government,
before the end of November 2007, to analyze all advantages and disadvantages of an
introduction of a national Danish moratorium regarding all types of cluster munitions.”10 The
Dominican Republic, a state not-party to the CCW, and Ecuador joined the Oslo process
at the Lima Conference and attended the regional conference in San José. Ecuador
proposed in Lima to include victim assistance in the general obligations of the future treaty.
Egypt, a state not-party to the CCW, proposed at the Lima Conference to ban the use of
cluster munitions “against populated areas or military assets located in or near populated
areas” and suggested that “the cost of clearance and compensation of the civilian victims
shall be borne by the causing country.” El Salvador joined the Oslo process at the
conference in San José. Estonia joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference. Estonia
expressed support for the Lima Discussion Text. On 14 May 2007, a representative of the
Foreign Ministry of Finland said to the press that Finland is prepared ”to limit the use of
those cluster weapons that have been discovered to operate unreliably.” At the Lima
Conference Finland supported a definition of cluster munitions which would exempt
submunitions with self-destruct mechanisms. On 5 June a former Minister of Defense said
to the press that Finland' s defense “does not hinge on weapons alone. If there is a will, the
money will be there” and she added: "Finland needs to be involved in the cluster weapon
treaty, because Finland wants to be a humane and caring state. Otherwise we will end up in
a spiral of excuses, which is what happened with the mines.” The Finnish Foreign Minister
argued that “Finland must absolutely take part in negotiations [on cluster munitions], so that
agreements do not emerge that affect Finland, and which Finland has not been able to
influence.”11 France admitted at the Lima Conference that it “owns cluster munitions but
has not used them since 1991, does not export them and has extremely small stockpiles.”
On 25 July 2007, the Foreign Minister stated that he was in favor of “a ban or regulation on
cluster munitions.” Before their appointment both the Foreign Minister and the Minister of
Defense signed Handicap International’s call for a ban on cluster munitions. Germany
considers the CCW and the Oslo process as "complementary and mutually re-enforcing
fora." At the Lima Conference Germany stated that the Lima Discussion Text does not take
into consideration military needs, which could be met by allowing for a transition period
subject to improved standards of the weapons.12 Ghana, a state not-party to the CCW,
joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference and called for an Africa free of cluster
munitions. Greece joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference. Guatemala supported
the Oslo Declaration, attended the Lima Conference and the regional conference in San
José. Guinea-Bissau, an affected country and a state not-party to the CCW, joined the
Oslo process at the Lima Conference and opposed exceptions to the prohibition of cluster
munitions. At the Lima Conference the Holy See stated that “It is imperative on the part of
those who advocate the military usefulness of cluster munitions to acquire reliable
information and to publish the data which they possess concerning the immediate
consequences during hostilities and the post-conflict consequences.” Regarding the
reliability rate, the Holy See stated that “the most recent conflicts have demonstrated that
hundreds of thousands and even millions of cluster munitions have been used: 1% failure
10
Information and translation provided by DanChurchAid.
11
See www.hs.fi/english/archive/2007/6, 5 June 2007.
12
Comments from German NGOs on the German position are available on www.landmine.de/fix/ALDE-CLUSTER.pdf

6
means many innocent victims…” The Holy See stated during the June CCW meetings that
“Doing nothing or not going further than a formal action incapable of protecting civilian
populations in the best possible way shall not give more credibility to the CCW. Credibility
results from serious, effective and productive problem solving.” Honduras joined the Oslo
process at the conference in San José. Hungary announced at the Lima Conference that it
would impose a national moratorium on cluster munitions and that the armed forces were
ready to destroy cluster munitions stockpiles. Iceland, a State not Party to the CCW,
supported the Oslo Declaration and took part in the Lima Conference. Indonesia stressed
at the Lima Conference the “specific responsibility of [cluster munitions] users” and
opposed exceptions to the prohibition of cluster munitions. Ireland will host a global
conference on cluster munitions in Dublin over a two week period from the second half of
May to early June 2008. At the Lima Conference, Ireland co-chaired the session on
clearance. Concerning definitions, Ireland stated: “A number of speakers have suggested
that cluster munitions should not be prohibited if they are equipped with self-destruction or
self-neutralisation mechanisms. In a technical sense SD may indeed lead to an incremental
reduction in failure rates. However, in the view of my delegation and others such
improvements are likely to have a marginal impact and would not justify exemption from
prohibition. Therefore, those who support the SD option must demonstrate that such
mechanisms would not expose civilians to ‘unacceptable harm’. Considering self-
neutralisation, it is difficult to see how these mechanisms can have a beneficial
humanitarian impact. How could one distinguish between a remnant whose SN mechanism
has worked from one whose SN mechanism has failed. Indeed SN mechanisms may
expose civilians and clearance personnel to greater danger by inducing a false sense of
security.” Italy indicated at the Lima Conference its willingness to enter into a regional
moratorium on the use of cluster munitions. On 25 July 2007, the Foreign Affairs
Commission of the Chamber of Deputies (Lower House) unanimously adopted a resolution
affirming the Oslo process as the appropriate multilateral forum to negotiate a specific
treaty banning cluster munitions. A bill that would include cluster munitions in the law
banning antipersonnel mines is still pending in parliament. In Japan, the Japanese
Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Mainichi Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper, organized
a major event on 16 May in Tokyo. The event included a presentation of Circle of Impact
and was attended by government officials. A few days later, a large delegation from Japan
(11 people) took part in the Lima Conference. In June 2007, Japan called for a negotiating
mandate on cluster munitions in the CCW framework. Jordan expressed full support for the
Oslo Declaration and attended the first Regional Forum on Cluster Munitions in Southeast
Asia, on 15 March in Cambodia. It did not attend the conference in Lima. Lao PDR joined
the Oslo process at the Lima Conference. Lao stated in Lima that it was the most affected
country in the world with 260 million submunitions spread out over 17 provinces, that two
thirds of its territory was contaminated, “primarily with submunitions.” Lao PDR said that it
was “willing to be involved in the Oslo process,” that a 10 year deadline would be too short
to clear all unexploded submunitions and that it was also open to join the Mine Ban Treaty.
Lao PDR expressed full support for the Cambodian statement (see above). Latvia
supported the Oslo Declaration in February but did not attend the Lima Conference.
Lebanon, a state not-party to the CCW, declared at the Lima Conference that “Achieving
high accuracy and increasing reliability of the cluster munitions, based on testing, will never
solve the complex problems of cluster munitions and shield civilians from their harm.” For
Lebanon the issue of victims should be the “cornerstone of the convention. (…) We believe
that the notion of unacceptable harm is unfair and discriminatory. While welcomed, the
desirability of attracting the adherence of all States to this Convention should not be at the
expense of the victims’ pain and sufferings. The mechanisms of care, rehabilitation and
compensation of the Ottawa Convention of 1997 should be further developed while
identifying the elements of the future Convention.” A future article should be drafted with
reference to “human rights standards and apply a rights based approach”. Lebanon strongly
opposed any definition of cluster munitions that would allow for submunitions equipped with
self-destruct mechanisms under a new treaty and declared that “cluster munitions users

7
should be held liable and responsible for the devastation they cause to victims and their
families.” Lebanon also mentioned “Israel’s repeated failure to supply records with
information about cluster munitions strikes” and expressed the need for continuing financial
support. Lesotho joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference. Liechtenstein supports
the Oslo process but did not attend the Lima Conference. In Lithuania, the parliamentary
Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that “Lithuanian Armed Forces do not use, possess or
plan to acquire any kind of cluster munitions. Therefore it didn’t consider it necessary to
follow the examples of Austria and Belgium and impose a moratorium on the use of cluster
munitions. In the view of the Committee, in order to prevent the humanitarian problems
caused by cluster munitions it is essential to support the initiative to agree on a strong
legally binding instrument until 2008.”13 Lithuania stated at the Lima Conference that the
definition of cluster munitions should be carefully drafted in order to address all cluster
munitions that currently cause humanitarian concerns and at the same time to catch future
developments. Luxembourg attended the Lima Conference. On 21 August 2008, Malawi
conveyed to the CMC its “full support on the ban against cluster munitions that cause
unacceptable civilian suffering” and stated that “Malawi shall collaborate with other African
states to support the Oslo Declaration and shall urge SADC member states and its SADC
Secretariat to make a recommendation to the African Union to address this issue at
regional level.” Malta attended the Lima Conference and stated in June that “Malta is also
ready to continue working closely with the sponsors and co-sponsors of the Oslo process to
bring it to an early and fruitful conclusion." Mauritania, a state not-party to the CCW, joined
the Oslo process at the Lima Conference and declared that it is “fully aware of the vital
necessity to conclude the treaty banning cluster munitions, at the earliest. Beyond
differences over ' definition'there is a general consensus on all other chapters. We believe
that a place of choice should be given to the victim assistance, international cooperation
and to closely associate the affected countries, civil society, international organizations and
NGO for the elaboration of plans, actions and their implementation.” Mexico took part in the
Lima Conference where it co-chaired discussions on international cooperation and
assistance, transparency, national implementation measures and compliance. In Lima,
Mexico called on states in favor of exceptions to demonstrate that exempted weapons
would not cause any unacceptable harm. Mexico participated in the regional conference in
San José. Mozambique, a state not-party to the CCW, attended the Lima Conference. In
the Netherlands on 26 June 2007 - the day before the parliamentary Defense Commission
was to hold a hearing on cluster munitions - the ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense
provided answers to 76 parliamentary questions on cluster munitions. In their reply, the
ministers announced that the Dutch Air Force would not use cluster munitions until further
notice.14 The Dutch Foreign Minister stated that in Kosovo in 1999 “a total of 173 CBU87
bombs were dropped by Dutch F16’s during the allied operations. (…) If situations appear
in which a choice to use cluster munitions needs to be made then the government will
inform parliament at the time.” In addition, the Minister stated that “the Netherlands will
actively take part in the Oslo-process. (…) The criteria for a ban on types of cluster
munitions that cause unacceptable harm should be based on a) reliability and b) precision.
Additional rules of IHL are needed for the use of those cluster munitions that remain
legitimate.”15 The parliamentarian that initiated the 27 June hearing also tabled a bill to ban
all types of cluster munitions.16 New Zealand will host the fourth global conference of the
Oslo process, in Wellington from 18 to 22 February 2008. In Lima, New Zealand co-chaired

13
Letter from the Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to the President of the National Assembly of Austria and
the President of the Belgian Senate, Vilnius, 12 July 2007; information provided on 2 and 7 August by Dovydas Spokauskas,
Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Division, Security Policy Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Lithuania.
14
“26/06/07 DVB/WW-363/2007 Beantwoording vragen van de vaste commissies voor Buitenlandse Zaken en Defensie over
clustermunitie.” Translation was kindly provided by IKV/Pax Christi Netherlands.
15
Email from Vincent van Zeijst, Deputy Head, Arms Control and Arms Export Policy Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The
Hague, 12 July 2007; email from Maurice F.G.Piek, Woordvoerder, Directie Voorlichting & Communicatie, Ministry of Defense,
30 July 2007.
16
www.tweedekamer.nl/images/30999%20002_tcm118-124261.doc

8
the discussion on “General obligations, scope of application and definitions.” Nicaragua
joined the Oslo process at the conference in San José. Nigeria, a state not-party to the
CCW, joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference. Norway, the initiator of the Oslo
process, introduced the Discussion Text of the future treaty on cluster munitions at the Lima
Conference on 23 May. Norway also co-chaired the discussion on stockpile destruction.
Norway stressed that victim assistance should be a “core provision” of the future treaty,
called for the release of information on cluster munitions strikes and strongly opposed any
definition of cluster munitions that would allow for submunitions equipped with self-destruct
mechanisms. On 9 July 2007 the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted a “Resolution on
the ban on cluster bombs” that stresses “the importance of the Conference held in Oslo on
22 and 23 February 2007,(…) calls on OSCE participating States to adopt legislation
prohibiting the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that gravely
affect civil populations; urges OSCE participating States to stimulate a global campaign and
a process that could lead to an international ban on cluster bombs.” Panama and
Paraguay joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference and participated in the
conference in San José. Peru hosted and co-chaired the Lima Conference on Cluster
Munitions from 23-25 May. Peru announced in Lima its initiative to create the world’s first
cluster munition free zone, in Latin America and promoted it at the conference in San José.
In Lima Peru called risk education “one of the cornerstones” of a future treaty on cluster
munitions and said that the rehabilitation of survivors and communities required “primary
attention.” The Philippines did not yet join the Oslo process but said in November 2006
that it is “sympathetic with calls to restrict and/or regulate the use of [cluster munitions].”
Poland took part in the two global meetings of the Oslo process and stated in Lima that it
was “committed to participate.” It remains unclear though whether Poland is prepared to
endorse the Oslo Declaration. Portugal supported the Oslo Declaration and attended the
Lima Conference. Romania attended the Oslo Conference but was not present in Lima.
Romania wrote to Handicap International that it is “aware of the threat posed by the cluster
munitions for civilians, [and] is following attentively the developments of Oslo Process." It
remains unclear whether Romania is prepared to endorse the Oslo Declaration. The
Russian Federation attended the Lima Conference as an unannounced observer. The
Russian Federation rejected “the possibility of negotiating a new instrument” on cluster
munitions in June 2007 and declared that “it is too early to introduce legally binding
quantitative restrictions on technical characteristics of cluster munitions.” Saudi Arabia
registered but did not attend the Lima Conference. Senegal stated on 9 May 2007 in
Brussels that it “joined itself to the Oslo process” and took part in the Lima Conference. In
Lima, Senegal said that affected countries “were going through a dramatic situation,” that
“all cluster munitions are bad” and called for the prohibition on cluster munitions to be “as
broad as possible.” Serbia, a country affected by and an “unwilling possessor of cluster
munitions” will host the Belgrade Conference on States Affected by Cluster Munitions from
2 to 4 October 2007. At the Lima Conference Serbia called the Oslo process a “wide and
irrevocable multilateral process which will inevitably end up either with a complete ban or
with a very strict limitation on the production, development, use and transfer of cluster
munitions.” It added: “We feel that this newly started process has a good chance of
succeeding, if we take into account the energy and the motivation of the countries and
international organizations that are increasingly being involved in it.” Serbia announced that
“it will undoubtedly take further concrete measures with regard to cluster munitions” and
that it is “committed to ban cluster munitions.” Serbia also considers that “it is necessary to
develop, inter alia, a framework for cooperation on ground clearance and assistance to the
countries most in need, a framework that also includes more effective aid mechanisms to
the survivors of cluster munitions.”17 Slovakia expressed support for the Lima Discussion
Text. Slovenia supported the Oslo Declaration but did not attend the Lima Conference.
South Africa participated in the Oslo and Lima conferences and called in June 2007 for a
negotiating mandate on cluster munitions in the framework of the CCW. On 16 March 2007,

17
www.affectedstatesbelgrade2007.org

9
the Foreign Minister of Spain said to the Conference on Disarmament that the
commitments made by governments at the Oslo Conference should be used as a reference
and called on other governments to join the effort, saying it was the "responsibility of our
times." Spain also said that the government-civil society collaborative process of the Mine
Ban Treaty should be converted into a model that can be used for cluster munitions. A draft
legislation to ban cluster munitions was tabled in the House of Representatives on 22
February.18 Despite Sweden’s statement at the Oslo Conference that the Swedish Armed
Forces “expect to keep [their BK90] cluster munitions,” the Swedish parliament decided on
10 May to support “a ban on cluster munitions in accordance with the Oslo declaration.”
Sweden did not attend the Lima Conference. Switzerland declared to the Lima Conference
that “the Federal Council stated in a response to a Parliamentary motion that federal law on
war materials should be amended with a prohibition on the production, transfer, stockpiling,
and use of cluster munitions which cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and that until the
entry into force of such prohibition, Switzerland would declare a moratorium on the
production, transfer, stockpiling, and use of such cluster munitions.” It is unclear however
what weapons are covered by this moratorium. According to information provided by HI
Switzerland, cluster munitions containing M85 submunitions would not be covered by the
moratorium.19 The parliamentary initiative calling for a ban on cluster munitions is still
waiting to be debated by the National Council. It should appear on the agenda in
September 2007. Tanzania and Thailand joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference.
Thailand declared in Lima that “[the] drafting process should be inclusive, with broad-based
support, and gradual in its pace, encouraging and taking into account views from various
stakeholders and concerned parties. The actual experiences and difficulties in the
implementation of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel landmines are worth taking into
account. Obligations and commitments under this future agreement should, therefore, be
based on the practicality and reality of its implementation as well as the different levels of
national capacity of the affected countries and the parties concerned.” Uganda joined the
Oslo process at the Lima Conference, where it said that it was prepared to take national
measures and stressed the importance of victim assistance. Ukraine did not yet join the
Oslo process but declared in June that the issue of victim assistance should be highlighted
in discussions on cluster munitions. A senior Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom
urged participants to the Lima Conference not to waste time discussing failure rates. “The
House decided to send the strongest message of support to Lima,” he said, “with many
former generals agreeing that cluster munitions no longer served any military utility and the
Archbishop of Chester declaring that these weapons are wholly unacceptable and their use
greatly defeats the achievement of political aims.” The UK delegation in Lima called the
Oslo process “vital” and said that it followed the approach taken by Norway, but supported
a definition which would exempt submunitions with self-destruct mechanisms and stated
that it would take 6 years to destroy its stockpiles already withdrawn from service.20
Concerning joint operations with states that will not be party to the treaty, the UK delegation
in Lima stressed the “need to understand the implications” in order “not to put servicemen in
a difficult position.” In its closing statement, the UK said that the Lima Conference had “met
in full the aims of the invitation letter.” The United Nations Secretary-General reiterated on
4 April his call on the international community to address immediately the horrendous
humanitarian effects of cluster munitions, stating: “These indiscriminately kill and maim
civilians, just as easily and frequently as landmines do. International outrage has driven a

18
Comisión de Defensa 161/002111
19
According to Human Rights Watch, Switzerland stockpiles three types of 155mm artillery projectiles with M85 self-
destructing DPICM grenades and MP-98 120 mm mortar bomb containing 32 M85 grenades. Switzerland also procured the
SMArt-155 sensor fused weapon as part of its 2001 Armament Program. See: HRW, Survey of Cluster Munition Policy and
Practice, February 2007.
20
According to Human Rights Watch, the UK stockpile of cluster munitions includes two variants of the BL-755 cluster bomb,
26 MLRS rockets, L20A1 155mm DPICM artillery projectiles containing the M85 grenade, and the submunition variant of the
air-to-ground CRV-7 rocket system. In March 2007, the UK intends to award a contract to dispose of 50 percent of its stockpile
of M26 MLRS Rockets over the next three years. It is envisioned that the entire M26 stockpile will be disposed of by 2013. On
January 22, 2007 a contract was let to destroy “a significant quantity” of BL-755 and RBL-755 air-dropped bombs. All of these
bombs are envisioned to be phased out by 2010. See: HRW, Survey of Cluster Munition Policy and Practice, February 2007.

10
large group of countries to pursue a new international treaty to deal with these weapons,
thus complementing and reinforcing other on-going efforts. I applaud and encourage all
endeavors to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, the impact of cluster munitions on civilians.”
In the United States the Senate adopted on 6 September 2007 the “Fiscal Year 2008
State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill.” The bill includes a measure that would
restrict the sale or transfer of cluster bombs and requires that no military funds will be used
for the sale or transfer of cluster bombs, unless the cluster bombs have a failure rate of 1
percent or less and the sale or transfer agreement specifies that the cluster bombs will be
used only against clearly defined military targets and not where civilians are known to be
present.21 In June 2007, the United States said that “Cluster munitions will continue to be
the most efficient weapon to address numerous targets and target combinations when
employed correctly.” The United States did not join the Oslo process. Uruguay joined the
Oslo process at the conference in San José. The Deputy Foreign Minister stated that “It has
been demonstrated that this process is a competent, participative and effective mechanism
in front of the paralysis and absentness of concrete results concerning cluster munitions
within the CCW.” Uruguay congratulated the non-governmental organizations gathered in
the CMC “for their unfatiguing work in sensibilising and raising awareness for the problems
caused by the production, the use and the stockpiling of cluster bombs.” Venezuela joined
the Oslo process at the Lima Conference. Venezuela declared that the military utility of
cluster munitions “lacks any substantial basis” and called for a “focus on the victims” as the
key for a new treaty. Venezuela called for the “complete elimination of cluster munitions.”
Venezuela participated in the conference in San José. Yemen joined the Oslo process at
the Lima Conference and said that the notion of cluster munition “victim” should include the
whole survivor’s family. Zambia joined the Oslo process at the Lima Conference. Zambia
stressed the importance of international cooperation and assistance, and said that “regional
provisions [were] being looked into.”

INVESTMENTS IN CLUSTER MUNITIONS PRODUCERS

AXA disinvests (partly) from companies producing cluster munitions
On 17 July, the Paris based bank-insurance company AXA announced in a press release
its decision to pull out of investments in companies that produce cluster munitions. “This
decision reflects an active analysis of the evolution of the international political and
technical consensus that is forming around the unlawful nature of certain weapons and
expands AXA’s existing policy on anti-personal mines. This policy covers investments of the
AXA Group’s general account insurance assets and does not cover assets that it manages
on behalf of third parties.”
More information: www.axa.com
www.handicap-international.fr
www.netwerk-vlaanderen.be

More progress in the Netherlands and movements in the United Kingdom

Two films on Dutch investments in cluster munitions (“The Cluster Bomb Feeling” and
“Bank Secrets”) generated considerable attention in the Netherlands in recent months. Both
films are now available with English subtitles. The NGO Oxfam Novib also published a
report on investments by ABN-AMRO, Fortis, ING and Rabobank in companies producing
cluster munitions (BAE Systems, EADS, Finmeccanica SpA, Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall
AG, Saab AB and Thales). In response PME, the Dutch metal and electro-technical
engineering sector fund, decided to exclude companies involved in landmine and cluster
munition production. In the United Kingdom, The Observer reported on 19 August that “a
number of fund managers in Britain have indicated that they view the issue as a pressing

21
www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/bills.htm;
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/062907a.html; the amendment had been introduced on 29 March 2007 as the Cluster
Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (H.R. 1755).

11
ethical concern on a par with investment in Sudan and Burma. The pension fund Hermes
has recently written to the board of BAE to establish whether it plays a part in the industry.”

More information: http://zembla.vara.nl/English.2200.0.html

www.banktrack.org/?show=168&visitor=1
www.oxfamnovib.nl/media/download/Rapporten/bankenrapport-engels.pdf
http://globalpensions.com/?id=me/17/news/27/46077/29/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2151537,00.html
www.responsible-investor.com/beta
www.netwerk-vlaanderen.be

MINE BAN TREATY UPDATE

As of 31 August 2007, 155 countries had joined the Mine Ban Treaty. Recent
groundbreaking developments include treaty accessions by Iraq (15 August 2007) and
Kuwait (31 July 2007). Iraq’s accession to the Mine Ban Treaty is particularly welcome,
even though it is likely to raise many questions concerning treaty implementation.
From the Middle-East and North Africa, 11 countries have yet to join the Mine Ban Treaty:
Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria and
the United Arab Emirates. Poland and the Marshall Islands are the only two remaining
signatories that have not yet ratified the treaty.
More: www.icbl.org

On 9 May 2007, Belgium organized an event commemorating the tenth anniversary of the
Mine Ban Treaty and of the International Conference for a Global Ban on Antipersonnel
Mines (Brussels, 24-27 June 1997).
More: www.diplomatie.be

Mine laying in Colombia – According to the Colombian Campaign Against Landmines

(Campaña Colombiana contra Minas, CCCM), National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas
planted new mines in the area of Micoahumado in the southern part of the Colombian
Department of Bolivar at the End of May. A few days later the road had been cleared
according to representatives of the community.
More: www.icbl.org/news/micoahumado_remined

SHORT NEWS
ICTY condemns cluster munition use on Zagreb in 1995 – The International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) condemned Milan Marti , a former leader of
Croatia' s Serb minority, for violating the laws of war during the conflict in Croatia in 1995 –
including the use of cluster munitions in the city of Zagreb on 2 and 3 May 1995. These
cluster munition attacks were reported to have killed 7 civilians and injured 196. The
judgement of the tribunal made it clear that the cluster rockets used by Marti were “an
indiscriminate weapon” that would cause unacceptable civilian casualties when used in a
populated area even if legitimate military targets were present. The summary of the
judgement states that “by virtue of its characteristics and the firing range in this specific
instance, the M-87 Orkan [cluster munition] was incapable of hitting specific targets. For
these reasons, the Trial Chamber has found that the M-87 Orkan is an indiscriminate
weapon, the use of which in densely populated civilian areas, such as Zagreb, will result in
the infliction of severe casualties. (…) In view of the characteristics of the M-87 Orkan, the
Trial Chamber has found that the presence (…) of military targets in Zagreb is irrelevant.
The Defense' s argument has therefore been dismissed.”
More: www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2007/pr1162e-summary.htm
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008990
www.landmineaction.org/resources/resource.asp?resID=1067

12
“Japan needs cluster bombs for national defense” - The Japanese Defense Minister
said on 25 May that “Japan needs cluster bombs for national defense. (…) The problem
with cluster bombs is that they are all being used by the attacking side," he told the press.
"For Japan, it's the other way around. There is a 100% possibility that we will not use them
to attack others under the current Constitution." The defense minister said that Japan has
long coastlines and must be equipped with such weapons to be able to prevent the landing
of invading forces because it is "very difficult" to protect the country once they land.
More: www.japantimes.co.jp/weekly/news/nn2007/nn20070602a2.htm
www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/2007/5/0525.html

“Japan' s Self-Defense Forces have a huge armory of cluster bombs. The government
maintains they would be useful in pushing back enemy troops and tanks that try to
invade Japan. But in the event they are used, it is more likely that Japanese themselves
will be harmed. Moreover, in such a heavily populated country like Japan, just where
exactly does the government intend to use those cluster bombs? No doubt, there will be
stronger calls to abolish weapons from a humanitarian point of view.” (Asahi Shimbun,
14 May 2007)

“Cluster munitions less reliable in Finland than in Lebanon” – To the press a retired
Finnish army engineer captain working in South Lebanon said that “dozens and even
hundreds of cluster bombs that have a self-destruct mechanism are found in the area every
day.” He noted that the conditions prevailing in the tests differ from those in which the
bombs are used. "For instance, in the Norwegian tests, the shells were fired from a hard
base, which means that they explode more reliably than in the uneven terrain of South
Lebanon, for example.” He said to believe that “in a Finnish coniferous forest where the
ground is soft, the shells would be even less reliable than in Lebanon.”
More: www.hs.fi/english/archive/2007/3

NATO “holding back” on using cluster munitions in Afghanistan - “If we apply blind
force, we would defeat them very quickly,” a French General told AFP in July. “It is only
because we are restraining ourselves, with the aim of sparing civilians, that it will take time,”
he said. “That is why, for example, we do not use cluster bombs or other weapons which
would allow us to clear an area,” said the general, who heads operational planning for the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) under NATO command.
More: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/07/07/story_7-7-2007_pg4_12

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - The UN Convention on

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities opened for signature on 30 March 2007. As of 31
August 2007, 102 signatures and four ratifications were recorded, as well as 58 signatures
of the Optional Protocol.
More: www.un.org/disabilities/convention/signature.shtml

13
RECENT PUBLICATIONS CALENDAR
18 September
Circle of Impact: The Fatal Footprint of Cluster Munitions on People and th
10 Anniversary of the
Communities, Handicap International, Brussels, May 2007. Circle of Mine Ban Treaty,
Impact is the first comprehensive study systematically analyzing the Oslo, Norway
impact of cluster munitions on civilian populations through casualty data
and socio-economic profiles. 2-4 October
Link: http://en.handicapinternational.be/index.php?action=article&numero=467 International Forum
and Conference of
States affected by
Cluster Bombs: the Case of Lebanon, Australians for Lebanon and Cluster Munitions,
Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia), Canberra, April Belgrade, Serbia
2007. This report contains information on the use of cluster munitions in
Lebanon, as well as recommendations. 30 October
Link: www.mapw.org.au/issues/Cluster%20report%20with%20cover.pdf Regional Conference
on Cluster Munitions,
Brussels, Belgium
“Disarmament Insight” is a new website created by the Geneva Forum
and UNIDIR to help disarmament practitioners think in innovative ways 12 November
about human security. Global launch of the
Link: http://disarmamentinsight.blogspot.com Landmine Monitor
Report 2007
"For Whom the Little Bells Toll: Recent Judgments by International 18-22 November
Tribunals on the Legality of Cluster Munitions" (August 2007), Virgil Eighth Meeting of
Wiebe, U of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-23. States Parties to the
“Little bells” refer to cluster bomblets in Serbo-Croatian. Two Mine Ban Treaty,
international tribunals recently have found defendants liable for civilian Amman, Jordan
deaths caused by cluster munitions. This article analyzes the two 5-7 December
judgments in detail and presents lessons to be learned. Vienna Conference on
Link: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008990 Cluster Munitions,
Vienna, Austria
“Help Make History Happen! Your Action Toolkit against Cluster Bombs”
18-22 February 2008
is aimed at helping the public get informed and involved in banning
Wellington Conference
cluster munitions. on Cluster Munitions,
Link: www.minesactioncanada.org/tool%5Fkit/en/index.html Wellington, New
Zealand
Humanitarian, Military, Technical and Legal Challenges of Cluster
Munitions, ICRC, Geneva, May 2007. This report contains the May 2008
Dublin Conference on
presentations, summaries of discussions and reports by ‘rapporteurs’ on Cluster Munitions,
key themes raised during the Montreux meeting (April 2007). Dublin, Ireland
Link: www.icrc.org
More information on
events around the world:
Image Gallery on Cluster Munitions, NPA and the CMC developed a www.icbl.org/campaign/c
web gallery with pictures of cluster munitions and cluster munition alendar
damage.
Link: http://npaid.websys.no

Survey of Cluster Munitions Produced and Stockpiled,

Human Rights Watch, Washington DC, April 2007.
Link: http://hrw.org/doc/?t=arms_clusterbombs

Contributed to this issue: For more information:

Handicap International
Ueli Ancken, Kevin Bryant, Stan Brabant, François De Keersmaeker, 67, Rue de Spastraat
Jean-Pierre Ferey, Eva Fischer, Paul Franck, Hayashi Akihito, Hugh 1000 Brussels
Hosman, Ed Kenny, Katleen Maes, Thomas Nash, Miriam Struyk, BELGIUM
Paul Vermeulen. Phone: +32 2 280 16 01
policy.unit@handicap.be
Coordination: Hildegarde Vansintjan www.handicapinternational.be

14