SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS debate -
Tuesday, 10 Oct 2006

Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War: Motion.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, and his officials to this meeting, the purpose of which is to consider the following motion:

That the proposal that Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (referred to as 'Protocol V') of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, 1980, be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, in accordance with paragraph (1) of the Orders of Reference of that Committee, which, not later than October, 2006, shall send a message to the Dáil in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 85, and Standing Order 84(2) shall accordingly apply.

Copies of information supplied by the Department of Defence have been distributed to members. I invite the Minister to make a presentation on the protocol referred to in the motion.

Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea)

I am pleased to appear before the select committee and thank it for dealing with this matter in such a timely manner. On 27 June 2006 the Government authorised the moving of a motion in Dáil Éireann to approve the terms of Protocol V. As members will be aware, the motion to approve the terms of the protocol was moved in Dáil Eireann on Wednesday, 27 September 2006. It was agreed, without debate, to refer the terms of the protocol for approval to this committee. Subject to the terms of the protocol being approved, my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will then be in a position to notify the Secretary General of the United Nations of this State's consent to be bound by Protocol V.

The formal title is the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects. This convention was opened for signature in Geneva on 10 April 1981. Ireland signed the convention, subject to ratification, on that date. The convention and protocols I, II and III, annexed thereto, entered into force on 2 December 1983. A fourth protocol came into force in 1998.

The convention seeks to protect civilians from the effects of weapons used in armed conflicts and to protect combatants from excessive suffering. Protocols I to IV deal with fragmentation weapons, landmines and booby traps, incendiary weapons and blinding lasers, respectively. Ireland is already bound by these. The new Protocol V deals with the explosive remnants of war, known as ERW. The definition of ERW includes explosive ordnance such as artillery shells, mortar shells, grenades, and so forth, which were fired and failed to explode or munitions abandoned by combatants or unexploded ordnance left deliberately.

Protocol V requires each party to an armed conflict to mark, clear, remove or destroy ERW in territory they control after a conflict, provide technical and financial assistance to facilitate the removal of ERW that result from its operations and which are located in areas it does not control and take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of ERW, which may include the fencing and monitoring of territory affected by ERW and the provision of warnings and risk education. The protocol also requires parties to record information on the explosive ordnance employed by its armed forces, and after the end of active hostilities, to share that information with other parties to the conflict engaged in ERW clearance or programmes to warn civilians of the dangers of these devices. It further requires that parties protect, as far as feasible, from the effects of ERW, humanitarian missions and organisations that are or will operate in the area under the control of the party to the armed conflict.

In addition to the obligations placed upon the parties to a conflict, all states party to the protocol, who are in a position to do so, must provide assistance for the marking and clearance of ERW and risk education and assistance for the care, rehabilitation and socio-economic reintegration of ERW victims.

Ireland has long taken a leading role in arguing for such rules and actively participated at all meetings during which this protocol was negotiated. In April 2003 the Department of Foreign Affairs, in co-operation with Pax Christi Ireland, hosted a conference in Dublin on explosive remnants of war and development, which attracted a wide level of participation from representatives of Governments, non-governmental organisations and international organisations engaged in discussions on the draft protocol.

In a post-conflict environment, ERW can hamper the rebuilding and recovery process and can inhibit the return of refugees and displaced persons. Long-term development is also seriously undermined when agricultural land and areas of economic value are rendered hazardous and unusable by the presence of ERW.

Protocol V, if widely adhered to and fully implemented, has the potential to significantly reduce the civilian casualties that regularly occur after the end of hostilities and to minimise the long term socio-economic consequences that explosive remnants of war inflict on war-affected countries. Ireland has had a clear and long-standing policy of strongly supporting and contributing to the development of international controls to reduce the suffering caused by ERW.

Over recent months a number of Governments have approved the protocol. When the Governments of Switzerland and Liechtenstein approved Protocol V they brought the total number of countries ratifying that protocol up to 20. This was a major milestone for Protocol V as, with 20 assentions it becomes international law and is formally recognised as a protocol to the 94-nation UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Protocol V will come into force on 12 November 2006, six months after the date by which 20 states have notified their consent to be bound by it, during the third review conference for the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, which will take place in Geneva from 7 to 17 November 2006.

The operation of Protocol V will involve a new charge on public funds as provision is made in Article 10 of the protocol for state parties to meet the costs of any conferences convened by them, inter alia, to review the status and operation of protocols in which they participate. Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution states:

The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

That makes this motion necessary and is the reason for our debate today.

It is estimated, however, that any additional contribution the State would be required to make when the protocol enters force is not likely to be significant and can be addressed as part of the routine discussions on the 2007 Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is possible that such costs could be subsumed into the current convention framework of scheduled meetings. The total contribution by the Department of Foreign Affairs in 2005 to the convention was €4,585.59. I commend the motion to the committee.

Mr. Timmins

I thank the Minister for his contribution. Fine Gael supports this motion. In many respects, however, it is something of a red herring. Given that I do not envisage Ireland being party to an armed conflict, I am not sure whether this protocol gives us any role in trying to ensure that other signatories to the convention adhere to it. The danger posed by explosive remnants is one of the more sinister and despicable consequences of war. We are all aware of the recent conflict in Lebanon where cluster bombs showered down on an innocent population.

This is not unique to Lebanon; it has happened in several locations and is a tactic deployed by a number of democratic states. In many parts of the world there are children who have lost a hand or an arm as a consequence of these remnants several years after a conflict has ended. Can the Minister provide the committee with a list of the 20 countries that have signed up to this protocol? Does it provide us with any mechanism to "carpet" countries that do not adhere to it? It seems that virtually none of the nations currently involved in conflicts do so even though some of them are signatories.

I do not wish to entrap the Minister by referring to a local issue that is relevant to the issue under discussion. The protocol stipulates that a party to an armed conflict must provide technical and financial assistance to facilitate the removal of explosive remnants of war that result from its operations and that are located in areas it does not control. As part of its training programme, Army recruits undertake practice exercises in the Glen of Imaal in County Wicklow. Although it does not happen as much as heretofore, it is occasionally the case that unexploded ordnance is found on a large area of ground there. No difficulties have arisen because of this in recent decades, but several children were killed in the late 1970s when they accessed an area that was off limits to the public. They came upon this area when they strayed from a public road that has since been closed off.

The territory in question is now largely a no-go area. However, although the signage is prohibitive to a degree, it is not as explanatory as it should be. It achieves its purpose only partially and may even go further than that by occasionally driving tourists out of safe areas. Will the Minister consider making these signs more user-friendly? They advise only that it is forbidden to go beyond a certain point when a red flag is flying. I am sure that when the Minister communicates my concerns to the Army authorities, they will tell him everything is fine. It is an issue that should be examined, however, and I trust the Minister will do that in the coming months.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the Minister. I strongly support this important protocol. Any convention that seeks to protect civilians in conflicts must be strongly supported by all parties. It is our duty as Members of the Oireachtas to do so.

I have a few short questions for the Minister. He highlighted the importance of long-term development and the issue of dangerous weapons left lying around following a conflict, particularly mines on agricultural land. Perhaps he might expand on his experience. What strategies have the United Nations and others adopted to assist countries, particularly those whose agricultural land has been ravaged? How does one deal with such countries which are the poorest?

The Minister said up to 20 states had ratified Protocol V of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. That figure is low compared with the 94 signatories. The one thing that concerns me is that the great powers will ignore it. What strategies might be adopted to force them to implement it? The Minister said "any additional contribution that the State would be required to make when the protocol enters force is not likely to be significant and can be addressed as part of the routine discussions on the 2007 Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs". He believes that, from Ireland's perspective, its costs will be modest.

In the past 24 hours our attention has been drawn to countries involved in the production of dangerous weapons, particularly North Korea. However, there are others that possess nuclear weapons, including Israel, the United States and Britain. It is incumbent on us all, particularly countries such as Ireland that are respected internationally, to speak out against such weapons. They are a danger to the planet; from an economic, social and political perspective, their presence in the world is unacceptable.

Mr. Ó Fearghaíl

I thank the Minister for his presentation. I am very happy to give the motion my full backing.

The critical questions have already been asked, particularly by Deputy McGrath. Perhaps the Minister might say a little about the other 74 countries that have not yet ratified the protocol. Are they moving towards its acceptance? What action might be taken against those who ignore it in its entirety?

Mr. O’Dea

I thank members for the welcome they have accorded the protocol and their comments.

Deputy Timmins asked regarding the practical implications for Ireland in view of the fact that we are most unlikely to be involved in an armed conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons. That is true, but I would like to make two points. By signing up to the protocol, we bring the number of countries up to the 20 that will render it binding. Once 20 nations have signed up, it gains the force of law and becomes compulsory for the other signatories. We are now one of the 20. I said in my introductory remarks that it went beyond the parties to an armed conflict involving the use of such weapons, as this quotation illustrates:

In addition to the obligations placed upon the parties to a conflict, all states party to the protocol, who are in a position to do so, must provide assistance for the marking and clearance of ERW and risk education and assistance for the care, rehabilitation and socioeconomic reintegration of ERW victims.

As a party to the protocol, we may also be asked to help, even if we are not a party to the conflict that results in the use of such weapons. Deputy Timmins asked what would happen if a country failed to comply. If it has not signed the protocol, it is not law and, therefore, not compulsory for it. However, if a signatory fails to comply, it is a breach of international law that will be referred to the United Nations in the usual way.

Deputy McGrath asked about the list of signatories and whether the great powers could ignore it. I have a list which I will not read out here, but I will provide members with a copy. I note that the list of those countries that have already signed up includes Germany and India, both of which could be described as great powers. The United States has informed us that it will ratify the protocol shortly. Therefore, matters are moving in the right direction. The list I am giving members reflects the position around the middle of August. We will get the select committee a more up-to-date list of signatories.

Deputy McGrath pointed out that the economies of many countries affected by landmines were dependent on agriculture. The international community has in place an expenditure process on landmine clearance. When it decides what to do on the effects of landmines, cluster weapons and unexploded ordnance, it will take into account that many affected areas are heavily dependent on agriculture. I will get more details on such expenditure from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The 2005 cost I gave the select committee is only our share on contributions for international conferences for training purposes. Now that Ireland is part of the group of 21 protocol countries, we may be called upon to assist in operations. I cannot predict to what extent but we will have to take it on board. In deciding to sign the protocol, the Government has voluntarily agreed to take on that obligation.

Since this morning, 24 countries have signed the protocol but it is a movable feast. I will provide Deputy Ó Fearghaíl with the most up-to-date list of signatories. I thank the select committee for its support for the protocol.