The Kingdom of the Netherlands signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 12 April 1999, becoming a State Party on 1 October 1999. The Netherlands is a former antipersonnel mine producer and importer. The government announced a unilateral ban on use in March 1996. The Netherlands believes that existing legislation is sufficient to enforce the antipersonnel mine prohibition domestically. In 2011, it submitted its 11^th Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report.

Between 1996 and 2002 the Netherlands destroyed its stockpile of 254,798 antipersonnel mines. The Netherlands initially retained 4,076 mines for training and development purposes but this number was reduced to 1,830 by the end of 2011.[1]

The Netherlands was appointed as the co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education, and Mine Action technologies at the Eleventh Meeting of States Parties in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in November-December 2011. In the past, the Netherlands served as co-rapporteur and then co-chair of the Standing Committees on Mine Clearance (1999–2001) and the General Status and Operation of the Convention (2002–2004).

At the Eleventh Meeting of States Parties, the Netherlands stated that it contributes approximately €15 million (approximately US$21 million) annually to mine clearance and reiterated its intention to remain a large international donor in this field.[2] The Netherlands also attended the intersessional Standing Committee meetings in Geneva in May 2012, where it provided information on the use and purpose of the mines it retains for training and research.[3]

The Netherlands is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and its Amended Protocol II on landmines and Protocol V on explosive remnants of war.

Commitment to the Convention on Cluster Munitions

Policy

The Kingdom of the Netherlands signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3 December 2008 and ratified on 23 February 2011. The convention entered into force for the Netherlands on 1 August 2011.

The 2011 law approving ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions guides the Netherlands’ implementation of the convention’s provisions.[1] In 2010, the government said that specific implementation legislation is not required as the convention “can be directly applied.”[2] Under national implementation measures for the convention, the Netherlands has declared two laws relevant to ensuring that it adheres to its obligations under the ban convention, the Act on Weapons and Munitions of 5 July 1997 (Wet wapens en munitie) and the General Law on Customs of 3 April 2008 (Algemene douanewet).[3]

The Netherlands submitted its initial Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 transparency measures report on 1 December 2011 and provided an annual updated report on 3 May 2012.[4]

The Netherlands actively participated in the Oslo Process that created the Convention on Cluster Munitions and its position shifted significantly to support a comprehensive ban on cluster munitions, in part due to a motion by the Lower House of Parliament on 22 May 2008.[5] The Netherlands continued to engage with the work of the convention. It attended the convention’s Second Meeting of States Parties in Beirut, Lebanon in September 2011, as well as intersessional meetings in Geneva in April 2012.

In 2011 and the first half of 2012, the Netherlands continued to promote the universalization of the convention. In September 2011, it emphasized that cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons that increase instability and violence, noting, “This is an important argument to use when we try to convince reluctant governments to leave their doubts behind and take the necessary steps towards accession and ratification of the Convention.”[6]

On 7 November 2011, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the Netherlands continually raises the unacceptable humanitarian harm caused by cluster munitions in both bilateral and multilateral forums.[7] On 19 December 2011, Minister of Foreign Affairs Uri Rosenthal confirmed this outreach activity.[8] In March 2012, the Netherlands pledged that it would continue to encourage states not party to join the ban convention, specifically NATO member states.[9]

Interpretative issues

The Netherlands has expressed its views on a number of issues important to the interpretation and implementation of the convention.

Transit and foreign stockpiling

In 2009 and 2010, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated its view that “the transit across Dutch territory of cluster munitions that remain the property of the third party in question is not prohibited under the Convention.”[10] In March 2010, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense told Parliament that the convention “does not contain a ban on transit, but only on transfer… [the] treaty determines specifically that transfer refers to both physical movement as well as transfer of ownership. Transit is only physical movement, not transfer of ownership. Transit of cluster munitions over Dutch territory that remains property of allies are not subject to the provisions of the convention.”[11] In a November 2010 memorandum to the Senate, Minister of Foreign Affairs Rosenthal and Minister of Defense Hillen reiterated this interpretation.[12]

On 18 January 2011, Rosenthal stated, however, that the Netherlands “in principle” would not allow for the transit of cluster munitions through its territory.[13] In a letter to the Senate, Secretary of State of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation Bleker gave further clarification, stating that the Dutch government will not prohibit transit, but will in principle refuse to give a permit for transit of cluster munitions through Dutch territory, unless existing alliance agreements prevent the declining of such permission.[14] On 22 March 2011, Bleker repeated his support for a de facto prohibition on transit but “with one exception, namely for the transit of cluster munitions of an ally as internal military transport through Dutch territory.” The state secretary pledged to strengthen the monitoring of transit and to conduct an evaluation after two years, and if after which it was discovered that there was no de facto prohibition in practice, the enactment of legally-binding measures prohibiting transit would be considered.[15]

On 2 May 2011, Rosenthal informed Parliament that while a de facto prohibition on transit existed, an exception would be made specifically for NATO allies based on the obligations of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and its codification in the national transport regulation of strategic goods. On the question of whether or not the obligation to allow NATO allies to transit their own material through Dutch territory conflicted with the prohibition on transfer in the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Minister stated that this is not the case, as transit is not explicitly forbidden by the Convention.[16]

In response, the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Development wrote on 8 June 2011 that the minister had sufficiently clarified the hierarchy between the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and the national transport regulation of strategic goods. The Senate Committee emphasized the Netherland’s broader commitment and policy to make known through diplomatic channels that the Netherlands does not “appreciate” the transport of cluster munitions through Dutch territory by NATO allies.[17]

In March 2010, then-Minister of Defense Van Middelkoop and then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Verhagen stated that they do not consider the storage of cluster munitions by states not party on the territory of States Parties to be prohibited under the convention, provided that the cluster munitions remain under the ownership of the state not party. They noted that no cluster munitions owned by a third party are stored on the territory of the Netherlands.[18]

Interoperability

On the issue of the prohibition on assistance with prohibited acts during joint military operations (interoperability), in a 3 May 2011 letter to Parliament, Minister of Foreign Affairs Rosenthal and Minister of Defense Hillen wrote that in line with Article 21 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Netherlands would encourage non-States Parties to join the ban convention and discourage them from using cluster munitions.[19] However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that “military cooperation with States not Party is still permitted, including operations where the use of cluster munitions cannot be ruled out.”[20] Van Middelkoop and Verhagen informed Parliament in March 2010 that, in accordance with its obligations under the convention, the Netherlands would urge military partners from states not party to the convention not to use cluster munitions. In situations during joint military operations with states not party where the rules of engagement permit the use of cluster munitions, certain national reservations or “caveats” would be made by the Dutch government.[21] In June 2010, Van Middelkoop stated that these “caveats” would be presented to Parliament for confidential inspection in the case that the Netherlands would be sending troops.[22]

Disinvestment

From 2008–2010, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on many occasions that investments in the production of cluster munitions run counter to the spirit of, but are not banned by, the Convention on Cluster Munitions.[23] It also said that the convention cannot be applied to private institutions or persons and that an additional law banning investments in cluster munitions is not deemed necessary.[24] This policy continued to evolve in 2011 and 2012.

A motion that called on the Dutch government to prohibit investments in cluster munitions was adopted by Parliament on 8 December 2009.[25] However, on 31 March 2010, the Minister of Finance decided not to carry out the motion, later offering the explanation[26] that the convention applies only to States Parties and not to individuals or private institutions.[27] On 22 September 2010, a parliamentary debate was held on the government’s refusal to carry out the motion on prohibiting investments.[28] During the debate, the then-Minister of Social Affairs and Employment repeated the government’s position that a legal prohibition on investment would run counter to efforts by financial institutions to increase transparency in light of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) regime.[29] On 30 November 2010, the ministers of foreign affairs and defense reaffirmed the government’s position that creating legislation would be counterproductive and its enforcement nearly impossible.[30]

On 18 January 2011, the Labor Party proposed a Senate motion calling for a prohibition on “demonstrable direct investments in the production, sale, and distribution of cluster munitions.” The motion was adopted on 29 March 2011.[31] On 13 December 2011, the Parliament adopted a motion that referred to the disinvestment motion that was adopted by the Senate in March 2011. The motion, among other things, requested the government to “create legislation regarding the prohibition on demonstrable direct investments in the production, sale, and distribution of cluster munitions for all financial institutions as soon as possible.”[32]

On 22 March 2011, the Minister of Finance declared that, under Article 1(1)c of the Convention on Cluster Munitions concerning the prohibition on assistance with prohibited acts, the government considers direct investment to be prohibited when the Dutch state acts as a private actor.[33] Direct investment in cluster munition production would therefore be considered a CSR criteria for public tenders.[34] On 26 September 2011, the Minister of Finance stated that the Dutch government would take a company’s investment policy on cluster munitions into consideration for future public tenders concerning payment transfers.[35]

In a 21 March 2012 letter to the Senate, the Minister of Finance stated: “Although there is no international consensus on this (yet), the discussion, just like the convention, is based on the central principle that an end has to be put to the humanitarian harm caused by cluster munitions. This consideration has led the cabinet to the decision to […] introduce a legal prohibition on direct investments in cluster munitions by financial institutions.”[36]

The prohibition on direct investments will be implemented by the “Financial Supervision Act.” A new provision (Article 21a) will be added to the “Market Abuse (Financial Supervision Act) Decree” that “imposes an obligation that prevents an enterprise directly supporting any national or foreign enterprise which produces, sells or distributes cluster munitions” so as to restrict, as much as possible, investments in cluster munitions producers. The Netherlands’ Authority for the Financial Markets will be the primary body responsible to supervise compliance. The amended Market Abuse (Financial Supervision Act) Decree that regulates the prohibition on direct investments in cluster munitions is expected to enter into force on 1 January 2013.[37]

Article 21a of the Market Abuse (Financial Supervision Act) Decree will prohibit a Dutch financial institution from providing loans to a company that produces, sells or distributes cluster munitions; from acquiring or offering a financial instrument that has been issued by a company engaging in the production, selling, or distribution of cluster munitions; and from acquiring non-marketable holdings in the capital of such a company. The regulation does not apply to transactions based on an index and transactions in investment funds operated by third parties in which companies that produce, sell, or distribute cluster munitions constitute less than 5 percent of the total. It also does not apply to investments in clearly defined projects of a cluster munitions producer insofar as such funding is not utilized for the production, sale and distribution of cluster munitions. A financial institution in violation of Article 21a of the Market Abuse (Financial Supervision Act) Decree can be sanctioned with a fine of a set basic amount of €500,000 and a maximum of €1,000,000.[38]

In April 2012, a Dutch official stated that this regulation prohibiting direct investment in cluster munition production will be applied from 1 January 2013 and repeated the view of the Netherlands that investment is not explicitly prohibited by the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but it is part of the “spirit” of the convention.[39]

CMC co-founder and member IKV Pax Christi and Belgian NGO FairFin (formerly Netwerk Vlaanderen) have led the CMC’s Stop Explosive Investments Campaign, launched in October 2009.[40] On 14 June 2012, the NGOs launched an update of their “Worldwide Investments” report on the status of global investment in cluster munition production.[41]

Convention on Conventional Weapons

The Netherlands is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and it participated in the CCW’s work on a draft cluster munitions protocol in 2011.

At the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security in October 2011, the Netherlands expressed support for the conclusion of a CCW protocol that contained “meaningful prohibitions and restrictions” on cluster munitions for those not yet in a position to join the Convention on Cluster Munitions and described such a protocol as creating “an intermediate step towards universalization” of the ban convention.[42]

On 9 November 2011, Minister of Foreign Affairs Rosenthal said that the Netherlands supported a CCW protocol as it would have a positive effect on the behavior of states not party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and noted “a restrictive standard for the use of this weapon is a step forward compared to the current situation.”[43]

At the CCW’s Fourth Review Conference in Geneva in November 2011, the Netherlands worked for “compatibility” and “complementarity” between the chair’s draft text of the proposed CCW protocol on cluster munitions and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.[44] The Netherlands proposed including language in the preamble indicating the CCW protocol should be seen as moving in the direction of a comprehensive ban on cluster munitions. The Netherlands stated its preference for a total ban on transfers of cluster munitions to be included, but said it could support a partial ban.[45] Minister of Foreign Affairs Rosenthal would later say that the Netherlands had sought to conclude a CCW protocol that would have explicitly mentioned a complete ban on cluster munitions as its final goal.[46]

At the conclusion of the Fourth Review Conference on 25 November 2011, the Netherlands did not join a group of 50 states that issued a joint statement declaring the draft chair’s text of the proposed was unacceptable from a humanitarian perspective and did not enjoy consensus.[47] The conference ended without adopting a protocol and with no proposals to continue negotiations in 2012, thus marking the end of the CCW’s work on cluster munitions.

On 13 December 2011, the Dutch Parliament adopted a motion proposed by Joël Voordewind (CU Christian Union) and Angelien Eijsink (PvdA Social Democrats) declaring that following the failure of the CCW review conference to conclude a cluster munitions protocol, “consequently the Convention on Cluster Munitions is the standard within international law regarding cluster munitions.” The motion:

·         Requests the government in the future to only work for a total prohibition on cluster munitions and to advocate the norm of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in both bilateral and multilateral forums;

·         Requests the government furthermore to create legislation regarding the prohibition on demonstrable direct investments in the production, sale, and distribution of cluster munitions for all financial institutions as soon as possible.[48]

Use, production, and transfer

In the past, the Netherlands used, produced, imported, and, reportedly, exported cluster munitions. It acquired cluster munitions from the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US), in addition to producing them.

The Royal Netherlands Air Force dropped 173 CBU-87 cluster bombs (with 202 bomblets each) during the 1999 NATO air campaign in the former Yugoslavia.[49]

Until 2002, the company Eurometaal NV produced cluster munitions in the Netherlands. It produced M483A1 and M864 155mm artillery projectiles with dual purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) submunitions.[50]

In January 2006, the Ministry of Defense announced a transfer of 18 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launchers to Finland.[51]

Stockpiling

The Netherlands once possessed more than 191,500 cluster munitions containing some 26 million submunitions.[52] The vast majority of the stockpile has already been destroyed. In May 2012, the Netherlands reported possessing a stockpile of 2,143 cluster munitions of three different types and 82,558 submunitions. All cluster munitions are now stored separately from other munitions and marked for destruction.[53]

Cluster munitions stockpiled by the Netherlands (as of 31 December 2011)[54]

Previously, in its initial Article 7 report submitted in December 2011, the Netherlands declared a stockpile of 2,071 cluster munitions containing 81,910 submunitions.[55] It reported that 42,711 155mm M483 artillery projectiles containing 3,758,568 M46/M42 submunitions were destroyed by Esplodenti Sabino in Casalbordino, Italy before the entry into force of the convention.[56]

Stockpile destruction

Under Article 3 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Netherlands is required to declare and destroy or ensure the destruction of all stockpiled cluster munitions under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 1 August 2019.

On 9 December 2011, the Netherlands sent its remaining stockpile to Norway where it is in the process of being destroyed by closed detonation by the company Nammo NAD (Norwegian Ammunition Disposal) AS at Løkken Verk, south of the city of Trondheim, where the Norwegian stockpile of cluster munitions was destroyed in 2010.[57]

In September 2011, the Netherlands and said stockpile destruction would be completed during 2012.[58] In March 2012, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs confirmed that the stockpile destruction was at an advanced stage.[59] In April 2012, the Netherlands again stated destruction is at an advanced stage, but said it could not provide a precise date for completion as it is dependent on the availability of the destruction facility.[60]

In March 2010, the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs confirmed the completion of the destruction of its BL-755 aerial bombs.[61]

In September 2011, the Netherlands said that all of its artillery-delivered DPICM had been destroyed.[62] In 2005, it was reported that 16,000 M26 rockets each containing 644 M77 DPICM submunitions would be destroyed.[63]

Retention

In its May 2012 Article 7 report, the Netherlands declared that it is retaining 272 cluster munitions and 23,545 submunitions. This reflects a reduction of 72 M261 warheads (containing 648 submunitions) that have been transferred for destruction. Additionally, the Netherlands for the first time reported retaining 175 1Mk1 submunitions from its BL-755 cluster bombs. [64]

Cluster munitions retained by the Netherlands (31 December 2011)[65]

Initially, in December 2011, the Netherlands declared that it would retain 344 cluster munitions and 24,018 submunitions (200 M483 projectiles containing 19,532 submunitions, 130 M261 warheads containing 1,170 M73 submunitions, 7 Mk.-20 Rockeye bombs and 1,729 Mk.-118 submunitions, and 7 CBU-87 cluster bombs with 1,414 BLU-97 submunitions).[66] The report stated the retained cluster munitions are for the “purpose of the ‘Defense Explosive Ordnance Disposal Service.’”[67]

Support for Mine Action

In 2011, the Netherlands contributed €15,286,403 (US$21,295,488) in mine action funding to 11 states and three other areas.[1] The largest contribution of almost €4 million (some $5.5 million) went to Afghanistan; the Democratic Republic of Congo received more than €2.3 million (some $3.2 million).

The Netherlands provided approximately one-third of its contribution through the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Action (VTF).  

Contributions by recipient: 2011[2]

The Netherlands allocated 98% of its mine action support in 2011 for clearance activities. It funded two victim assistance projects through Handicap International in Iraq and Angola and one risk education project through Geneva Call in Colombia.

 Contributions by thematic sector: 2011

The Netherlands’ annual contributions since 2007 have been inconsistent with annual amounts increasing or decreasing by between €2 million and €6 million ($2.6 million to $7.8 million), though still averaging more than €16 million ($21 million) per year.

Summary of contributions: 2007–2011[3]