CCW Report, Vol. 9, No. 11
Editorial: Bracketing human suffering and gender diversity
15 December 2021
Ray Acheson | Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Main Committee I of the CCW Review Conference began its work with a general exchange of views on Tuesday, which continued Wednesday. Most of its efforts on Wednesday were spent deliberating on the draft final declaration of the Review Conference. While most of the declaration’s text was acceptable to all delegations, there were a few critical stumbling blocks. These were largely predictable—divergent views on incendiary weapons, mines other anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM), explosive weapons, and cluster munitions caused the most consternation. But disagreement also broke out over the first-ever reference to gender in the CCW outcome document, which one state—Russia—decided was “superfluous”.
Avoiding work to prevent human suffering
During the Wednesday morning session, as high contracting parties (HCPs) began their first reading of the draft declaration, Russia and a small group of supporters began to object to long-standing references to concerns about the humanitarian impacts of cluster munitions and MOTAPM. They argued that cluster munitions are not on the CCW’s agenda anymore, and they won’t let MOTAPM be on the agenda; therefore, these issues should not be included in the declaration. Russia also argued there has been no consensus on addressing explosive weapons within the CCW—which is why Ireland is leading a separate process on that issue. And Russia argued that there is no need for further work on protocol III on incendiary weapons—despite the horrific documented harm from the ongoing use of these weapons and weapons with incendiary effects.
The details of these discussions are covered in the subsequent articles in this edition of the CCW Report. Some of the issues remained unresolved by the end of the working day. The Chair of Main Committee I planned to meet informally with interested delegations in the evening and the Committee will resume its work formally on Thursday morning. The text that needs further work has been left in “square brackets” for the time being, which means some delegations have called for its deletion, but this has not yet been agreed.
While the work will continue, the key reflection of the deliberations so far came from Austria, which said it was disconcerting to witness these fundamental attacks on some of the core principles and areas of work of the CCW. In some cases, it was a matter of disputing previously agreed language; in other cases, it was about preventing any new efforts to mitigate human suffering or bolster the implementation of international humanitarian law. As Switzerland asked a few times, what message is this sending to the world?
The CCW is supposed to be an instrument to protect civilians “against the effects of hostilities,” and to “continue the codification and progressive development of the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.” The new areas of work being proposed on incendiary weapons and MOTAPM are relevant to fulfilling all these objectives. Yet a tiny handful of states refuse to allow deliberations on some topics to begin and in some cases want to ignore harm caused by these weapons altogether.
Diversity for disarmament
The CCW is in a deadlock over these issues, as well as autonomous weapon systems—which are not covered in the work of Main Committee I. The section in the draft declaration addressing that aspect of the CCW’s work will be filled in later, based on the outcome of Main Committee II.
One critical way to overcome these kinds of jams is to change up who is participating in the work—and most crucially, to diversify the perspectives and experiences of those participating.
The current deadlock is rooted in a patriarchal conception of power and violence, in which states collect and use weapons in order to demonstrate their dominance in the international sphere. Most states want to build another world order, in which disarmament, demilitarisation, and cooperation and assistance are the norms guiding actions and investments. This is clear enough from the CCW deliberations, as well those taking place in other disarmament and arms control fora. But they are perpetually blocked from meaningful progress by the same handful of states that value weapons more than the well-being of people or the planet.
Panama made a modest proposal to the CCW this year. It suggested including in the final declaration’s preamble a paragraph “emphasising the importance of the perspectives of women, men, boys and girls in considering the issues addressed by the Convention and its Protocols, and underlining the vital role for the full and equal participation of women in decision-making and implementation of the Convention.”
This would be a welcome addition to the text. It’s inclusion of “perspectives” is important, as is its call for women’s participation not just in discussions but also in decision-making and implementation. From WILPF’s perspective, a broader view of gender would be preferred—not limiting the language to a gender binary but recognising the more inclusive and expansive reality of gender diversity. Other forms of diversity—race, geography, disability, etc.—could also be included in this kind of paragraph.
But even the language that was proposed, which has been taken up in various ways in other fora and agreements, was too much for Russia. It wanted to limit the language to “recognising the importance of balanced involvement of women and men in the meetings under the CCW and its protocols, in support of the efforts of high contracting parties to address the issues related to the CCW and its protocols.” In the interests of being flexible in a multilateral forum, Panama accepted the changes. Yet, a few hours after proposing this watered-down language, Russia decided that the entire paragraph was superfluous and should be deleted.
It was such a strange move that Ireland had to ask the Chair for clarification if Russia was calling for the deletion of its own proposal. It was.
Opening, not closing
That this is the state of “gender relations” in the CCW in 2021 should be as alarming as its inability to agree to review protocol III or to negotiate a new protocol on autonomous weapons. They are related phenomenon. They are signals that the CCW is not a forum that reflects the needs or realities of the current world. The intransigence displayed by certain heavily militarised states in their refusal to negotiate any restrictions on the development and deployment of machines that will use sensors and software to determine who lives and who dies is bound up with their refusal to consider who is participating in these discussions, or what perspectives and lived realities are being included.
Tomorrow is another day, and HCPs will resume their efforts to agree to a declaration. Main Committee II will also resume its work on autonomous weapons. In each case, the militarised states must stop blocking progress. The square brackets should be removed. New work should be agreed upon, references to weapons that harm people must be allowed. And in general, these states need to take a more open view of the world and what can be accomplished to improve it.
As Ireland pointed out, when we do not agree, this does not necessarily mean that discussion ends—it means it should start.
[PDF] ()