Table of content

[00:01:44] A Solomon Islander’s perspective by Annie Kwai

[00:08:13] ICRC International Humanitarian Law by Kelisiana Thynne

[00:15:42] Priorities in the Pacific and mine-action challenges by Ian Mansfield

[00:22:33] Convention implementation and available resources by Charlotte Skerten

[00:33:16] Barriers to treaty engagement in the Pacific by Jeanne Wills

[00:38:55] Concluding remarks

Matilda Byrne, SafeGround: Okay. Fantastic. So hello everyone. And welcome to the side event on the Conventional Cluster Munitions - Considerations for the Pacific. My name is Matilda and I'm from SafeGround, an Australian NGO, and I am joining today from the Pacific in Melbourne, which is on the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I would like to pay my respects to their elders past, present, and emerging, and also acknowledge their connection to land, water, and culture. I feel like this really ties into SafeGround's mandate around making unsafe ground safe again, and is in fact really relevant to the Cluster Munitions Convention, its goals, universalization and considerations in the Pacific. So SafeGround is very happy to be hosting this side event, along with our co-sponsor of the New Zealand mission. And we have Charlotte, who will be representing them and is one of our panellists today as well. And we hope that this discussion highlights how the Pacific can be engaged in the cluster munitions convention, by looking at universalization and also interplay with other issues pertinent to the Pacific.

To begin our session today, we actually have a pre-recorded video from a researcher, Annie Kwai, who is from the Solomon Islands and is currently based in Papua New Guinea. So Annie is pursuing her doctorate through the Australian National University on history, culture, and gender discourse in the Solomon Islands. She's a board member of the Solomon Scouts & CoastWatchers Trust and author of the Solomon Islands in World War Two: An Indigenous Perspective. So I'm going to share her video message, for us, with you all now. So just bear with me one moment.

A Solomon Islander’s perspective 

Annie Kwai, a Solomon Islands Citizen: First of all, I'm so honoured to be part of this panel. Thank you so much to Mette for inviting me to be a part of this discussion. I wish to state that I do not represent the government of Solomon Islands, nor speak of the policies or legislation that are in place or pending. The views expressed here are solely mine as a private citizen.

I'd like to bring you back to a couple of events that happened recently in Honiara. In September 2020, two members of the Norwegian People's Aid program were killed while attempting to safely detonate a UXO while on duty in a residential area in Honiara. About eight months later in May of this year, another UXO exploded in another residential area nearby. This one happened during a local church youth group gathering who lit a fire outdoors for cooking, and it triggered the ordnance, unknown to anyone buried beneath for 70 years or so, to explode, claiming two lives. 

I personally have a young nephew who was killed by a UXO in the Florida [Islands], driven by his curiosity of what would happen if you put the ordnance in a fire. Tragically, it exploded and shot right through the centre of his body, killing him instantly. 

The reality is that these are only a few of many incidences that occur because of the issue of UXO in the Solomon Islands. These incidences highlight the need for the Solomon Islands to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The main issue is the fact that the Solomon Islands does not produce, use, distribute or stockpile cluster munitions, nor were cluster munitions used in the country during world war two. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that.

This may have led to a lack of urgency to be a party to the convention. However, the Solomon Islands ratified the anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention in 1999. Its second article seven report was submitted in 2017. But an accurate record of UXOs that were disposed of safely only began in 2008. The 2017 article seven report shows that 30,000 items of unexploded ordnances, including 79 anti-personnel mines from the second world war was safely disposed of by the explosive ordnance disposal team of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. From this perspective, the anti-personnel mine ban is somewhat more relevant to the Solomon Islands. 

But UXOs continue to pose a threat to the people and the environment. The humanitarian need remains to offer a safe environment free of unexploded ordnances to ensure people garden freely, cook outdoors freely, without the fear of an explosive.

It is worth mentioning that the Solomon Islands also does not have a registry of victims of world war two UXOs. Those who were injured and those who lost their lives is unknown. Having said that, it is important to note the progress that has been made so far by the national government, the ‘Operation Render Safe’, the Golden West Humanitarian Foundation who worked in collaboration with the Royal Solomon Islands police force EOD team in Honiara. On a regional level, the Pacific Islands Forum has also taken steps to address the security threats posed by UXOs in member countries. Other panel members will be in a better position to speak on that.

However, as time passes, the threat posed by world war two UXO increases. As a local historian of World War Two histories, it is frustrating to see that World War Two, a war that is arguably foreign in nature, continues to take the lives of young Solomon Islanders, these are the future of the country.

Engaging in large-scale UXO clearance is a costly exercise for a country like the Solomon Islands and this begs the urgency to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions to potentially benefit from the convention's systematic literacy in UXO clearance. It is also important to stress that since World War Two, UXO fall on the outside of the classification of cluster munitions, it raises the question of prioritization. If the Solomon Islands becomes a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, will it be given an equal priority as members of the convention who have cluster munitions to deal with this problem of war with the UXOs? Perhaps that is a question that the panel will be in a much better position to deliberate on.

But with that, I thank you so much for your time. And I look forward to a very fruitful discussion. Thank you.

Matilda Byrne, SafeGround: Annie shared both her personal experience there related to this issue, but also really opened up the conversation I think, with some of her comments and things to think about throughout our panel discussion and also in considering this issue. Now we'll open up our live panel to continue that conversation.

ICRC International Humanitarian Law

Matilda Byrne, SafeGround: We're going to go through some short presentations from the other panellists, and then there'll be an opportunity to ask questions and have more of an interactive discussion. First speaking, we have Kelisiana Thynne, who is the legal advisor with the ICRC's advisory services on IHL and has worked on implementation and accessing to IHL treaties in the Pacific from 2008 to 2011. Kelisiana is currently based in Geneva and oversees ICRC's work to support the adoption and domestic implementation of weapons treaties. I'm going to hand it over to her and just bring up some slides. 

Kelisiana Thynne, ICRC: Thanks very much, Matilda. And I think that Annie's presentation has really set the groundwork for us to discuss this important issue. As she says, not so much of a problem of cluster munitions as such in the Pacific, but certainly a huge problem still of unexploded remnants of war, and indeed firearms and other explosive devices. So I think that in that context this is a timely discussion to be talking about additional steps that can be taken by Pacific Island countries in relation to the Cluster Munitions Convention. 

Just very briefly, I'll turn in a moment to some of the tools that ICRC has to support ratification and implementation of the Cluster Munitions Convention. But I also want to highlight that we have our regional legal advisor, Clementine Rendell, who is covering the Pacific online and also on my last slide, I'll give her contact details as well as my own in case anyone wants to get in touch with her about actually practically going about ratification and implementation of this important convention.

I think that we've had a really good introduction from Annie. Palau is the only cluster munition affected Pacific country as far as we're aware. And it is a party already to the CCM. But there are other Pacific countries, of course, as I said, that are affected by explosive remnants. But very few are states parties to the Cluster Munitions Convention, which I think is why it's so important to be talking about this today. Next slide, please.

So in fact not counting the two biggest red dots on the map there, so not counting Australia and New Zealand, In general, it's quite surprising that there are so few ratifications of the Cluster Munitions Convention in the Pacific because, in fact, we have a very strong adoption of IHL treaties in the Pacific. 

And I should really start by saying that for the ICRC as a humanitarian organization, we really consider that the Cluster Munitions Convention is a humanitarian convention. It's an international humanitarian law convention. It's really about protecting victims and making sure that countries are prepared both for peacetime and wartime use of various munitions and weapons. That's why we promote it very strongly. And indeed the Pacific Islands countries have been very supportive of IHL treaties, recognizing the historical background that they have with war. So in fact, 11 out of 14 countries have ratified the Biological Weapons Convention, the anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention. We are starting to get to that point we've got 9 out of 14 Pacific Island countries that have ratified the treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. And in fact, all of the Pacific Islands countries have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. So everyone's doing very well, so it's just a bit surprising that this is a standout convention.

And as I'll go through, there are some challenges that we've identified, but I think many of them can be overcome. So just very briefly, why ratify? Well as we've seen, there are still a lot of unexploded remnants of war in the Pacific, but more broadly across the world. There is huge use still, unfortunately, of cluster munitions, and increasing use in fact. So the cluster munition monitor recorded 286 new cluster munition casualties in 2019. And that was a 92% increase compared to 2018. And civilians accounted for 99% of the casualties in that regard. So as I said, for us, the Cluster Munitions Convention is about ridding the world of cluster munitions and really making it much safer for civilians to go about their livelihoods both during and at the end of conflict.

I will also highlight at the end here that ratification of international humanitarian law treaties is one of the key pillars of the IHL resolution of the last international conference at the Red Cross and Red Crescent. That resolution was entitled ‘Bringing IHL Home’, and that really focused on what states can do domestically to support international humanitarian law. So ratification of the Cluster Munitions Convention would tie in nicely to that resolution, and there was very strong support to the international conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent from Pacific Islands countries. So I do highlight that here. Next slide, please. 

Indeed there are some challenges. There is support to IHL, but there is the concern about needing new laws, needing technical and legal assistance to implement the treaty. And as I said, ICRC and others on this panel and other organizations as well can support with the technical and legal assistance.

So from an ICRC perspective, on the next slide, you'll see, and I think we can share the links as well, that we have a model law that is very easy to incorporate, particularly into a common law country, such as the Pacific Islands countries predominantly are. We also have a fact sheet about what is the Cluster Munitions Convention, really setting it out very simply, which we find is quite useful for engagement with parliamentarians, for example.

If a country is not keen to use a model law, then there's a checklist. A very simple, about four pages, like what do you actually need to have in place in your legislation to be able to implement the convention? And we also have a ratification kit, so we have model wording so that you can basically download that model wording, change the country name and attach the relevant signatures and send it off to the depository. 

There has been, I just finally mention the concern that has been raised in relation to many other treaties as well. And that is in relation to the finance. And there, I would say that in fact, from our understanding it really would cost probably less than 50 US dollars for each Pacific Island country to join the convention. So that shouldn't be a concern as well, hopefully. So I'll leave it there and pass it on to other experts. Thank you.

Matilda Byrne, SafeGround: Thank you very much Kelisiana. And I think it was really great highlighting the great history of engagement with IHL treaties we've seen in the Pacific. And that whilst there are some maybe challenges in relation to this particular convention, there's also a lot of fantastic support available, which you outlined. And I'm sure as you say, we can make those links and things available to people after the event. 

Priorities in the Pacific and mine-action challenges

Matilda Byrne, SafeGround: Now I will pass to Ian Mansfield. Ian has over 30 years of experience in mine action from the field level and headquarters, as well as cold consultancy in more recent years, including a series of workshops which he conducted in the Pacific on UXO plans, standards and national legislation. This might tie into some of the comments that Annie made and I suppose looking forward at how this issue interplays with the convention. I'll now hand it over to you Ian.

Ian Mansfield, Mine-action consultant based in Canberra: Good evening. I'm sitting in Canberra, so we're getting close to an evening here. I'd just like to discuss some of the practical aspects of Pacific countries joining the Cluster Munitions Convention and build on what Kelisiana from ICRC just told us. Next slide?

As we heard from Kelisiana, the main issue is the unexploded ordnance from World War Two, over 75 years ago. And as she outlined, there are eight countries in the Pacific that are affected by World War Two munitions. Other than Palau, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, these countries have little or no capacity basically to deal with the UXO. So in this talk, I'm just going to look quickly at some of the obstacles to that. Next slide, please.

At the political level, the issue of UXO and conventions got some traction at a Pacific Island Leaders Forum in Auckland in 2011. And on the next slide, you'll see the issues that they addressed and the statement that they made. So at the end of that summit, they expressed their concern about the ongoing presence of UXO, that it was a human security problem, a threat to public health and safety, and also a serious obstacle to development. And then they welcomed at the time, the Pacific Regional UXO Strategy and requested assistance from international agencies. So on the next slide, please.

So in 2012, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat issued a regional UXO strategy. And this was a very good document. It outlined what the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat should do at a regional level, and also gave advice to the UXO affected countries on how to address the UXO threat. And this strategy mentions the conventions, the Mine Ban Convention, and the Cluster Munition Convention. And in fact, one of the strategic objectives was to advocate for membership of those conventions. There were some follow-up regional meetings, one in Palau in 2012, another in Brisbane that looked at operalization of the strategy, and also to encourage joining conventions. There was another meeting in Auckland in 2018. This was more a small arms and light weapons meeting, but it did address the issue of the Cluster Munition Convention.

Really around 2015, this all lost a bit of momentum. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat lost the funding for the post they had and a number of regional meetings that were planned got cancelled.

I was engaged as a consultant to do some work, helping countries to address the things like legislation, national policies, plans, and so on. So I've held probably 12 workshops in the countries listed over the last couple of years. The next slide, please.

We're getting to the crux of the issue. Some of the practical considerations that I found in these workshops. They weren't advocacy workshops, but the question of conventions came up. My understanding is that there are no cluster munitions in Pacific countries and the recent Cluster Munition Convention didn't list any cluster affected countries in the Pacific. So it's not a high priority for them. There are so many other competing issues in these countries like climate change, rising sea level, protection of fisheries, security of borders, and so on. That really cluster munitions are just not a high priority for them.

I found there's a fairly low level of knowledge about awareness of cluster munitions and an absence of a political will. There have been these regional workshops and as Kelisiana said [audio cuts out 00:20:05 - 00:20:10], but normally it's the director level, Permanent Secretary level that attends them, not the political ministers and so on. And so there's not a political push for anything to happen.

I've found most of the ministries and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat have limited capacity, staff capacity, to deal with this, and there's usually a high change-over of staff. It's also difficult to arrange regional activities. We sort of say of the Pacific region, but it's vast. And I know some of these workshops I've been to, it's taken people two days to get there. So having face-to-face meetings and passing on information is not easy. And in this time of COVID, travelling is difficult, even though we have facilities like zoom. 

The cost-benefit aspect, every time I've raised the conventions they ask what's the cost? And as we heard, the cost is not great, fifty to a hundred dollars to join, but there's also staff costs and then the time to pass new legislation and so on and the benefit, they don't see much. If they are UXO affected, maybe they'll get some additional funding, but I haven't seen great evidence of this. And if they're not cluster affected, then they don't see any benefit of joining. And there's a genuine reluctance to commit if they can't meet the obligations. They're not just signing a document without consideration and taking it seriously that they need to pass legislation, they need to report regularly and so on. 

So what are some of the solutions? I think we have to engage at the political level. The mine ban convention has done this well. They had a special envoy, Prince Mired of Jordan. He was very active and...