Synopsis
Cluster Bombs tells the unique story of New Zealand’s central role in the global movement to ban cluster bombs and stop civilian harm caused by this weapon. Through the personal testimonies of a deminer, a diplomat, an activist, and two politicians, this film explores the humanitarian impact of cluster bombs, the fruitless efforts to tackle its use through the United Nations, and the unconventional and risky diplomatic venture that led to the creation of the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. Set in the New Zealand capital of Wellington, Cluster Bombs shows how cooperation and steadfast determination can overcome barriers such as distance and size when pressing humanitarian threats present themselves.

Principal Credits
Executive Producer/Director – Mary Wareham
Editor – James Meikle
Producer – Jamilla Homayun
Camera Operator – Jason Naran
Sound Mix – Katy Wood
Original Music  – Nic Porteos

After a screening in the New Zealand parliament on August 3rd, Cluster Bombs will be made available for viewing online.

For more information, please see:

• Flyer for Cluster Munitions: Banned in New Zealand (A5, PDF)
• Script for Cluster Munitions: Banned in New Zealand (PDF)

In a letter to the International Herald Tribune one traveler unable to exit Frankfurt Airport due to his lack of a visa bemoaned his entrapment and that of others in the same predicament from countries such as China, India, Iran, Pakistan, or the Arab world,  some with small children and most with no access to their luggage.  Iranian-born academic Kaveh L Afrasiabi warned that, “with the harsh mistreatment of those passengers, the North-South gap has now grown deeper by a few inches.”

On blogs, Facebook pages and twitter feeds, first world travelers bemoaned their status as “volcano refugees,” but the real refugees were those trapped in these airports turned “temporary internment camps.” Read more about Germany’s discriminatory treatment here.

I used to follow the diplomatic deliberations at the CCW in 1994-1996 when we were trying to get governments to take up civil society’s call to ban antipersonnel landmines. Due to the consensus-based decision-making of the CCW and confines of ‘no can-do’ diplomacy within the United Nations any attempt to hold meaningful discussions on banning mines hit a brick wall. The result was the “Ottawa Process,” which resulted in the creation of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.

You’d think the CCW diplomats would have listened and learned, but instead continued in their bubble, ignoring our pleas to tackle cluster bombs. Over the last decade every time civilians were killed by cluster bombs–used in FR Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon–we would press for diplomatic action to fill the IHL void. After no action in CCW, Norway created the “Oslo Process” that resulted in the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Which brings us to today’s oddness. Diplomats from countries that have not banned mines or cluster bombs have continued to deliberate at CCW alongside states that have joined the prohibitions. Countries such as China, Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and USA continue to promote ‘regulation’, but their efforts to date have proved fruitless. After years of deliberation, there is little left to say in the CCW’s ongoing efforts to ‘negotiate a mandate on cluster munitions.’

Today after the new CCW chair (Jesus “Gary” Domingo of the Philippines) opened the latest round of talks by the ‘group of governmental experts’ on cluster bombs, the usual governments gave their usual statements reiterating their usual demands and concerns. By the afternoon, they were had run of of things to say. So the chair decided to try something different.

Domingo proposed an exercise called “Monday Afternoon Fever Brainstorming Contest” dividing the governments present into groups of 5 states plus UN, ICRC, NGOs. On a handout disseminated to the room, these ‘teams’ were asked to ’self-organise’ and report back tomorrow morning. The exercise is ‘aimed at looking into possible or alternative approaches to the issue of prohibitions of CMs.” Each team has to produce a text acceptable to all the team’s members.

The trick was in the division of labour. Countries that have banned cluster bombs were placed alongside CCW stalwarts including cluster bomb users and producers. The diplomats appeared stunned, but none objected. As they dispersed into their small group discussions, the disco song “Saturday Night Fever” reverberated throughout the huge UN plenary room.

It seems inconceivable that anything will result from this exercise, but good on the chair for injecting some creativity into this very dreary process…

The decision to award Obama was certainly surprising, but in keeping with a recent trend by the Committee to award male leaders: Martti Ahtisaari in 2008, Al Gore Jnr. in 2007, Muhammad Yunus in 2006, Mohamed El-Baradei in 2005, Jimmy Carter in 2002, Kofi Annan in 2001, and Kim Dae-jung in 2000. Only two women have received the prize in the past decade:  Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai (2004) and Shirin Ebadi (2003).  The last major civil-society based disarmament initiative to win was the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and its then coordinator Jody Williams, way back in 1997.

But what of Obama? Much initial media criticism focused on his limited track record of achievements, but there’s no denying that the Obama Administration is serious about setting the US back on a course of multilateral diplomacy. In July 2009, the US signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; this was the first international human rights treaty that the US has joined in over a decade.  In August, US Ambassador Susan Rice delivered a remarkable address that acknowledged more can be done internationally if the U.S. “leads by example, acknowledges mistakes, corrects course when necessary, treats others with respect, and forges strategies in partnership.” Under instruction from the top, US officials have been canvassing civil society representatives, academics and other experts, in addition to governments, for their views on how the US can continue to nuclear disarmament ahead of the 2010 meeting of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Last month’s annual United Nations deliberations on disarmament and international security provided a useful testing ground to see if the US under President Obama can, according to the Nobel Committee, “powerfully” stimulate “disarmament and arms control negotiations.” After spending two weeks in the basement of the UN in New York, I can faithfully report that, unfortunately, multilateral re-engagement by the US still leaves much to be desired.  Too often it seems as if the political leadership may have changed, but no one told US foreign service officials that President Bush and the era of American arrogance is ending…

As the UN First Committee got underway, news came through on Arms Trade Treaty deal struck between the UK’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  For more than four years, the UK has been leading the charge for the creation of an international agreement to regular transfers of small arms and conventional weapons and it had drafted a resolution  for diplomatic approval at the First Committee to commence and complete negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty by 2010. Clinton issued a statement in support of the treaty objective on October 14, but made US support conditional upon the deal being struck by consensus.

Experience banning antipersonnel landmines, cluster munitions, and tackling other weapons and the current state of paralysis of UN disarmament machinary shows that consensus decision-making leads to lowest-common denominator decision-making. As the Heritage Foundation (of all groups) pointed out, “In practice, since most of the world’s states have low standards for the export of conventional arms, the U.S.’s demand for consensus will be used to pressure the U.S. to lower its own standards … “

Arms Trade Treaty-naysayers China, Egypt, India, Pakistan, and Russia abstained on the resolution, which passed by a vote of 153 states in favour, 19 abstained, and one vote (Zimbabwe) against. Despite their abstentions, these difficult states will participate in the negotiations and it is highly unlikely that a “strong and robust” treaty will emerge. Progressive states such as Austria, Cote d’Ivoire, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland expressed discontent at the consensus provision, but ultimately voted in support of the process. They could not provide a viable alternative after NGOs campaigning for an Arms Trade Treaty dithered for days on how to respond to the consensus caveat.

So the next two years will show if this process can succeed, but the bigger question is why did the US insist on the right to veto or scuttle the final treaty agreement? Why does US re-engagement in multilateral diplomacy still come with a big stick?

What about the US and nuclear disarmament? The Nobel Committee lauded Obama’s “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons” and Obama’s efforts have received widespread praise, but what is happening to achieve these goals? In highly-anticipated back-to-back statements to the First Committee, US and Russian officials outlined the steps that are being taken to negotiate a reduction in their nuclear arsenal, steps that showed much more effort will be needed to succeed. Neither government explained what would come after or articulated how nuclear abolition can be achieved.

In an NGO statement to the First Committee, Dr Zia Mian provided a devastating critique of how the US, Russia, and other nuclear weapon states are continuing to modernise, expand, and retain their arsenals of nuclear weapons. Mian said it is “not enough” to talk about wanting “to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons” and challenged nuclear weapon states to “put up or shut up” on nuclear disarmament.

The Obama administration is apparently considering its position on banning antipersonnel landmines ahead of the Second Review Conference of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which the US has not joined. Human Rights Watch and other NGOs are calling on the US and 36 other non-signatories to the Mine Ban Treaty to participate in the “Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World” and relinquish antipersonnel mines.  One opportunity for the US to give a clear signal that it is reengaging multilaterally would have been for the US to vote in support of the non-binding First Committee resolution supporting the  landmine ban. Unfortunately, the US abstained on the resolution, defaulting to the position of the Bush administration. Nineteen non-signatories voted in favor.

Much is being made of the ‘revitalised’ disarmament scene, one in which the US plays a constructive and cooperative leadership role. As Obama himself pointed out, the Nobel Prize is a “call to action.”  We all know that actions speak louder than words.  Obama needs to rise to the challenge and meet the expectation of governments and campaigners around the world. He could start with the easy one: Ban Landmines Now.

For more information, see:

• Statement by Nobel Committee, 9 October 2009
• Statement by Clinton on Arms Trade Treaty, 14 October 2009

Just 600 people live on this remote island and the smaller Pitt Island, located 90-minute flight to southeast of Wellington, New Zealand. Known as Rekohu in Moriori and Wharekauri in Māori, the islands were first inhabited more than 500 years ago by Polynesian settlers related to Maori who became known as Moriori. Subsisting on sea food (kai moana), the Moriori lived in harmony with the environment and in accordance with a culture based on peace until 1835 when Rekohu was invaded by two Māori tribes (iwi) from the Taranaki region in Aotearoa New Zealand (Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama).

In March 1836, one thousand Moriori men met at the entrance to the island’s huge saltmarsh lagoon Te Whanga to deliberate whether to break the peace covenant that had governed their existence for hundreds of years. Symbolized white albatross feathers, the Moriori peace tradition is a philosophy of nonviolence named Nunuku’s law after the ancient chief who issued the edict. After deliberating for three days the Moriori reaffirmed their intent to abide with the code outlawing warfare.

In his 2004 book Cloud Atlas, author David Mitchell describes the resulting massacre by the invading Maori tribes and the inaction by Europeans witnesses, also documented by Michael King in his landmark work Moriori: A People Rediscovered (1989). Moriori who were not killed were sent to the remote Auckland Islands and New Zealand as slaves to the Maori, while those who survived were forbidden to marry or have children with other Moriori. When Tommy Solomon (Tame Horomona Rehe), the last Moriori of unmixed ancestry, died in 1933 media articles perpetuated the myth still widely believed in New Zealand today that the Moriori race was “extinct.”

Yet several thousand Moriori descendants are alive and well today; they are scattered across the Chatham Islands, New Zealand and the globe. For the past twenty years, the Moriori have been reviving their culture and rediscovering their identify.  Recent milestones marking this renaissance include the opening in January 2005 of Kopinga marae (a five-sided meeting house for the community) by Prime Minister Helen Clark and the Maori Queen.  At Te Papa in June 2008,  the New Zealand government or “Crown” gifted $6 million to the establishment of Te Keke Tura Moriori Identity Trust to ensure that Moriori, as a separate and distinct indigenous culture of Aotearoa/New Zealand, is not lost. These efforts have come under the leadership of Tommy Solomon’s grandson Maui Solomon and other Moriori families of the Hikotehi Moriori Trust, which is currently focused on rebuilding the Moriori people’s economic, cultural and social base.

Many thanks to Hikotehi Moriori Trust and everyone involved in hosting our delegation, especially Maui, Shirley King, Mana Cracknell, and Susan Forbes. Good luck the international peace marchers and congratulations to Alyn Ware and the New Zealand organizers of the World Peace March.

Me Rongo – In Peace

See

• Hikotehi Moriori Trust website
• ANZCMC web update on the launch of the World Peace March
• World Peace March website
• Hi-res Photos by Mary Wareham of Rekohu and the World Peace March

According to my friend, Kiwis holidaymakers should no longer expect a warm welcome in Fiji (no matter what you pay). Locals expressed support for the interim government put in place by the military regime two and a half years ago, while local media reported fluff and nothing of substance.

Fiji was the subject of collective hand-wringing at the Pacific Forum leaders meeting in Cairns last week. Human Rights Watch called for stronger action to tackle Fiji’s ongoing abuses. Australia and New Zealand secured “agreement” for a free trade deal with Pacific nations barring Fiji, while they weakened the climate change goal in the final communique.

“Freedom Water” is bottled of Fijian company Aqua Pacific, which has been criticised by pro-military bloggers. We should probably all be wary of bottled water – it might taste good, but it ain’t helping the planet…

I like the call to Disarm, but the emphasis on nuclear disarmament message is narrow, reflecting the interests of the Sec Gen who needs to pay attention towards the treaties banning cluster bombs and treaties as well as other weapons. Here’s a photo of the guy who should be the next UN Secretary General…

After lengthy delays some of those responsible for this violence have been convicted, but it now seems the punishment is not being served. In the absence of free media reporting, bloggers are now saying that the soldiers convicted weeks ago to four years imprisonment for the manslaughter of Sakiusa Rabaka Ligaiviu, 19, have been freed. Rabaka died on 24 February 2007, three weeks after he was detained and beaten unconscious by soldiers at Blackrock Military Base in Nadi. Human Rights Watch today sent a letter calling on the interim government to implement specific recommendations in four key areas – independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly, and future elections.