Switzerland

The Swiss Confederation signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3 December 2008 in Oslo. In March 2009, Switzerland reported that the ratification process was underway involving different Federal Departments.^[1]

Switzerland is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), and ratified Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War on 5 December 2006. Switzerland has been actively engaged in the CCW work on cluster munitions in recent years.

Cluster Munition Ban Policy

Switzerland was among the first countries to propose international action on cluster munitions, which it did in the framework of the Convention on Conventional Weapons. In 2001, Switzerland proposed “the adoption of a new protocol laying down technical specifications to prevent cluster bombs and other submunitions from becoming explosive remnants of war.”^[2] The proposal would have required all submunitions to have a 98% reliability rate “through a combination of the primary fusing mechanism and a back-up self-destruct feature.”^[3] In 2002, Switzerland submitted a discussion paper on technical improvements that could be made to munitions, including submunitions, to prevent them from becoming explosive remnants of war.^[4]

The first national initiative on cluster munitions was submitted to Parliament in December 2005. The so-called Dupraz initiative^[5] called for an amendment to the Swiss law on war material to forbid the development, production, procurement, import, export, transit, and stockpiling of submunitions.^[6] The Dupraz initiative was rejected in June 2006 by the Committee on Security Policy of the National Council on the basis that current Swiss policy was sufficient, that the munitions held in stock were “reliable,” and that their loss would “dramatically weaken Switzerland’s defences.”^[7]

In response to Israel’s massive use of cluster munitions in Lebanon in 2006, pressure for action on cluster munitions increased. However, a second proposal to Parliament in December 2006, the Glanzmann-Hunkeler initiative, was more limited in scope than the first initiative proposed by Dupraz, as it called for a ban on cluster munitions that are unreliable and/or inaccurate. It was seen by it proponents as a constructive compromise that would strengthen the Swiss position in discussions about international regulation of cluster munitions.^[8] NGOs such as Handicap International (HI) Switzerland criticized the initiative for allowing continued use of those cluster munitions Switzerland held in its stockpiles.^[9]

At the CCW Third Review Conference in November 2006, Switzerland formally supported a proposal for a mandate to negotiate a legally-binding instrument on cluster munitions.^[10] When that mandate was rejected by other States Parties, Switzerland joined 24 other nations in a joint declaration calling for an agreement that would prohibit the use of cluster munitions “within concentrations of civilians,” prohibit the use of cluster munitions that “pose serious humanitarian hazards because they are for example unreliable and/or inaccurate,” and require destruction of stockpiles of such cluster munitions.^[11] At the end of the Review Conference, Norway announced that it would start an independent process outside the CCW to negotiate a cluster munition treaty and invited other governments to join.

Switzerland participated in the Oslo Process from the outset, though it made clear its preference for the CCW, and expressed reservations about the process and the draft convention text, especially the notion of a comprehensive prohibition. Switzerland participated in the initial conference in Oslo in February 2007, the three international diplomatic conferences to develop the convention text in Lima, Vienna, and Wellington, and the formal negotiations in Dublin in May 2008. It also attended the regional conference in Brussels in October 2007.

At the Oslo conference, Switzerland was among the 46 countries that endorsed the Oslo Declaration, committing states to conclude in 2008 an instrument banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. However, Switzerland stated it would continue to push in the CCW for a negotiating mandate on cluster munitions, and noted that the deadline to conclude a legally-binding instrument by 2008 was just “an aspiration and an ambition.”^[12]

In May 2007, shortly before the Lima conference, the Parliament adopted the Glanzmann-Hunkeler initiative, banning the production, stockpiling, and use of cluster munitions that are “unreliable and/or inaccurate,” although it did not define these terms.^[13] Switzerland considered its entire stock of cluster munitions, which have M85-type submunitions, as reliable and thus not subject to the prohibition.^[14] During the Lima conference, Switzerland said that the prohibition in the draft convention text was too broad and seemed to be a “total ban on all non-smart cluster munitions.”^[15]

In September 2007, the National Council reversed its earlier decision and voted in favor of the Dupraz initiative for a categorical ban. However, the Security Policy Committee of the Council of States voted against the initiative in November 2007, because a majority believed it would “undermine Switzerland’s position in international negotiations and its defense capability” and that “the measures taken by Switzerland to enhance the safety of cluster munitions (including equipping with self-destruct devices) are sufficient.”^[16] The Council of States voted against it in December 2007.^[17]

At the Vienna conference in December 2007, Switzerland maintained its position calling for work in the CCW and for a ban only on certain types of cluster munitions. Switzerland stated that not all cluster munitions caused unacceptable harm and proposed that accuracy and reliability criteria could form a basis of a definition along with a restriction on use of cluster munitions in populated areas, along the lines of CCW Protocol III on incendiary weapons.^[18] Switzerland advocated for strong provisions on victim assistance, with a non-discriminatory, rights-based approach, with appropriate gender perspectives.^[19]

During the Wellington conference in February 2008, Switzerland indicated it was prepared to make a considerable shift in its position and first opened the door for the inclusion of its own stockpiles of cluster munitions under the prohibition of a future convention, discussing the possibility of including cluster munitions with self-destruct mechanisms under a future ban.^[20] However, Switzerland aligned itself with the so-called like-minded group that put forward numerous proposals that the CMC sharply criticized as weakening the draft text. Switzerland began calling for a transition period, of an unspecified number of years, during which cluster munitions prohibited by the treaty could still be used “as a last resort or in the case of self-defence.”^[21]

It endorsed a discussion paper pushing for new provisions to facilitate “interoperability” (joint military operations with states not party).^[22] It expressed concern that the deadline for stockpile destruction was too short, given the technical difficulties, health and environmental concerns, and limited number of contractors. It supported adding a provision to allow retention of cluster munitions for clearance training and research. ^[23] At the conclusion, Switzerland associated itself with a statement made on behalf of the like-minded group declaring dissatisfaction with the conference as it felt different opinions and views had not been taken into account in a balanced way.^[24] However, it announced it would subscribe to the Wellington Declaration, indicating its intention to participate fully in the Dublin negotiations on the basis of the Wellington draft text.^[25]

At the Dublin Diplomatic Conference in May 2008, Swiss Ambassador Christine Schraner Burgener served as the Friend of the President on interoperability, chairing informal sessions on the issue and presenting her conclusions about possibilities for consensus to the President. This was a challenging task given the divergent views. In the end, the CMC criticized Article 21 dealing with this matter as the worst element of the new convention, calling it a “stain on the fine fabric” of the convention.^[26]

During the Dublin conference, Switzerland agreed to a definition that prohibited its own stocks of cluster munitions. It continued to lobby for a transition period under which the use of prohibited cluster munitions would still be permitted until their replacement could be secured, but this was rejected by other states.^[27] Switzerland successfully advocated for ground-breaking provisions for victim assistance, particularly emphasizing the importance of a non-discriminatory approach and of access to medical and social services for victims.^[28] Switzerland joined the consensus adoption of the convention. It hailed the provisions for victims and for assistance to clearance and stockpile destruction, and noted the important references in the preamble to UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, and Resolution 1612 on Children and Armed Conflict.^[29]

After Dublin, Switzerland continued to support work on cluster munitions in the CCW, but adopted a more critical approach. In January 2008, Switzerland had maintained that the Oslo Process and the CCW were “mutually complementary” and “reinforcing.”^[30] In July 2008, Switzerland told CCW delegates that the legal status of cluster munitions has radically changed since Dublin, and said the CCW must take into consideration the development of international humanitarian law represented by the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It stated that it could not accept any provision in the CCW that would weaken or fail to strengthen existing international humanitarian law.^[31]

In June 2008, motions prepared by HI Switzerland were deposited at the National Council and the Council of States asking the government to sign the convention in Oslo in December 2008, and to ratify rapidly. From 2 July to 12 December 2008, HI Switzerland draped the landmark sculpture of the Broken Chair, outside the UN in Geneva, with a three by four meter banner asking states to sign the convention in Oslo.

On 10 September 2008, the Swiss Federal Council decided that Switzerland would sign the convention in December in Oslo.^[32] Upon signing, Minister of Foreign Affairs Micheline Calmy-Rey called it a “strong and ambitious treaty which provides recognition to all those men, women and children who are dead or who have seen their existence shattered by these weapons in the course of recent decades. Switzerland will do all in its power to ensure the procedure of ratification can be carried out promptly.”^[33]

On 17 March 2009, Switzerland’s National Council voted in favor of an initiative which called for rapid ratification of the convention.^[34] HI Switzerland called on the Federal Council to include a prohibition on the direct or indirect financing of cluster munitions in the text of its ratification instrument.^[35] NGOs have continued to argue that the Dupraz initiative provides a workable basis for ratification legislation and the necessary amendment to the law on war material.^[36]

Use, Transfer, Production, and Stockpiling

Switzerland has never used or exported cluster munitions.^[37] It imported cluster munitions from Israel and the United Kingdom, and currently has a stockpile of cannon artillery and mortar projectiles with submunitions.

At the Oslo conference in February 2007, Switzerland stated that it “stopped the production of cluster munitions in 2003.”^[38] According to a March 2009 letter from the foreign minister, Switzerland “did never per se produce cluster munitions. Indeed, according to a license agreement with the manufacturer, the munitions were purchased abroad and enterprises based in Switzerland, after adding specific features to increase the reliability of the ammunitions, reassembled them (exclusively for the Swiss Armed Forces).”^[39]

The minister went on to note, “This process ended in the last quarter of 2004. Since then, no further treatment or assembly of cluster munitions has taken place in Switzerland. The cargo ammunition for artillery is stocked exclusively in Switzerland. After the ratification of the Convention, Switzerland will fulfill its obligations and destroy its stocks of cluster munitions.”^[40]

Swiss military officials told Human Rights Watch that Switzerland imported 155mm artillery projectiles and 120mm mortar projectiles with M85-type^[41] submunitions from Israel Military Industries, then Swiss firms modified (“Helveticized”) and reassembled the weapons.^[42]

Switzerland stockpiles three types of 155mm artillery projectiles with M85 self-destructing dual purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) submunitions: the KaG-88 containing 63 submunitions, the KaG-90 containing 49 submunitions, and the KaG-88/99 containing 84 submunitions. It also stockpiles the MP-98 120mm mortar projectile containing 32 M85 submunitions.^[43] Switzerland has not yet revealed the quantities of these weapons that it possesses.

Switzerland imported BL-755 cluster bombs from the United Kingdom. It has reported that it “fully destroyed its entire stocks of the so-called ‘Fliegerbombe 79’…between 1997 and 2000. Since then, the Swiss Armed Forces do no longer have any air-delivered cluster units on stock.”^[44] In June 2005, the Department of Foreign Affairs wrote, “The Swiss Armed Forces no longer have any cluster bomb units (an aircraft store composed of a dispenser and submunition) on stock, due to humanitarian concerns and the decision not to use aircraft capable for ground combat.”^[45]

Switzerland purchased from Germany DM702 SMArt-155 sensor-fuzed weapons as part of its 2001 Armament Program.^[46] The SMArt 155 artillery round contains two submunitions, but it is not considered a cluster munition under the Convention on Cluster Munitions because it meets the five technical criteria set out by negotiators as necessary to avoid the negative effects of cluster munitions.^[47]