Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I will not pretend that the definition of what constitutes a cluster munition as a weapon was an easy part of the negotiations; it was not. It was the most intractable part of the negotiations. Ultimately, in seeking to outlaw cluster munitions one must work with some form of words which include and exclude certain items. If one accepts that the convention does not seek to outlaw all weapons, one must then find a way of defining what is excluded. If Senators believe that is an unsatisfactory definition, I invite them to suggest another methodology to outlaw the use of these horrible weapons with which we all disagree.

That is the first point. There must be some methodology to agree a definition. The exclusionary method is the method agreed having taken the advice of some world-renowned experts in these areas. It comes down to very technical issues such as the weight of bombs, the area across which they disperse, the height from which they are dropped etc. It is necessary to have a starting point. The starting point was to identify what is excluded. The very detailed definition of what is excluded means everything else is included in the ban of cluster munitions.

I would respectfully disagree with Members. It is a complete ban of every cluster munition that has ever been made. That is not to say some advanced technical weapons are not banned. However, it makes the point that every cluster munition that has ever been used is banned. To that extent it is not a partial ban. I again make the point that all definitions pose difficulties. We are dealing with imprecise language here. We are dealing with issues of life and death, emotions and principles, which is the point of view from which Senator Norris is coming. We need to work with people who have been championing this cause for many years. One of those groups is the Cluster Munition Coalition, which has been working in this area for many years. It is the main umbrella group for all the NGOs involved in the area and is the body that has worked closely with the Government since the inception of the Oslo process in February 2007. That group has stated it is comfortable with the definition. It stated:

The definition makes certain clarifications for weapons that have submunitions but are not considered cluster munitions, such as weapons with submunitions designed for smoke, flare, and electronic counter-measures. Also falling outside the definition are weapons that have submunitions but that do not cause the indiscriminate area effects or UXO [unexploded ordnance] risks of cluster munitions. Such munitions must meet each of a series of five minimum technical characteristics set out in the treaty.

That is its articulation of why it is happy — to the extent that one can ever be happy — that this meets its minimum standards. Maximum standards are completely different. The reality is that in war and in conflict, some weapons are used one way or another. This convention seeks to outlaw a particular type of weapon, cluster munitions. We need to have a definition of what constitutes and what does not constitute a cluster munition. The best way to do that is to exclude different types of weapons. For better or worse that is a definition that met with broad agreement. It required long and difficult negotiations informed by the best international technical military advice available. It found agreement by very many countries.