In 2008 Canada joined 108 countries that signed an international treaty to ban cluster munitions, and it went into force in 2010. Eighty-three countries have now ratified it.
But Ottawa has delayed ratification for more than four years. A bill to implement the convention that is wending its way through the House of Commons has drawn protest from critics who say it creates a loophole that makes Canada’s endorsement virtually meaningless.
They include 27 international legal experts, academics and former disarmament officials who wrote a letter to the government last October warning that the bill would put Canada in violation of its obligations under the cluster munitions convention.
The government maintains the language in the bill is needed to give legal protection to Canada during joint activities with the U.S., or other countries that have not signed the treaty.
Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, said the government was “deeply committed” to the convention, and that even during military co-operation the Canadian Forces would not use cluster munitions in their operations or request their use if the choice was under their own control. Nor would Canadians working with allied forces be allowed to use the weapons, train others to use them or transport them “aboard Canadian assets.”
But a statement from the World Federalist Movement-Canada, a lead campaigner against the bill, says that “Bill S-10 would generate a number of ‘exceptions’ to the treaty’s prohibitions, that would allow Canadian soldiers to engage in activities that would otherwise be prohibited under the treaty.
“They include directing, requesting or authorizing use, acquisition, possession, import or export of cluster munitions; the transfer of cluster munitions; and using, acquiring or possessing cluster munitions while on attachment, exchange or secondment with a non-state party to the convention.”
Opponents believe the use of exceptions is to please the U.S., which has partnered with Canada in Afghanistan and other conflict zones.
“I think they’re trying to play both sides of the fence,” says former solicitor-general Warren Allmand, president of the World Federalist Movement-Canada.
“To the U.S. military they could say, ‘We ratified it but . . . ’ And with those who want a strong ban on the use of cluster bombs they could pretend that they’ve done something good.”
Two years ago Canada’s former chief negotiator on cluster munitions, Earl Turcotte, resigned, telling The Canadian Press that he was removed from that job partly because of objections from senior U.S. officials to his “aggressive” stance in the talks.
He also opposed what he maintained was Ottawa’s misuse of Article 21 of the convention: it gave legal cover to countries that ratified the treaty, so they would not be held responsible for actions of non-member countries with whom they were in joint military operations.
Allmand said that it would be better not to ratify the treaty than to pass it in a flawed form.
“It is setting a bad precedent,” he said. “We would be creating incentives for other countries to make their own exceptions and create their own loopholes.” Australia and New Zealand, which are also U.S. allies, ratified the convention without similar exemptions, he added.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits the production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Olivia Ward
No comments:
Post a Comment