1

ISSUE 26 APRIL 2010

IN THIS ISSUE:

P 1 � EDITORIAL � IN THIS ISSUE

P 2 MINE BAN TREATY: � TREATY STATUS � LANDMINE MONITOR

REPORT 2009 � CARTAGENA SUMMIT � VICTIM ASSISTANCE � U.S. LANDMINE

POLICY REVIEW P 6

CONVENTION ON CLUSTER

MUNITIONS: � TREATY STATUS � UN’S COMMITMENT

TO THE CCM � BALI CONFERENCE � LAO BAN ADVOCATES � EUROPE, RUSSIA &

THE CCM… P 12

� VICTIM ASSISTANCE

FUNDING P 14

� INVESTMENTS IN

LANDMINES AND

CLUSTER MUNITIONS P 15

� CONVENTION ON THE

RIGHTS OF PERSONS

WITH DISABILITIES � SHORT NEWS

P 17 � NEW PUBLICATIONS

AND WEBSITES � CALENDAR

EDITORIAL

The energy deployed by civil society in recent weeks to convince the United States to join the Mine Ban Treaty (see page 5) is quite refreshing. Meetings and contacts with U.S. embassies in sixty countries illustrate both the diversity and the unity of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), an international movement that resulted – among other things - from the anger of field people at the suffering they found within affected communities.

New Lao Ban Advocates and their trainers, Vientiane, January 2010

Eighteen years after the creation of the ICBL, we should be quite proud of what we – states, civil society including representatives of affected communities, and international organizations – have achieved: two indiscriminate weapons banned forever, tens of millions of landmines and cluster submunitions destroyed, vast areas of land cleared, a new norm on victim assistance and, maybe most importantly, the realization that we can change the world…

We know however that a lot of work remains to be done. We know that victim assistance implementation is not (yet) a success. We also know that some things could have been done in a more effective way, that affected states and communities could play an even bigger role

BAN NEWSLETTER Newsletter on landmines and cluster munitions

Founding Member of the ICBL, Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureate

2

“Hundreds of thousands of people need more and better assistance, and they need it now.”

in the Ottawa and Oslo processes and that some states have yet to join our two treaties. In recent years, we at Handicap International Belgium (HIB) have discovered the formidable potential of a more systematic involvement of affected individuals in advocacy,1 research and treaty monitoring.2 However, we also found that such involvement is not a given and that it requires rigorous and sustained support, ongoing training, flexible translation, full accessibility, and – last but not least – political will.

MINE BAN TREATY

Treaty status – As of 31 March 2010, 156 countries are States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT), 39 are not. States not party include: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, Georgia, India, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, DPR Korea, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Libya, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.3

Landmine Monitor Report 2009: victim assistance has made the least progress - Members of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) from all over the world released the Landmine Monitor Report 2009: Toward a Mine-Free World on 12 November 2009. Since the MBT entered into force eleven years ago, huge progress has been made

in eradicating antipersonnel mines: “Global use, production, and trade of antipersonnel mines have dramatically reduced. Some 3,200 km2 of land has been cleared of mines and explosive remnants of war (ERW), and new casualties each year declined

significantly to 5,197 recorded casualties in 2008. Yet serious challenges remain, with more than 70 states still mine-affected today, and assistance to mine survivors falling short of what is needed.”

Although casualty rates have decreased steadily over the past decade, the total number of casualties is still high: from 1999–2008, Landmine Monitor recorded 73,576 casualties in 119 countries/areas. The report notes that victim assistance has made the least progress of the major mine action sectors over the last decade, “with both funding and the provision of assistance falling short of what is needed. Progress in the most affected states has been variable, with some countries actively engaged, and others hardly at all. Hundreds of thousands of people need more and better assistance, and they need it now.”4

1 See www.banadvocates .org 2 See http://en.handicapinternational.be/Voices-from-the-Ground_a616.html 3 See www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Universal/MBT/States-Not-Party 4 See http://lm.icbl.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/2009

3

Nepal stated for the first time that it “does not produce or enable the transfer of landmines and has not planted landmines since the end of the insurgency in 2006.”

Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World - Representatives from 130 countries attended the Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World, the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, held in Colombia from 29 November - 4 December 2009. Twenty countries that have not yet joined the Mine Ban Treaty also participated. Four new countries - Albania, Greece, Rwanda and Zambia – announced they are now mine-free. Nepal, a non state party, stated for the first time that it “does not produce or enable the transfer of landmines and has not planted landmines since the end of the insurgency in 2006.” Yemen and Zimbabwe stated that they would not meet their clearance deadlines, and Eritrea and Mauritania announced they would need to request extensions shortly. Argentina, Cambodia, Tajikistan, and Uganda asked for and received extensions on their clearance deadlines. Ukraine announced that it would not be able to meet its deadline for destroying all its stockpiles. Belarus, Greece and Turkey, all of which missed destruction deadlines in March 2008, were unable to confirm when they would finish destruction. Most importantly, the conference resulted in the adoption of the Cartagena Action Plan that will guide the work of States Parties between now and 2014. This plan will be particularly important for victim assistance implementation.5 Landmine survivors on victim assistance - Song Kosal and Tun Channareth, ICBL ambassadors and Cambodian survivors, as well as other survivors Prasanna Kuruppu, Sandra Castro, and Channeng Nek presented their priorities on victim assistance. Thailand and Belgium led the victim assistance session as Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance: Thailand noted progress in the past 10 years in establishing a broad understanding of victim assistance while Belgium stated that despite progress, the convention had not yet fulfilled its promises to survivors. Priorities for the next five years must include intensifying efforts to ensure increased accessibility to services, fulfillment of rights, creation of strong policies, capacity building, resource mobilization and inclusion of survivors, as long-term commitments. A survivor included in the national delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina spoke about the importance of the inclusion of survivors and building local capacity, including specifically in peer support groups, and a survivor in the Australian delegation emphasized the need for the provision of sufficient and sustainable funding for victim assistance, extending beyond the borders of cities to reach survivors in rural areas. On 3 December, landmine survivors Ken Rutherford, Margaret Arach Orech, and Prasana Kuruppu read the ICBL Survivors’ Call to Action while Sandra Castro Zapata, a Colombian landmine survivor, delivered a message from Pope Benedict.6 EU: “Victim assistance: maybe the most daunting challenge” – Sweden stated on 3 December on behalf of the European Union: “Maybe the most daunting challenge for many states is to live up to their responsibilities to mine victims. Assistance to mine victims needs to be integrated into the broader policy dialogues with states with significant numbers of such victims.”

5 See www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Treaties/MBT/Annual-Meetings/Cartagena-Summit 6 See: Daily updates by Katherine Harrison, ICBL statements and the Survivors’ Call to Action at www.icbl.org/index.php//cartagenasummit

4

“States Parties ought to do much much more vis-à-vis survivor assistance… including in my country Jordan.”

“We should consider involving the victims themselves who are best placed to testify if their lives improved or not in the evaluation of the action plan.”

Princess Astrid of Belgium: “involving victims in the evaluation” - On 3 December 2009, Princess Astrid of Belgium stated that it is now the moment “to act and work together to change the life of the populations traumatized by those weapons.” She said that “In this perspective, we should consider involving the victims themselves who are best placed to testify if their lives improved or not in the evaluation of the action plan.” Therefore, she warmly welcomed the presence of "mine ban advocates.” She also hoped that the measures listed in the Cartagena Action Plan “will soon be translated into action in all areas covered, starting from the accessibility to health care to the economic and social reintegration of families where one member is a victim of a mine explosion.” She reaffirmed Belgium’s “commitment to the assistance it is able to offer in these areas particularly to affected States” and added: “Therefore, we must better take into account the difficulties of living conditions and discrimination against victims who have suffered disability due to these weapons. They should be considered in a broader context of the rights of disabled people as they were defined in the treaty adopted in 2006 by the UN General Assembly.”7 Prince Mired of Jordan: “do much much more vis-à-vis survivor assistance” – Prince Mired of Jordan said that States Parties “ought to do much much more vis-à-vis survivor assistance… including in my country Jordan” and he concluded that “we have to

bind together and redouble our efforts to make sure that the Convention does not teeter or run out of steam. We cannot and must not allow that to happen. Mine affected countries need to conclude their tasks and donor states have to maintain their support in the long run because millions of emplaced mines still threaten the lives of

millions of people around the world. Anything less would be a great shame, a betrayal of our commitment to our survivors and detrimental to the goals of the Convention.” Action Plan adopted - The Summit closed on 4 December 2009 with more than 120 governments adopting the Cartagena Action Plan, a detailed five-year plan of commitments on all areas of mine action including victim assistance, clearance, risk education, stockpile destruction and international cooperation. “This plan spells out in concrete terms what we will do to better meet the needs of landmine survivors,” said the Cartagena Summit President. “It is a strong plan that will require a shared commitment to be implemented.” "When it comes to delivering on promises made to victims, we are still only scratching the surface," said the ICBL. "Immense challenges remain to provide comprehensive and timely support to survivors and fully respect their rights."8 U.S. announced landmine policy review - On 1 December 2009, the delegation of the United States stated, “The Administration’s decision to attend this Review Conference is the result of an on-going comprehensive review of U.S. landmine policy initiated at the direction of President Obama. This is the first comprehensive review since 2003. As such, it will take some time to complete, given that we must ensure that all factors are considered, including possible alternatives to ensure protection of U.S. troops and the civilians they protect around the world.”9

7 Most high level statements can be found on www.cartagenasummit.org/high-level-segment/states-parties/ 8 See www.icbl.org/cartagenasummit 9 See http://www.cartagenasummit.gov.co/article/read/114/

5

"After a proper review is conducted… the President will conclude, as our allies have, that the humanitarian benefits of banning anti-personnel landmines far exceed their limited military utility. Ultimately, this is a decision President Obama will need to make himself.”

U.S. Senator Leahy: “Can anyone imagine the U.S. using landmines in Afghanistan?” – Senator Patrick Leahy welcomed the announcement of a “comprehensive review” on 1 December 2009 and added, “A serious review should begin by examining the extensive history of the negotiations that led to the treaty, and the technical issues that were debated and addressed. It should involve consulting our allies, like Great Britain and Canada, whose militaries have operated in accordance with the treaty's obligations for a decade, including with our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to determine what their experience has been. It should involve consulting with the Pentagon, of course, but also with retired senior U.S. military officers and diplomats, many of whom have expressed support for the treaty. It should involve consulting with Members of Congress, and with the humanitarian and arms control communities who have extensive expertise on all aspects of the treaty and its implementation.”

Referring to one of the arguments for not joining, namely to “preserve” the “option to use landmines in Afghanistan,” he asked: “But can anyone imagine the Unites States using landmines in Afghanistan, a country where more civilians have been killed or horribly injured from mines than any other in history? … A country where if we used mines and civilians were killed or injured the public outcry in Afghanistan and around the world would be deafening? Can anyone imagine this President, who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize which only a few years ago was awarded to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, having to publicly defend such a decision?” To conclude he said to be “confident” that “after a proper review is conducted, and the President considers the equities, he will conclude, as our allies have, that the humanitarian benefits of banning anti-personnel landmines far exceed their limited military utility. Ultimately, this is a decision President Obama will need to make himself.”10

U.S. embassies around the world welcome ICBL campaigners - On the occasion of the 11th anniversary of the entry into force of the MBT, ICBL campaigners from over 60 countries requested a meeting with the U.S. embassy. As of March 31st 2010, 30 meetings had already been held in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Canada, DR Congo, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, India, Kosovo, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Rwanda, Serbia, South Africa, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey and United Kingdom. In a global message issued on March 1st, the U.S. repeated its commitment to a comprehensive review of its landmine policy, but also that the Bush Administration’s landmine policy “remains in effect” while the review is ongoing. In a letter to Handicap International Belgium (HIB), the U.S. embassy to Belgium referred to the U.S. participation in the Cartagena Summit: “The U.S. delegation to the second review conference of the Ottawa Convention consulted with numerous other countries and non-governmental organizations on humanitarian mine action efforts. U.S. attendance was well-received by other participants.”11 ICBL campaigners around the world urged the U.S. to involve civil society in the “comprehensive review” of its landmine policy and to join the MBT. On 22 March, the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines delivered a letter to President Obama with signatures from leaders of 65 leading U.S.-based organizations. The letter concluded, “We are hopeful that the review of U.S. landmine policy will result in a decision to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty as soon as possible, and that you are able

10 See http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=f8a408ba-67df-449d-8aa5-17bb9509b967 11 Letter from Robert Kiene, First Secretary, U.S. Embassy to Brussels, to HIB, 2 March 2010.

6

“The United Nations is firmly committed to ending the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions and mitigating the suffering they cause. The Secretary-General calls on all States to become a party to the Convention without delay.”

to submit the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent before the end of 2010. We stand ready to participate and assist in that review.”12

CONVENTION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS Treaty status – As of 31 March 2010, 104 states have signed and 30 have ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). The convention shall enter into force on 1 August 2010. The list of countries that have signed and/or ratified the convention can be found on www.clusterconvention.org and on www.stopclustermunitions.org UN Secretary-General: “the world’s collective revulsion” – In a statement issued on 16 February, the United Nations Secretary-General welcomed the entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions: “The United Nations received today the 30th instrument of ratification for the Convention on Cluster Munitions. With this step, the Convention will enter into force on 1 August 2010, in keeping with the Convention's provisions. The Secretary-General welcomes this major advance on the global

disarmament agenda, and notes that the Convention's entry into force just two years after its adoption demonstrates the world's collective revulsion at the impact of these terrible weapons. Cluster munitions are unreliable and inaccurate. During conflict and long after it has ended, they maim and kill scores of civilians, including many children. They impair post-conflict recovery by making roads and land inaccessible to farmers and aid workers.

The United Nations is firmly committed to ending the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions and mitigating the suffering they cause. The Secretary-General calls on all States to become a party to the Convention without delay.” Interestingly, the UN report issued on 16 February also referred to data from our November 2006 report Fatal Footprint: “Some 98 per cent of victims are civilians and cluster bombs have claimed over 10,000 civilian lives, 40 per cent of whom are children.”13 Support for the CCM at the UN General Assembly - During the General Debate of the 64th General Assembly of the UN in New York in September 2009, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Lao PDR, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, San Marino and Spain gave statements on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, stressing the importance of the convention, mentioning their role within the Oslo process or calling on all states to sign and ratify the convention as soon as possible.14 UN First Committee Resolution on the CCM - By consensus, the UN First Committee adopted on 28 October 2009 a resolution “welcoming the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to host the First Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions following its entry into force” and requesting “the Secretary-General, in accordance with article 11, paragraph 2, of the Convention, to undertake the preparations necessary to convene the First Meeting of States Parties to the Convention

12 The full text of the letter can be found on www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/22/letter-president-obama-65-civil-society-leaders-urging-us-join-mine-ban-treaty; see also www.icbl.org and www.uscbl.org 13 See www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33790&Cr=disarmament&Cr1= 14 See www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate

7

following its entry into force.” Egypt, India, Israel, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Singapore said that the consensus did not imply any support for the convention. On 12 October 2009, Zambia called on all states to stop using cluster munitions and to ratify the convention. Niger drew attention to the “devastating impact of mines and cluster munitions, which often rendered large swaths of land totally useless.” Colombia stated that with its signature of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, it had renewed its obligation to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, and its willingness to ban all weapons from its territory that had humanitarian impact.” Lesotho, a signatory, said that it intended to “conclude the ratification at the earliest opportunity.” Qatar, a non-signatory, said that cluster munitions needed urgent attention, adding that “States that developed those weapons were squandering resources that could be used to strengthen development.”15 UN Security Council Resolution on the Protection of Civilians – The UN Security Council adopted on 11 November 2009 a resolution on the “Protection of civilians in armed conflict” (Resolution 1894 -2009) calling on “parties to armed conflict to take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population, including children, from the effects of landmines and other explosive remnants of war,” and encouraged “the international community to support country efforts in clearing landmines and other explosive remnants of war and to provide assistance for the care, rehabilitation and economic and social reintegration of victims, including persons with disabilities.”16 Asia regional conference: “a venue for informing non-signatory states” The Bali Regional Conference on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, held on 16 and 17 November 2009, was attended by 21 governments (Afghanistan, Austria, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Fiji, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Philippines, Sri Lanka, East Timor, Thailand and Vietnam) along with international organizations and members of the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC). Although the Southeast Asian region is the most heavily affected by cluster munitions, only 12 of the 40 countries in the region have signed the CCM. Civil society was represented by 35 members of the CMC, including 12 Ban Advocates. Indonesia stated in the opening session that it had organized the conference with the following objectives: “First, to serve as a venue for informing non-signatory states in the Asia-Pacific region about the contents of the Convention and the obligations of signatory states that it stipulates. Second, to provide a forum for productive and useful exchange of views regarding the importance of addressing the cluster munitions problem and the challenges to the universalization of the Convention. Finally, to encourage countries of the region to sign and ratify the Convention.”

Pham Quy Thi, a Ban Advocate from Vietnam who spoke for the CMC, reminded that “affected states Cambodia and Vietnam have yet to join the Convention. Globally at least 77 countries have stockpiled cluster munitions, of which 12 are in Asia, including Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand.” He called on Vietnam to sign the CCM “soon,” and “to secure much needed international assistance for cluster munition victims.” He also

15 See www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/MUMA-7WP3GA-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf 16 See www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions09.htm

8

“The CCM-definition of cluster munitions victim together with the provisions in Article 5 is now the new international standard on victim assistance – even beyond cluster munitions.”

called on “more countries to jointly participate in this global effort” and “to implement the Convention very soon.”

Non-signatories such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, East Timor and Vietnam participated actively. Bangladesh, a country that joined the Mine Ban Treaty and attended conferences of the Oslo process, said it was working towards the signing of the CCM and hoped the convention would “prevent the recurrence of the horrendous stories of victims of cluster munitions as heard at the conference.” Myanmar stated that it “isn’t engaged in any activity prohibited by the Convention,” it stated that it is “currently” studying “the Treaty and its articles, bearing in mind the national interests, so that necessary inputs for decision making would be sufficient, thus paving a path for the process of considerations and consultations among the relevant government agencies before the decision for signature or ratification.” Myanmar affirmed that it “shares with States Parties, signatories and all the stake holders in their concerns for the victims and potential victims of the cluster munitions, security & peace, as well as development of the communities & livelihood of the people of the region.” It stated to “stand ready to cooperate in ways possible.” Thailand said to be ready “to work with affected countries in the area of victim assistance.” Vietnam mentioned that “it could take 100 years to clear the country from ERW” and that it needs “more concrete measured commitments from donor states.”

During the session on victim assistance, the Vietnamese Ban Advocate, Nguyen Thi Huong, who lost her daughter and whose husband was injured during a cluster munitions accident, took the opportunity “to call for more international efforts towards quick entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, for more countries to sign, and for more international cooperation and assistance for victim assistance.” Bounmy Vijak, Ban Advocate and cluster munition survivor from the Lao PDR, said: “I hope other affected states like Vietnam and Cambodia will sign onto the Convention and that we can raise more awareness about the danger of cluster munitions so that victims can be better supported everywhere.”

Austria said: “We discussed with survivors and NGOs representing victims’ families to comprehend their problems and learn about their needs. It was a humbling experience. But it made us all the more determined to strive towards a Treaty that would ensure that the situation of those that suffered so terribly because of this weapon would receive the best possible assistance.” In Austria’s view, “the CCM-definition of cluster munitions victim together with the provisions in Article 5 is now the new international

standard on victim assistance – even beyond cluster munitions. And that is a strong norm, a powerful and persuasive instrument of promoting the needs of survivors.” Though, Austria warned: “But strengthening victim’s rights requires at the same time assurances not to overburden the concerned states… The principle that the primary responsibility for the victims lies with the State on whose territory the victims are located makes

sense: the affected country itself is always the best placed to provide the necessary assistance to victims. However, it is obvious that those countries cannot be left alone with this responsibility. It is therefore an equally established principle that affected countries have a right to seek and receive assistance. This right is enshrined in Article 6...” Austria insisted to “work towards making the CCM’s high standards the internationally recognized standards for victim assistance.”

Austria as well as other donor states like Australia, Japan and Norway emphasized their continuing commitment to providing assistance in the region and to the Lao Support Group. Norway stated that for 2009, it is providing “nearly 50 million USD to

9

“There will be a point where it is time for a country to take ownership and therefore capacity building, national strategies, and timelines for responsibility become increasingly important.”

“Japan approached 29 countries in Asia and Oceania which have not signed or ratified the Convention at the moment of the conference.”

humanitarian disarmament” and plans “to continue providing assistance at a high level in the years to come. It pointed out that “it should be noted, that neither the costs related to storage and stockpile destruction, clearance and destruction of remnants, nor victim assistance come as a consequence of ratifying the CCM. They occur if a country chooses to stockpile cluster munitions, or as a consequence of being an affected country. What the Convention does provide is a structured manner to ensure that these costs, in human suffering and financial terms, can be eliminated and not continue to appear in national budgets as recurring costs.” For “those who have used cluster munitions” Norway stressed “the moral obligation to provide for example, financial and other types of assistance and cooperation, and the sharing of information to assist in addressing the contamination problem in affected countries and territories.” Japan presented its lessons learned from its experience on cooperation and assistance: “A comprehensive approach towards reconstruction and development of a community as a whole produces meaningful outcomes. It includes a community-wide development by consolidation of infrastructure, clearance of unexploded ordnances, training and employment, empowerment of the community and community ownership as well as participation of a wide range of actors in assistance activities which means involving civil society, media and private-sector corporations.”17

The Lao PDR said that “there will be a point where it is time for a country to take ownership and therefore capacity building, national strategies, and timelines for responsibility become increasingly important.” The Lao PDR, currently revising its national strategy, also stated that it was “unable to take complete responsibility at present but will be able to in the future” and called on donors “to take into account how they can contribute to national capacity building within countries.”

Despite having not yet ratified the CCM, Afghanistan stated that “it has taken numerous important measures at the national level towards disarmament” and called on the international community to “increase” its support.

The Philippines stated that “the Armed Forces… stands ready to undergo appropriate training and education in the clearance and destruction of cluster munitions, so that, gaining the expertise, they may be able to participate in the clearance and neutralization of cluster munitions in affected areas worldwide.”

On the universalization of the convention, Japan presented its experience and said that “Through diplomatic channels, Japan approached 29 countries in Asia and Oceania which have not signed or ratified the Convention at the moment of the conference… While security consideration was for some countries an overwhelming factor which makes them hesitate to conclude the Convention,” other factors were also mentioned: a lower

prioritization of the cluster munitions issue in the national policy compared with other issues, insufficient capacity, as well as “a lack of financial resources and confidence to bear additional financial responsibility as state party to the Convention.” Japan said that “capacity building of countries which have not ratified

the Convention is one of the areas where international cooperation can play a key role.” Japan’s experience from the Mine Ban Treaty tells that “dialogues with non-states parties and giving advice tailored to each country’s situation are effective methods in promoting universalization. Sharing information and exchanging opinions among states parties and

17 Email from Chisa Sato, Conventional Arms Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 19 November 2009.

10

“It is to be recognized that the success of the Oslo Process was due in great part to the active participation of the Cluster Munition Coalition, NGOs and Civil Societies, including the Ban Advocates around the world.”

non-states parties within a specific region contribute to the strengthening of mutual understanding and creation of confidence building.”18

New Ban Advocates from Lao PDR trained in Vientiane

During the opening of the Ban Advocates workshop in Vientiane, on 11 January 2010, the Director of the National Regulatory Authority for the UXO/Mine Action Sector in the Lao PDR (NRA) reminded the gathering that “Laos is the most heavily bombed country, per capita, in the world during the Indochina War, from 1964 to 1973; there were more than 580,000 bombing missions during that period, or 1 mission every 8 minutes for almost 10 years, dropping more than 2 million tons of bombs, many of them were cluster bombs dispensing 270 million sub-munitions bomblets (locally known as “bombies”) that act as a type of anti-personnel weapon. It was estimated that up to 30% of these bombs failed to detonate on impact, and bombies alone accounted for approximately 80 million of UXO... Even now, more than 35 years after the end of the war, UXO continue making around 300 victims per year.”

He referred to a recent nationwide survey on UXO accidents and casualties, which “recorded 50,136 casualties from 1964 to 2008. About 60% of casualties (30,000) occurred in the decade 1964 to 1973 (during the bombing period). About 60% of all casualties (30,000) were killed in the accident and 40% (20,000) were injured; among all these casualties, about 26% are children.”

Addressing the Ban Advocates, he concluded: “As victims and survivors of Cluster Munitions, you have experienced such unacceptable harm and you have shown to the international community, all along the Oslo Process, what those horrendous weapons have brought to you or taken from you. It is to be recognized that the success of the Oslo Process was due in great part to the active participation of the Cluster Munition Coalition, NGOs and Civil Societies, including the Ban Advocates around the world.”

Pham Quy Thi, a cluster munition survivor and Ban Advocate from Vietnam and Tun Channareth, ICBL Ambassador and mine survivor from Cambodia, shared their campaigning experience with the new Lao Ban Advocates. Among other things, they told them about their rights and how they could advocate for the implementation of victim assistance under the CCM. Both expressed the hope that Vietnam and Cambodia would soon follow the example of the Lao PDR. Tun Channareth spoke about the necessity for everyone to take advantage of any opportunity to build their own capacities. “Before any support is given by the Government we should be able to help ourselves,” he said.

A senior representative of the Foreign Ministry said: “The Ban Advocate Workshop is significant, especially to the Lao PDR because during the workshop, the participants will learn about the Convention on Cluster Munitions, discuss various aspects, exchange experiences relating to the Ban Advocates globally and the preparation for the First Conference of States Parties” to the CCM. He concluded, “We strongly believe that this workshop will not only bring about benefits to the Lao PDR and its people, but will contribute to promote peace, cooperation and development in the world as well.”19 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly: “parliamentarians have a key role to play” - Ahead of the entry into force on August 1 of the Convention on Cluster

18 Statements and information on the conference can be found on www.bali-ccm-conference.org, www.stopclustermunitions.org/calendar/?id=1794 and www.banadvocates.org 19 See www.banadvocates.org

11

Munitions, the rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) stated on 19 February 2010: "We can all be proud of the successful outcome of this long process led by the international community, including the Assembly, which last May adopted Resolution 1668. Under this convention, the participating states confirm that cluster munitions, which have caused so many losses in recent decades, are not only morally reprehensible, but are now considered illegal. I reiterate our Assembly’s call to the Council of Europe member states, states holding observer status with the Organization and states whose parliaments hold observer status with the Assembly which have not yet acceded to the Convention to do so without delay. As parliamentarians, we now have a key role to play by taking the necessary legislative steps to implement the Convention, including the introduction of criminal sanctions for all activities prohibited by the treaty.”20 The OSCE, a forum to promote the CCM? – On 28 October 2009, HIB briefed the 56 countries of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), 22 of which have not yet signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, on “Cluster munitions: a victim’s perspective.” The briefing took place in the framework of the Forum for Security Co-operation. Following the briefing, Austria, Belgium, Germany and Norway called for a bigger role of the OSCE in promoting the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). The United States described the HIB presentation as a “thorough and sobering report,” said that the U.S. “shares the aspirations and goals of all signatories,” that the U.S. had not signed the CCM “but continues to reduce the harm caused by these terrible weapons.” The U.S. representative concluded by saying, “We look forward to the time when cluster munitions will no more exist.” On 20 January 2010, Belgium encouraged OSCE “participating States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Oslo Convention” and called “for a large participation in the First Conference of the States Parties that will be held in Laos after the entry into force of the Convention.”21 “Cluster munitions essential in safeguarding defensive interests” of the Russian Federation - The Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation stated in a letter to the CMC, “We respect the agreements between states aimed at strengthening the International Humanitarian Law, decreasing human losses and sufferings during armed conflicts and in their aftermath. Nevertheless we proceed from the understanding that cluster munitions are legal weapons that are not prohibited by the International Humanitarian Law and which are essential in safeguarding the defensive interests of our country… As for the usage of cluster munitions during the armed conflict in Georgia in August 2008… [we] regret to state that a number of nongovernmental organizations, instead of engaging in an objective joint investigation of witness reports (we repeatedly confirmed our readiness to do so) preferred to groundlessly and publicly accuse Russia of the “nonselective” usage of cluster munitions and of “violating the International Humanitarian Law.” Meanwhile no convincing proof has been provided. Such an approach arouses our deep regret. In conclusion, I would like to mention that the Russian Foreign Ministry is ready to cooperate in the issues of international disarmament agenda with all the nongovernmental organizations that are interested in maintaining and developing constructive and mutually respectable relations and which are prepared for an open and fair dialogue.”22

20 See http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/NewsManager/EMB_NewsManagerView.asp?ID=5291&L=2 Resolution 1668 see http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta09/eRES1668.htm 21 See www.osce.org/documents/fsc/2009/01/42450_en.pdf 22 Letter from Sergey Ryabkov, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, to the Cluster Munition Coalition, 18 September 2009 (unofficial translation).

12

“Inclusion of mine action activities in development programs does not necessarily generate more funding; it often makes funding less accessible and available.”

VICTIM ASSISTANCE FUNDING: A RAY OF OPTIMISM?

ICBL: “donor states should go beyond a year-to-year approach” – At a press conference in Brussels organized by HIB on 12 February 2010, the ICBL urged the European Union (EU) to ensure that the Mine Action Guideline 2008-2013 will lead to more and better support and proposed that “donor states, including EU members, should go beyond a year-to-year approach for their bilateral funding and commit to mine-

affected States Parties on a multi year basis.” The ICBL also stressed that “inclusion of mine action activities in development programs does not necessarily generate more funding; it often makes [funding] less accessible and available. Therefore, the EC should make sure the information is available at national level and work with their counterparts in affected states for mine action to be prioritized as one of their development priorities.” The ICBL also encouraged “EU Member States to adopt a new Joint Action, which should strengthen

capacities in affected countries, ensure new states to adhere to the Convention and support efforts that foster joint projects and other cooperative actions among all interested parties.”23

The European Commission “will pursue its efforts” – In a letter sent to HIB on 12 January 2009, the President of the European Commission wrote that the Commission “will pursue its efforts to promote the universalisation of the Ottawa convention and provide mine action assistance to third countries following the principles of ownership and partnership.” He quoted reports which show that 9 % of mine action funding from 2002 to 2007 went to victim assistance. He added, “As mine victim assistance projects are streamlined into broader Commission external assistance instruments, it is impossible to give a precise indication of the funding earmarked for this specific issue over the next five years” and concluded: “However, please rest assured that the Commission will continue to support mine action programmes in its cooperation policies with third countries, including in the crucial field of victim assistance.”24 Australia will ensure the participation of victims in programming - Australia wrote to HIB on 22 December 2009, that it “has pledged A$100 million in assistance over the next five years to developing countries affected by landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war. A significant proportion of this funding will be used for victim assistance programs... Australia will continue to strongly advocate for the rights and needs of the victims and their affected families and communities to be recognized and properly addressed.” According to the letter, Australia’s new Mine Action Strategy for the Australian aid program 2010-14 will additionally support the objectives of Australia’s disability-inclusive development strategy for 2009-14, Development for All, “by ensuring the participation of people with disability and victims of landmines and other explosive remnants of war, in developing, implementing and reviewing Australia’s mine action programming.”25

23 Emails from Sylvie Brigot, ICBL Executive Director, 12 February and 8 March 2010. 24 Letter from José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, 12 January 2010. 25 Letter from Frances Adamson, Chief of Staff, Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 22 December 2009; See also www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2009/fa-s091118d.html

13

Victim Assistance Conference in Berlin - On 4 November 2009, Landmine.de and Handicap International Germany organized a conference on “Explosive Remnants of War – Challenges for Victim Assistance.” According to the report of the conference, the Federal Foreign Office of Germany stated that “since 1992 €185 Million have been spent for mine action in 42 countries” and that “In 2009, €18 Million was provided for 22 countries. There is a concentration on mine clearance, together with mine risk education. There are few victim assistance projects which are funded, for example in Colombia… and a project will begin soon in Albania.” According to Landmine.de, in 2009 “7.81% of the documented funds were spent on victim assistance, a sum of 34 million dollars. In comparison, 23 million dollars were spent in 2008, forming 6.38 % of the total funds. This means that the funding of victim assistance has increased, but always claims much less financial revenue than the clearance of explosive ordnances. Over the last 5 years, the Federal Foreign Office has spent around 4.5 million euros on victim assistance. On average, this is 5.75 % of the budget for humanitarian mine clearance. In absolute numbers, the annual expenditure oscillates between 900,000 and 1 million euros.” The group explained that “victim assistance is also financed by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development… [in] Angola, Vietnam or Sudan, for example.”26 Switzerland will reinforce its efforts for victim assistance - The Foreign Minister of Switzerland stated on 3 December, "Switzerland has established a 2008-2011 mine action strategy, including as one of the major policy and operational objectives the implementation of specific projects to assist victims to improve medical care, rehabilitation as well as socio-economic reintegration, especially in countries where the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation intervenes. It goes without saying that these efforts must be strengthened and expanded in cooperation with other States, international organizations and NGOs... I am convinced that Switzerland will continue… to make every effort to ensure that victims' rights are respected and that their voices are heard."27 Ireland will continue to provide support - In a letter sent to HIB on 23 December 2009, the Private Secretary of the Foreign Minister of Ireland wrote that “since 2005 Ireland has allocated approximately € 2.2 million to projects in the field of victim assistance” and added “Concerning the next five years, we do not at this time have any specific plans in relations to our victim assistance funding. However, it remains an important area and one to which we will continue to provide support.”28 Finland: victim assistance funding approximately 25-30% of humanitarian mine action funds – Finland, the only EU country not to have signed the Mine Ban Treaty, reported that its funding for humanitarian mine action in 2009 was “5 million euros” and that “In the coming years, funding is intended to be kept at the same level… A slight increase of funds may be possible, depending on the availability of overall ODA. Finland aims at a comprehensive approach in its funding for humanitarian mine action. Funds are used for mine clearance, reintegration of victims back into society, preventive education, and the destruction of mine stock piles, as defined in Finland's Humanitarian Assistance Guidelines. In the allocation of funds to implementing partners, projects are not restricted to one sub-area and may thus include various of the above mentioned

26 See www.landmine.de/download/Doku_Opferhilfekonferenz_2009_E.pdf 27 Letter from Micheline Calmy-Rey, Conseillère fédérale (foreign minister), 3 December 2009. 28 Letter from Aidan Cronin, Private Secretary, Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 23 December 2009. See also www.cartagenasummit.org/high-level-segment/states-parties/

14

Our understanding is that the Minister of Finance, whose party has been defending the interests of the Belgian arms industry in the debate on the cluster munition ban in 2005-2006, has failed to produce a blacklist for three years.

elements. This applies to country-specific as well as core funding. It is therefore not possible to define the exact amount of funds used for victim assistance in particular. However, Victim Assistance funding can be estimated to cover approximately 25-30% of Finland's overall humanitarian mine action funds, with percentages varying slightly, but not significantly from year to year.”29

INVESTMENTS IN LANDMINES AND CLUSTER MUNITIONS

Belgian blacklist of cluster munitions producers: “Finance Minister is responsible” - In March 2007, Belgium became the first country in the world to adopt a law banning investments in “the production, use and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions.” The law also states that the Belgian government must publish by May 2008 “a public list of i) companies that [produce, use or stockpile of

antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions]; ii) companies that own a majority share in companies covered by i) and; iii) institutions for collective investment that hold financial instruments of companies covered by i) and ii).” Our understanding is that the Minister of Finance, whose party has been defending the interests of the Belgian arms industry in the debate on the cluster munition ban in 2005-2006,30 has failed to produce such a list for three years. Therefore, on 12

February 2010, HIB, Human Rights Watch, Netwerk Vlaanderen and the ICBL held a press conference in Brussels, entitled “Landmines and cluster bombs: Toward international blacklists?”31 The briefing generated substantial media coverage in Belgium and led to several parliamentary questions being asked to the Minister of Finance.32 The Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom joined other countries which already have legislation on disinvestment, including Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg. On 8 December, the parliament of the Netherlands adopted a motion that prohibits investment in cluster munitions. On 10 December 2009, the parliament of New Zealand passed comprehensive legislation to implement the CCM, including a prohibition on investments in cluster munitions producers.33 In Switzerland, the National Council passed two motions on 10 March 2010 to prohibit financial support for the production of cluster munitions and landmines.34 The Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill in the United Kingdom includes language on direct financing. In the United States, student groups have called on universities to exclude investments in cluster munitions production from their endowments.35 On 1 February 2010, the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) released a campaign update on the “Stop Explosive Investments” campaign. The update includes information on:

29 Email from Johannes Tarvainen, Unit for Humanitarian Assistance, MFA Finland, 27 July 2009. 30 See http://www.lachambre.be/doc/flwb/pdf/51/1935/51k1935007.pdf 31 See www.netwerkvlaanderen.be; http://en.handicapinternational.be/All-European-States-must-commit-to-ban-cluster-munitions-and-support-survivors_a674.html 32 See http://www4.dekamer.be/doc/CCRI/pdf/52/ic816x.pdf 33 See http://www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org/news/5/59/3-more-states-take-action-to-ban-investments 34 See www.handicap-international.ch/fr/Documentation/Archive-News/Le-Conseil-national-soutient-l-interdiction-des-investissements-abjects-dans-la-production-des-armes-interdites-par-la-Suisse.html 35 See www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_12/ClusterDivestment

15

bank meetings and reactions, legislation and parliamentary initiatives, media highlights and other related information.36

CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Treaty Status - As of 26 March 2010, 144 states had signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and 88 the Optional Protocol; 84 had ratified the convention and 52 the Optional Protocol.37 Afghanistan passed national law on the rights of persons with disabilities - Although Afghanistan did not sign the CRPD, its National Assembly adopted national disability legislation on 19 December 2009. “It is the first time ever in history of Afghanistan that the rights of persons with disabilities are guaranteed by law,” said the Afghan Landmine Survivor Organization (ALSO) and ICBL Victim Assistance Focal Point, adding that it is ready to help implementing the law and to work for its improvement where needed.38 The European Union joins the convention – “On 26 November 2009 the Council paved the way for the conclusion, by the European Community (EC), of the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD),” the Council announced in a press release and said that the decision was taken “in accordance with the explicit request from the European Parliament” and “on the basis of a Commission proposal of 29 August 2008… The European Commission is therefore calling on the remaining Member States to speed up their ratification processes. At the same time the Commission is working on a range of implementation measures, including the preparation of a new European Disability Strategy 2010-2020… Since 2000, the European Commission has funded over 280 projects targeting persons with disabilities in 69 countries.”39 EDF: an “unprecedented step forward” - The European Disability Forum (EDF) qualified this step as ”a major policy shift toward enforcing human rights obligations and putting disability on top of the human rights agenda: this is the first time in the European Union history that the Community is going to accede to an international human rights treaty.” EDF notes, “all the institutions of the European Union will now have to endorse the values of the Convention in all policies under their competence.”40

SHORT NEWS

Nepal formed committee to study the MBT – The government of Nepal has formed a committee on “The Responsibilities of and Opportunities for the Government on Being State Party to the Ottawa Convention.” This information was delivered by the Nepalese Minister for Peace and Reconstruction on 23 February 2010.41

36 See www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org 37 See www.un.org/disabilities 38 Email from the Afghan Landmine Survivor Organization to the ICBL network, 22 December 2009. 39 See http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1850&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en 40 See www.edf-feph.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=13855&thebloc=23109 41 Email from Purna Shova Chitrakar, Coordinator, Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal, 24 February 2010.

16

Japan Times: “persuade all the world’s states to sign and ratify” – In an editorial on 8 March 2010, the Japan Times wrote: “Japan should work closely with Germany, France and other countries that have ratified the treaty to persuade all the world's states — and its top military powers in particular — to sign and ratify it. Only after all nations forswear their use will the indiscriminate threat posed by cluster bombs be truly eliminated.”42 East African Community called on to ratify the CCM – On 19-20 February 2010, during a conference on Persons with Disabilities in Uganda, the Director of the Uganda Landmine Survivor Association called upon East African Community member states that have signed the CCM to ratify and ensure prompt implementation. Cambodia urged to sign the CCM – In a letter to the editor of the Phnom Penh Post released on 24 February 2010, a group of Cambodian survivors and heads of NGOs working in Cambodia urged the government of Cambodia to sign the CCM: “Cambodia was a leader throughout the two-year negotiation process to develop the Convention, but has requested more time to study the implications of signing the Convention because it retains cluster munitions stockpiles. With the Convention’s imminent entry into force, the time to join the global movement to ban cluster munitions and prevent further harm and destruction is now... We urge Cambodia to sign and ratify as soon as possible the Convention on Cluster Munitions to demonstrate its commitment to a peaceful and secure world.”43 Vietnamese Ban Advocates in Beijing - At a press conference organized by HIB in Beijing on 16 December 2009 to release the report Voices from the Ground and the photo exhibition Fatal Footprint, two Ban Advocates from Vietnam called on countries to “quickly sign and ratify” the CCM. Kien Le, who got injured, and his wife, Nguyen Thi Huong lost their daughter in a cluster munition accident. They called on countries to put the CCM “into practice” and “implement the Convention very soon.” With about 50 journalists attending, the event generated a lot of media coverage in China.44 India: “Cluster bombs in a high state of serviceability” - The Press Information Bureau of the Indian Government announced in a press release on 19 January 2010: “The weapon systems such as Harpy missile purchased from Israel, anti sea-eagle missile, anti-radiation missiles and some types of cluster bombs are in a high state of serviceability and all efforts are made to maintain these systems.”45 Russian RIA Novosti on the ratification of the CCM – On 22 December 2009, the Russian Agency RIA Novosti reported from Brussels that New Zealand and Belgium ratified “a UN convention banning the production and use of cluster bombs, bringing it closer to becoming international law.” It added: “The United States, China and Russia, which produce cluster bombs, and India, Pakistan and Israel that use them have refused to join the convention.”46

42 See http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20100309a1.html 43 See www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2010022432557/National-news/kingdom-should-sign-international-convention-on-cluster-munitions.html 44 See http://blog.banadvocates.org/index.php?post/2009/12/18/Press-conference-in-Beijing-16-December-2009 45 This information was given by the Indian Defense Minister in a written reply to a Member of Parliament on 19 January 2010. See http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=56002 46 See http://en.rian.ru/world/20091223/157336719.html

17

South Korea “should join international agreement to ban the cluster bomb” - In an editorial, the South Korean daily newspaper The Hankyoreh wrote on 22 February 2010, after the 30th ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions: “Not only does South Korea manufacture and store many of these cluster bombs, but it is also ranked as a major exporter. The division of the Korean Peninsula and the stationing of the U.S. forces in South Korea may also be factors behind the South Korean government’s lukewarm attitude toward the cluster bomb ban. However, it is now time for South Korea to join the international effort to eliminate cluster bombs from the face of the Earth. Arguments pertaining to the national security situation are merely excuses. The national security logic is unconvincing, given that the principal victims of cluster bombs are civilians. If the country insists on continuing with its cluster bomb activity, there is a danger of South Korea becoming known as an inhumane nation that views even civilians as potential targets of death and injury. A sincere discussion over the cluster bomb also needs to take place in South Korea. While it is not really feasible to eliminate all of them all at once, we can at least begin with efforts at incrementally reducing their production and stockpiling. If the government does not show any determination to do so, then citizens who support peace must speak out. It is also vitally important that they take part in the international effort to apply pressure on military powers such as the U.S.”47

NEW PUBLICATIONS AND WEBSITES

“A Peaceful Legacy Now: Briefing & Discussion on Cluster Bomb Removal and Assistance in Laos,” Legacies of War, November 2009. Link: http://act.legaciesofwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/A_Peaceful_Legacy_Now_Report.pdf

“Breaking New Ground: The Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law,” Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 4, November 2009, pp. 934-963. Link: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/summary/v031/31.4.docherty.html “Convention on Cluster Munitions sets new international humanitarian law standard,” Jurist, 25 February 2010. Link: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2010/02/convention-on-cluster-munitions-sets.php

“Countries Ban Investment in Cluster Munitions,” Arms Control Today, December 2009. Link: www.armscontrol.org/print/3992

Explosive Remnants of War – Challenges for Victim Assistance, Action Group Landmine.de & Handicap International Germany, Conference Documentation, Berlin, 4 November 2009. Link: www.landmine.de/download/Doku_Opferhilfekonferenz_2009_E.pdf

“ICBL Network’s Channel,” You Tube: provides footage on the Cartagena Summit. Link: http://www.youtube.com/icblnetwork or www.icbl.org/imagelibrary

“Implementing the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” Disarmament Forum, 2010 n°1. This new issue includes six articles, including one on the role of the Ban Advocates. Link: http://unidir.ch/bdd/fiche-periodique.php?ref_periodique=1020-7287-2010-1-en

47 See http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/405986.html

18

Handicap International is an international organisation specialised in the field of disability. Non-governmental, non-religious, non-political and non-profit making, it works alongside people with disabilities, whatever the context, offering them assistance and supporting them in their efforts to become self-reliant. Since its creation, the organisation has set up programmes in approximately 60 countries and intervened in many emergency situations. It has eight national associations (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States) which provide human and financial resources, manage projects and raise awareness of Handicap International's actions and campaigns. For more information and national contacts: www.handicap-international.org

Contributed to this issue: Stan Brabant, Stéphanie Castanié, Paul Franck and Joohi Haleem Coordination: Hildegarde Vansintjan

Research and writing: Policy Unit

Handicap International vzw-asbl 67, Rue de Spastraat

1000 Brussels BELGIUM

Phone: +32 2 280 16 01 policy.unitAThandicap.be

www.handicapinternational.be

PROVISIONAL CALENDAR April 4: International Day for Mine Awareness 8-9: Expert Conference on Victim Assistance, Vienna 21-23: Summit on Armed Violence and Development, Oslo June 7-9: Global Preparatory Meeting on the CCM, Chile 21-25: MBT Standing Committees, Geneva August 1: Entry into Force of the CCM October UN First Committee on Disarmament and International Security November 8-12: First Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Lao PDR 29- 3 December: 10th Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Geneva December 3: International Day of Persons with Disabilities 3: Anniversary of the signature of the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions More information: www.stopclustermunitions.org/calendar www.icbl.org/campaign/calendar

“Movement Strategy on Landmines, Cluster Munitions and other Explosive Remnants of War: Reducing the effects of Weapons on Civilians,” Resolution 12.1 adopted by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in Nairobi, Kenya, on 23-25 November. Link: www.rcstandcom.info/cod2009/council_pre_docs_2009.shtml (in English, French, Arabic and Spanish)

La convention sur les armes à sous-munitions: un état des lieux, GRIP, March 2010. Link: www.grip.org/fr/siteweb/images/RAPPORTS/2009/2009-9.pdf

“Moving towards a world without cluster bombs,” The Lancet, Volume 375, Issue 9716, Page 698, 27 February 2010. Link: www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60286-3/fulltext

“The Convention on Cluster Munitions: Rapidly Entering into Force,” First Committee Monitor, Preview Edition, 5 October 2009. Link: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/FCM09/FCM-2009-1.pdf

Unacceptable Harm: A History of How the Treaty to Ban Cluster Munitions Was Won, UNIDIR, December 2009. Link: www.unidir.org/bdd/fiche-ouvrage.php?ref_ouvrage=978-92-9045-196-9-en

Worldwide investments in cluster munitions: a shared responsibility, IKV/Pax Christi Netherlands & Netwerk Vlaanderen, October 2009. Links: www.netwerkvlaanderen.be/nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=774&Itemid=314; www.ikvpaxchristi.nl/catalogus/default.aspx?lid=1&id=163