'Norms have an effect by increasing political price of weapons'.

Byline: Herby, chief of the arms unit at Red Cross, says no one uses cluster munitions now the way they would a few years ago

Dubai: The Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) is unlikely to be adopted by the major cluster munition producers, stockpilers and users.

However, Peter Herby, head of the arms unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross, explains why the treaty's significance should not be underestimated.

Gulf News: Are cluster bombs the new landmines? Herby: Not in terms of the intent. [Cluster munitions] have a different purpose: they are intended to detonate upon impact; but the problem comes when they don't function as designed. The problem with landmines is when they do function as designed.

Once cluster munitions fail, they are similar to landmines in that they lie in the ground and may explode and kill or injure people when they are disturbed.

How effective can treaties such as the CCM be if major producers and stockpilers don't sign and ratify them? It is significant that a hundred countries have adopted the convention, including about half of the producers and stockpilers. It includes many but not all.

These types of norms can have a profound effect even on those who stay out of them. And because the weapon is in the process of being stigmatised, there is undoubtedly an effect on the practice of States that stay outside.

No one would use cluster munitions today as they would a few years ago, knowing that there is going to be a much higher political price to pay.

The convention also includes an element on interoperability which requires that signatory States in joint military operations make known their opposition to cluster munitions.

Given the need for support from a wide range of partners in [military] operations, it is going to make it more difficult for countries like the US to use them as it had in the past.

What parallels can be drawn between the CCM and the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT)? Have States, that were not party to the MBT, reduced their use of anti-personnel mines? Yes. The US has not used landmines since the 1991 Gulf War, even though it reserved the right.

Pakistan [recently] announced plans to mine a 100km on the Afghan border and there was intense criticism of this plan. There were interventions by governments party to the [MBT] and Pakistan eventually [gave in].

These norms have an effect by increasing the political price of using weapons which have been widely prohibited. Over time, the practice will move in the direction of the CCM norm, even if some countries move more slowly than others.

If you take chemical weapons, the 1925 Geneva Protocol was ratified by the US in 1975. Yet they didn't use them in that period. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was ratified by France and China [decades] after it was adopted.

Ethics issue: Belgium shows the way

The only country that decided not to wait for an international treaty to ban cluster munitions was Belgium, after its Senate unanimously voted to ban the manufacture, trade and use of cluster bombs in April 2006.

Belgium was also the first country to ban anti-personnel mines 12 years ago.

It started when investment bank KBC Asset Management blacklisted 19 companies for dealing in cluster munitions after being criticised by Netwerk Vlaanderen, a Belgian NGO that advocates ethical investments.

Geert Heuninck, head of the Socially Responsible Investing (DRI) Department, says it is no surprise that Belgium takes the lead in banning controversial weapons.

"Belgium was the battlefield for the most important war theatres in the 19th and 20th century," he says.

The boycott is working, he insists. "We are now in dialogue with two companies who might be removed from our blacklist."

[c] Al Nisr Publishing LLC 2007. All rights reserved.

Provided by Syndigate.info an Albawaba.com company