Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

That is why it comes down to defining what does or does not constitute a cluster bomb.

I thank Senator Norris for tabling the amendment. However, I must state that the definition of what constitutes a cluster munition was one of the most difficult issues to be resolved during the negotiations that took place in Croke Park. The guiding principle behind those negotiations was to reach agreement on a prohibition on all cluster munitions that harm people and to outlaw all such munitions that have been used in the field or in theatres of war in the past. During the negotiations it was agreed that certain types of submunition-based systems would not be prohibited.

Some of the partner countries with which we work have these weapons. That is the reality within which we must operate. These weapons include systems that disperse items such as flares, chaff and smoke. It was also agreed at the negotiations that any systems which meet all of the criteria set down in the definition section — the provision Senator Norris now wishes to delete — would not be prohibited. All delegations accepted that the cumulative effect of these various criteria is to significantly reduce the humanitarian hazard that might result from the use of a weapon that meets such criteria. The definition of a cluster munition as set out in the Bill is a precise reproduction of the definition agreed in those negotiations.

On the points made in regard to amendment No. 2 to section 2, the definition is a comprehensive one that meets the objectives of prohibiting all cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. The convention prohibits all types of cluster munitions ever used in armed conflict. Furthermore, following proposals made by the Irish delegation in Croke Park, the convention also prohibits explosive bomblets specifically designed to be dispersed or released from dispensers affixed to aircraft. This is an extremely important provision which closes potential loopholes created by new technologies. Senator Norris spoke of smart or dumb bombs and made his argument from the perspective that there is no such thing as a smart or dumb bomb and that all bombs should be illegal and unlawful anywhere in the world. However, the convention will be effective and consistent in the manner in which it deals with the type of indiscriminate humanitarian effects caused by cluster bombs in many countries in recent decades.

The effect of the amendment tabled by Senator Norris would be to broaden the definition to include munitions that are not regarded as cluster munitions per se for the purposes of the convention and which are not prohibited by it. I stated in regard to the proposed amendments concerning the definition of anti-personnel mines, which is a separate but related issue, that if we apply different standards in our own laws to those being adopted by other States that are party to the convention, regardless of how desirable or noble they are, we will risk severely complicating international co-operation in the implementation of the convention, in particular in the context of international peacekeeping roles in which Ireland has played a major role for many years. In a worst case scenario, it would make impossible our role in this regard. The convention sets out the standards which were agreed by all states involved in the negotiations. Again, if each state — this principle must be reiterated on every amendment — adopted different standards in their domestic laws, there would be in place a multiplicity of standards worldwide that would effectively render null and void all the good work done at the convention.