|
|
CLICK
HERE to return
to DOCS INDEX. |
|
The
From the 55th Session of the Sub-Commission on
The Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
In
Composed by Damacio A. Lopez
2003 Representative of the Loretto Community
an NGO with ECOSOC Status at the United Nations
Sub-Commission on Human Rights
Edited by Lizzy Bloem
Revised
Loretto Community
777 UN PLAZA 6E
Ph
Table of Contents
1 1. Introduction
2 2. Working Paper by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen
2 2 - 1 Summary
4 2 - 2 Introduction by Yuen
6 2 - 3 New Information on DU Weapons
8 2 - 4 New Weapons: Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)
9 2 - 5 General Comments
10 2 - 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
11
3. United Nations Press Release
13
4. Intervention by Justice,
Françoise Hampson of the
15 5. Written Statement by International Educational Development, Inc
16 6. Comments on Yuen Report by Dr. Dai Williams
18 7. Comments by the Composer
18 8. About the Composer
18 9. References
19. Appendix I: Resolution 1996/16
20. Appendix II. 2001 General Assembly Resolution on DU
21 Appendix III: UN General Assembly adopts Iraqi proposed resolution
1. Introduction
The following information was gathered from the
This report was accomplished with the help of the liaison
between Sub-Commission members and NGO’s who helped locate pertinent documents.
The list of people interviewed included; David Weissbrodt the
The highlight of this particular session was that Mr. Sik
Yuen who was not a member of the Sub-Commission was still asked to deliver his
report. Member Françoise Hampton, the
This report was originally to be completed in 1998 but the
Rapporteur assigned to present the report was absent. The report was again
scheduled for presentation in 1999, 2000, and 2001 and in each case the
Rapporteur assigned the responsibility of presenting the report was either
absent or not prepared, or no one had been assigned the report for that year as
is the case for 2004. In 2002, Sik Yuen was scheduled to submit the report, he
was subsequently voted off the Sub-Commission and was not re-elected to the
Sub-Commission as a result of intensive lobbying by the
The 2002 Sub-Commission voted to have him do a follow-up in 2003, which is the subject of this paper. After the 2003 session the Sub-Commission did not assign anyone to produce any additional reports for 2004 nor was any action taken on Mr. Yuen’s recommendations, the following information is an overview of what transpired in the 2003 session regarding the depleted uranium issue
We begin with excerpts from Mr. Yuen’s Working Paper, which was submitted in absentia followed by excerpts of related material. The full text can be seen at www.unhchr.ch. He begins with a Summary that included the following information:
2. Working Paper Submitted by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen[1]
2 - 1 Summary
1. The present updated working paper is submitted pursuant to Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights decision 2002/113. In resolution 1997/36 the Sub-Commission expressed concern over the use of particular weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, naming specifically nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium. In that resolution the Sub-Commission also expressed its conviction that the use or threat of use of those weapons was "incompatible with international human rights and/or humanitarian law" and requested Sub-Commission member Ms. Clemencia Forero Ucros to prepare a working paper on that topic. Resolution 1997/37 added the issue of illicit transfer of these weapons to the mandate. Decision 2001/119 authorized Mr. Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen to prepare the mandated working paper in lieu of Ms. Forero Ucros.
2. The working paper (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/38) was duly submitted to the Sub-Commission at its fifty-fourth session. By decision 2002/113 the Sub-Commission requested the author to submit an updated working paper to the Sub-Commission at its fifty-fifth session.
3. Part I of the updated paper recalls the undisputed principles of humanitarian law which are enunciated in the earlier paper and refers to Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the two Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Martens Clause, the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relevant articles of Additional Protocols I and II. The present paper also recalls the four established humanitarian law principles by which weapons are to be considered banned, namely:
(a) If their use has indiscriminate effects (no effective distinction between civilians and belligerents);
(b) Their use is out of proportion with the pursuit of legitimate military objectives;
(c) Their use adversely affects the environment in a widespread, long-term and severe manner; and
(d) Their use causes superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
Part I ends by recalling the issue of the listed weapons in the light of the above four principles, dividing them into categories identified by the Sub-Commission and dealing with each of them in turn.
4. Part II of the updated paper deals with new information.
The new information on depleted uranium (DU) weapons is quite substantial in
view of the fact that information and events regarding such weaponry have
proliferated. The primary role of the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) in investigating the presence of DU in the Balkans and its urgent call
for immediate access to sites in
5.
Emphasis is laid on calls by UNEP and the Royal Society for an early assessment
of the effects of DU in
6.
With regard to nuclear weapons, the latest news is the adoption of a bill on
7. After making a number of general comments on certain specific weapons, the author concludes that all weapons under review in his two papers should be considered banned. States using them have a duty to compensate, clean up and warn. The following recommendations are made:
(a)
The Sub-Commission should call for a new environmental assessment of
(b) The
Sub-Commission should encourage scientific assessments of the effects of the
use of fuel-air bombs, "bunker busters" and/or "mini-nukes"
and DEW;
(c) The Sub-Commission should consider requesting the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit a paper to its next session on progress achieved in these areas.
2 – 2 Introduction by Yuen
(Excerpts)
8. In its resolution 1996/16, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, concerned at the alleged use of weapons of mass or indiscriminate destruction against both members of the armed forces and against civilian populations, resulting in death, misery and disability, and at reports on the long-term consequences of the use of such weapons upon human life and health and upon the environment, and convinced that the production and sale of such weapons are incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law, urged all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium. It also requested the Secretary-General to collect information from Governments, United Nations bodies and specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations regarding these weapons, and to submit a report on the information gathered to the Sub-Commission at its forty-ninth session.
9. In its resolution 1997/36, the Sub-Commission reiterated its concerns about these weapons expressed in its previous resolution and authorized Sub-Commission member Clemencia Forero Ucros to prepare a working paper on this topic. In its resolution 1997/37, the Sub-Commission decided to include the topic of illicit transfer of arms in the working paper. Ms. Forero Ucros did not submit the working paper.
10. In its decision 2001/119, the Sub-Commission authorized Mr. Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen to prepare, without financial implications, the working paper originally assigned to Ms. Forero Ucros, and to submit it to the Sub-Commission at its fifty-fourth session. Mr. Yeung Sik Yuen presented his working paper (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/38) to the Sub-Commission at its fifty-fourth session. Many members of the Sub-Commission as well as Governments and non-governmental organizations participated in the debate of this issue. Sub-Commission members Mr. Decaux, Mr. Eide, Mr. Park, Mr. Guissé, Mr. Sorabjee and Mr. Yokota participated in that debate. Mr. Decaux urged that because of the complexities of the topic and for other reasons the paper should focus mainly on depleted uranium weapons. Mr. Eide provided useful guidance on what the author considers to be parallel provisions of human rights law and humanitarian law, giving as an example the human rights provision against arbitrary deprivation of life in relation to the use of weapons with indiscriminate effect. Mr. Park raised a very interesting point about whether the "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) policies of the cold war prevented armed conflict. Mr. Guissé expressed concern about the indications of an increase in cancers following the deployment of DU weaponry and the need for further study in this area. Mr. Sorabjee pointed out the failure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to call for a moratorium on DU weapons. Mr. Yokota raised the extremely important issue of the consequences of the use of these weapons, including the issue of punishment and reparations.
11. Mr. Alfonso Martinez urged that further work be undertaken. Other members made useful comments, especially Ms. Hampson, who commented also on the vastness of the topic and, as did Mr. Eide, gave useful examples of parallel provisions in humanitarian and human rights law: the prohibition of summary execution in relation to the use of military tactics or weapons that are indiscriminate in their effect, and the prohibition of inhuman or cruel treatment in relation to the humanitarian law terms "undue suffering" and "causing superfluous injury". Ms. Hampson also raised the possibility that certain of the weapons discussed could possibly be used in a legal way.
12.
The author then turned to the issue of the listed weapons in the light of his
test, dividing them into categories identified by the Sub-Commission in its
mandate. He presented standard nuclear weapons (the "big
bombs") first, both in terms of what they do but also setting out the
major international action, including treaties, relating to nuclear
weapons. These are clearly weapons of mass destruction, and also
encompass the other categories identified by the Sub-Commission. He then
turned to "mini-nukes" such as the B61-11 earth-penetrating bombs
developed by the
13. As weaponry containing depleted uranium (DU) was specifically singled out by the Sub-Commission, and also because it is new weaponry, the author addressed it in a separate section. He referred in his discussion to the obligation to evaluate weapons prior to use for compatibility with existing law. Nonetheless, DU weaponry was used in a number of situations, in spite of convincing evidence that it could not be used without violating humanitarian law. In particular, from the information he has studied, it is clear to the author that these weapons must necessarily be considered banned as causing superfluous injury or undue suffering, or because of a real threat to the environment. These weapons could also be viewed as poisonous. The author also noted a number of ongoing or planned studies on DU weaponry as well as the growing international action in civil society against them, including calls for a moratorium on their use by a number of States and several intergovernmental organizations.
14. The author concluded his working paper by noting that these weapons are intended to be used on enemy soil, thus making their devastation less of an issue for their users and their own nationals than for the "enemy" victims. He also expressed the fear of their imminent use under the pretext of the fight against "terrorism" and the need for "security" - well beyond what is permissible under international law - and indeed fears that the use of "mini-nukes" against so-called "rogue States" could trigger a spiral. In this context, human rights concerns are pushed aside in favor of a notion of "security" which flouts humanitarian norms. He concluded with a plea for international adherence to human rights and humanitarian norms as being the true path to security.
2 - 3 New Information on DU Weapons
15. Since the last paper was submitted, information and events regarding the use of weaponry containing depleted uranium has proliferated - far more than for the other weapons under review. For this reason, the author addressed this topic first.
16.
At the United Nations level, concerns about the military use of depleted
uranium have escalated. On
17.
UNEP recently completed work on three conflict areas in which weapons
containing DU were used or alleged to have been used:
18.
Despite allegations of the use of DU or perhaps other radiological weapons in
19.
On
20.
In spite of substantial international outcry against military action against
21.
In another press release, UNEP issued a preliminary assessment of its
forthcoming "Desk study on the environment in
22.
On 27 April, UNEP director Klaus Toepfer asked that the United Nations be
allowed into
23.
On
24. "The coalition needs to acknowledge that DU is a potential hazard and make inroads into tackling it by being open about where and how much has been deployed.”
25.
Fragments of DU penetrators are potentially hazardous, and the Royal Society
study recommended they should be removed, and areas of contamination around
impact sites identified and where necessary made safe. Impact sites in residential
areas should be a particular priority. Long-term monitoring of water and
milk to detect any increase in uranium levels should also be introduced in
26.
The
27. Civil society and non-governmental organizations are becoming increasingly concerned about victims of DU weaponry, the more so in the light of actions initiated by developers and users of DU in trying to stifle discussion about DU and withhold information or falsify evidence outright. In any case, it is apparent that the anti-DU movement is growing. Most independent scientists and lawyers focus on the illegality of depleted uranium weaponry in the light of international humanitarian norms or the impact of DU on health or the environment. While there are clear differences of opinion on how bad depleted uranium really is, no one except the military forces using depleted uranium weapons accept that they have no potential to unduly damage both health and environment. Further, some researchers are beginning to address the "whys" of DU use. For example, a leading researcher now takes the view that one of the reasons for using depleted uranium weapons against Iraq in 1991 and in the Balkans was to "test the opposition of the Western public opinion to the induction of radioactivity on the battlefield, and so to get the world population accustomed to the combat use of depleted uranium and fourth-generation nuclear weapons." He felt that the use of DU weapons in the first Gulf war was meant to break a military taboo against the limited use of radiological weapons on the battlefield so that it could be invoked as a precedent to facilitate a transition to the use of so-called fourth-generation nuclear weapons, including mini-nukes designed to be used as "bunker busters". The same views are shared by another scientist.
2 - 4 New Weapons: Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)
28. When considering effects of radiation one must include as many variables as possible. The following describes the new directed energy weapons. (Composer)
29.
According to a former employee of the United States Navy, the first deliberate
use of non-ionizing irradiation of human beings occurred in 1960 when a host
country covertly directed radar-like microwave beams at a
30.
The
31.
A Belgian doctor who braved the war in
32. The author is in no position to vouch for the veracity of the reported account at Al Sqifal and can only deduce from his readings that a DEW, probably using microwave energy, could have been used in that incident. However, from the information available on DEW, namely the surreptitious nature of their use and their atrocious effect of literally dismembering victims, the author feels that they may fall within the category of weapons causing superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering and would thus be banned under humanitarian law.
2 - 5 General Comments
33. As stated in the first paper, all the weapons under consideration, including weapons containing DU, can be considered prohibited because they are WIE, WSI and WUS. Additionally, nuclear weapons, weapons containing depleted uranium or other "radiological" weapons necessarily cause impermissible damage to the environment.
34. The author is, of course, aware of the continuing controversy over DU weapons, fuelled by what the author considers cavalier disregard, if not deception, on the part of the developers and users of these weapons regarding their effects. While the author is not in a position to evaluate the many scientific studies of these weapons, it is impossible to ignore the findings of credible medical research. On that ground alone, DU weapons should not be used pending further study. Furthermore, the United States Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) figures on deaths of veterans who served in the First Gulf War (over 8,000), coupled with an equally startling disability rate (206,861 of 696,778 veterans on paid disability), is sufficient to indicate that something is seriously amiss.
35.
It is clear from the recent
36. Owing to the constraints imposed on the author, other related legal issues have not been addressed. The major one, in the author's view, is the concern raised by Sub-Commission member Mr. Yokota about the legal obligations of the users of illegal weapons, especially in the light of the Hague Convention of 1907, article 3:
37. "A belligerent Party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces." With the added burdens of the duty to warn and the duty to clean up, use of these weapons could be very costly indeed were the international community to insist on full compliance with humanitarian law in all circumstances. The Sub-Commission's prior work on the issue of compensation, as well as the continuing work on this topic at the Commission on Human Rights, are clearly relevant to this issue.
2 - 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
38. The main legal conclusion reached by the author is that all the weapons under review in his two papers should be considered banned, whether or not there is a specific treaty banning them. Weapons which are the subject of a specific treaty should also be considered universally banned for all States, regardless of whether a State is a signatory. States that have employed any of these weapons should assume their duties relative to compensation, clean up and warning.
39. A second major conclusion relates to a pressing "need to know" regarding what weapons were used and where in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other conflict areas where any of those weapons have been deployed. This information is vital to be able correctly to assess damage and to provide medical assistance to those affected, in conformity with the right to health. For this reason, the Sub-Commission could join in the appeals of other entities of the United Nations for such disclosure.
40.
The Sub-Commission, acting on allegations of violations to the right to a
healthy environment, can also call for a new environmental assessment of
41. Regarding the use of fuel-air bombs and existing or planned "bunker busters" and/or "mini-nukes" the Sub-Commission should encourage scientific assessment of the "earthquake-producing" potential of these weapons as well as contamination aspects. In the same way, the Sub-Commission should encourage scientific assessment of DEW and call for an in-depth study of the nature of those weapons, their ill effects and potential misuse which would infringe humanitarian law.
42.
Owing to rapid developments in this area, the Sub-Commission might consider
requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a paper for the fifty-sixth session
on progress achieved in all these areas. Of particular interest would be
information on the results of the testing of
3. United Nations Press Release[2]
43. FRANÇOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, commented on the working paper submitted Mr. Yueng Sik Yuen on human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, and said that a study that took account of the legal framework could, amongst other things, provide useful arguments for those raising weapon-related issues before human rights tribunals or before domestic courts which could entertain such arguments. However, in order for such a study to be useful, it must be factually accurate and intellectually rigorous. This study was one-sided as evidenced in the sections on the effects of depleted uranium. Sometimes the one-sidedness even led to the omission of useful material. The factual part of the report failed to acknowledge or comment on negotiations currently underway on such weapons. It also failed to comment on genetic weapons. Legally, many resources were ignored. One could not ignore court cases, just because one did not like the result. There was no reference to existing human rights law, or to academic writing on legal regimes. The terminology also seemed confused, such as the manner in which he defined the weapons of mass destruction, including the description of cluster bombs as inherently indiscriminate. The argument needed to be made in this case, rather then leaving such issues and descriptions as self-evident. The subject was appropriate to the Sub-Commission if it was expanded, and included a well-founded legal analysis.
44. EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, referring to the working paper submitted by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen on "human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering", said that the work of the Sub-Commission was collective and that an individual who was not a member could not contribute to that end. On the issue of nuclear weapons, the Sub-Commission was not competent to deal with the issue, as it was a case for the Conference on Disarmament. The work of the former Sub-Commission Expert Sik Yuen should be pursued by an actual member of the Sub-Commission.
45.
SHIQIU CHEN, Sub-Commission Expert, said that the report followed closely the
international weapons development, a point which must be affirmed. With the
rapid development of technology, weapons of mass destruction had reached
unprecedented levels. The development and use of these weapons had posed
threats to peace and security and the right to life of human beings. The use of
weapons of mass destruction must pass the test of the four principles. If they
did not pass these principles, the weapons in question must be banned. The
report also stressed that weapons of mass destruction must be comprehensively
banned whether countries were parties to treaties or not, representing the
views of the Sub-Commission and the entire human community. Weapons of mass
destruction were the cruelest forms of disasters. The Sub-Commission must
support the proposal of the Special Reporteur that the United Nations
Environment Program UNEP and the World Health Organization WHO conduct an
investigation on the use of depleted uranium in
46. ASBJØRN EIDE, Sub-Commission Expert, said that the work done by Mr. Yueng Sik Yeun was important from the human rights point of view. However, the legal analysis should be improved, and the work should be relayed by one of the members of the Sub-Commission.
47. SOO GIL PARK, Sub-Commission Expert, said there was a lack of analysis on the potential of the use of non-State actors of weapons of mass destruction. The author had acquired his information on the effects of weapons of mass destruction and depleted uranium from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). It would be useful if the factual aspects were drawn from more scientific sources.
4. Intervention by Sub-Commission member Justice Françoise
Hampson of the
(Excerpts)
Working paper on human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering
48. At the outset, I wish to make it clear that this is a really important subject and one which can be examined within the mandate of the Sub-Commission, on condition that the focus is on human rights law. A significant number of existing weapons raise a variety of concerns, either on account of the legal framework which could, amongst other things, provide useful arguments for those raising weapons-related issues before human rights tribunals or before domestic courts which can entertain such arguments. I speak as someone who has had to try and litigate such issues. In order for a study to be useful for that purpose, it must be factually accurate and intellectually rigorous.
49. The current report of Mr. Sik Yuen, which follows on from last year's report, contains some useful factual information about weapon systems and their impact. A difficulty, however, is that the information is one-sided and does not include evidence which goes in an opposite direction from that preferred by the author. In the case of depleted uranium, for example, as I indicated in my intervention last year, the ICRC is on record as saying that they do not think it poses particular problems. Personally, I think that that opinion was reached prematurely before enough time has elapsed to evaluate the effects on the forces using them, as well as the long-term effects on the population where such weapons are used.
50.
Nevertheless, one cannot simply pretend that the ICRC has said nothing.
Sometimes the one-sidedness leads to the omission of material that could be
useful to campaigners. It is interesting, for example, that certain
51. I repeat, I think this subject is of very real importance and is an entirely appropriate subject of the Sub-Commission's concern. The factual part of this study could be used as the basis for further work, if it was expanded to include other sources and other weapons. It is also vital, however, to do a well-founded legal analysis. I hope that the Sub-Commission will continue its work in this area. Presumably, in the light of the comment from the Commission that reports need to be undertaken by members of the Sub-Commission or alternates, further work will need to be undertaken by a current member of the Sub-Commission or an alternate.
52.
53.
- Experts, "We are meant to be sort of a think tank."
- Experts, "Controversial issues must have a scientific basis, if not, nobody will believe it.'"
- NGOs, "There is not a mechanism in place to check if the recommendations are followed through."
- NGOs, "Define the process and exactly what the Sub-Commission can or cannot do."
- Experts, “The process goes from the Sub-Commission to the High-Commission and Finally ECOSOC (General Assembly).”
- Experts "Need fresh ideas"
- Experts, "When speaking to us stay strictly on Human Rights."[4]
UN Web site: www.unchr.ch
5. Written Statement by International Educational Development, Inc[5]
(Excerpts)
54. International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project (IED/HLP) has raised the issue of weaponry containing depleted uranium first at the Commission on Human Rights and then at the Sub-Commission on Human Rights since 1996. We have been pleased that the Sub-Commission immediately took up this issue and has kept it on the agenda ever since. We, of course, agree with the Sub-Commission that the use of weaponry containing depleted uranium in armed conflict is incompatible with existing human rights and humanitarian law. We have also welcomed the working papers submitted by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen on not only weaponry containing depleted uranium but on a number of other weapons whose use in armed conflict is also incompatible with existing norms.
55. In our numerous oral and written statements on the issue of this weaponry we have set out four tests that all weapons must pass in order to be used in armed conflict:
· the weapons and their effect must be contained to the legal field of battle (the "geographical" test);
· the weapons and their effect must cease to function when the armed conflict is over (the "temporal" test);
· the weapons and their effect must not be unduly inhumane or cause undue suffering (the "humaneness" test);
· and the weapons can not unduly harm the environment (the "environment" test).
56.
A. Gsponer, "Depleted-Uranium Weapons: the Whys and Wherefores",
Independent Scientific Research Institute,
Dr. Gsponser also is of the opinion that depleted uranium weapons can in no way be considered "conventional" weapons, but belong to a category that he calls "low-radiological nuclear weapons to which emerging types of nuclear explosives belong", and that this reinforces the view that "depleted uranium weapons are illegal according to international law and contrary to the rules of war". (Ibid., p. 22.)
57.
United States Department of Veterans' Affairs, "Gulf War
Information," Veterans Benefits Administration, Office of Performance
Analysis Integrity, May 2002. Equally alarming figures for
6. Comments on Yuen Report by DU weapons expert Dr. Dai
Williams of the
(Excerpts)
The working paper from Y.K.J. Sik Yuen appears unaware of two fundamental issues that have emerged in the past year.
58.
1). Direct evidence from US Patent Office records and UK Ministry of
Defence records that confirm development of guided weapons with uranium
warheads since 1985. These developments were suspected in my report
"Depleted Uranium Weapons 2001-2002: Mystery Metal Nightmare in
59.
The additional evidence, plus three more suspect systems, was included in my
second report "Uranium Weapons 2001-2003: Hazards of Uranium Weapons for
60. The evidence points to proliferation of uranium warhead components into several new warhead technologies - in advanced penetrator warheads (e.g. in "bunker busters"), shaped charge warheads in missiles, shaped charge warheads in cluster bombs and either casings or high density explosives used in new thermobaric weapons. The earliest patent design of 1985 involved DU flechettes. Recent developments include combinations of these technologies in tandem (dual shaped charge) and multiple warhead systems (BROACH). I am not sure of the official definition of proliferation but in these cases it might apply to diversification into many different types of weapon, and numeric proliferation because these systems represent a major aspect of the current international arms trade.
61.
2). I see no reference to the evidence of undepleted uranium contamination
collected by UMRC on two successive field trips in
62.
Similar undepleted uranium contamination was reported by Kerekes et al in
63.
Though marginally more expensive than DU to manufacture, Undepleted Uranium
therefore offers a major advantage of concealment from detection during medical
and environmental testing - except for excessive abundance as seen in the UMRC
samples. Unless great vigilance and advanced laboratory methods are applied,
undepleted Uranium can be dismissed as "increased background" levels
of natural uranium (as done by US and Canadian military environmental reports
from
64.
Undepleted uranium has an even more valuable feature for concealment of new
weapon systems. All political and legal campaigns, including the work of the
Sub-Commission, has focused specifically on the development and use of DU i.e.
DEPLETED uranium weapons. If undepleted uranium is being used in the new weapon
systems, then the
65.
For this reason the EU Resolution of
66.
We also know that uranium shaped charge warheads have been developed (sources
Jane's & UK MOD). These are rapidly proliferating in smaller
ground-to-ground and air-to-ground missile systems (TOW and potentially
Javelin, SPIKE and Hellfire). A variation of shaped charges are used in
anti-tank cluster bombs (e.g. CBU-87 and 97). Yet these systems are rarely
questioned in DU/U weapon questions and campaigns. They have huge export
potential and are being manufactured in several countries in
7. Comments by the Composer
Recommendation of the composer is an immediate International Ban on the use, production and testing of depleted uranium and other radioactive materials in military weapons, similar to that of the Land Mines Treaty. This “Outside Strategy” can complement the work of those working “Inside” the United Nations Sub-Commission and also the activity that is taking place on DU in the General Assembly; see Appendix II and III.
8. About the Composer
Damacio A. Lopez is the Executive Director of International
Depleted Uranium Study Team (IDUST), a non-governmental organization of
researchers, activists, soldiers, doctors, and scientists throughout the world
dedicated to immediately stopping the use of DU in military weapons. Lopez
first became involved in DU research in 1985 when he organized Socorro
residents in the investigation of potential health risks associated with nearby
explosive testing of DU weaponry at New Mexico Tech. He has authored and
co-authored many respected works, including: “Friendly Fire, the Link Between
Depleted Uranium Munitions and Human Health Risk”, 1994; “Uranium Battlefields
Home and Abroad: Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Department of Defense”, 1993;
and “Progress on the Persian War Illness: Reality and Hypotheses”, 1995,
published by the International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology.
Lopez served as a consultant to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
in
9. References
1 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/35) SPECIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES, Human rights
and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature
to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. Working paper submitted
by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen in accordance with Sub-Commission decision 2002/113.
2 UNITED NATIONS, Press Release. Sub-Commission hears introductions
to reports on contemporary forms of slavery, use of small firearms.
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 55th session,
3 Notes taken by Damacio A. Lopez,
4 Notes taken by Damacio A. Lopez,
5 Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights, Fifty-fifth session, Item 6 of the provisional
agenda. Specific Human Rights Issues. Written statement submitted by
International Educational Development,
Appendix 1: Resolution 1996/16
Resolution 1996/16
Adopted
United Nations Commission on
Human Rights
Sub-Commission On Prevention of Discrimination
And Protection of Minorities
The Sub-Commission, guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international covenants on human rights, and the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949 and the additional protocols thereto, recalling General Assembly resolutions 42/99 of 7th December 1987 and 43/11 of 8th December 1988, affirming that all people have an inherent right of life, concerned at the alleged use of weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction against both members of the armed forces and against civilian population resulting in death, misery and disability, concerned also at repeated reports of long term consequences of the use of such weapons upon human life, health and environment, concerned further that the physical effects on the environment, the debris from the use of such weapons either alone or in combination, and abandoned contaminated equipment constituting serious danger to life, convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with the provisions of the convention against torture and other cruel inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, believing that continued efforts must be undertaken to sensitize public opinion to the inhumane and indiscriminate effects of such weapons and for the need of their complete elimination,
1) urges all states to be guided in their international policies by the need to curb the production and spread of weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate effect, in particular, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium,
2) requests the Secretary General
a) to collect information, from governments, other United Nations bodies, and nongovernmental organizations on the use of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry, and weaponry containing depleted uranium, on their consequential and cumulative effects, and on the danger they represent to life, physical security and other human rights;
b) to submit a report on the information gathered to the Sub-Commission in its 49th session together with any recommendations and views which he had received on effective ways and means of eliminating weapons.
3) decides to give further consideration of this matter at its 49th session on the basis of any additional information which may be contained in reports of the Secretary General to the Sub-Commission or to other United Nations bodies or which may be submitted to the Sub-Commission by governments or nongovernmental organizations.
[Introduced
Appendix II: Press Release
GA/DIS/3209 General Assembly Resolution on DU
Fifty-sixth General Assembly
First committee
14th Meeting (AM)
OUTER SPACE ARMS RACE, DEPLETED URANIUM, LANDMINES, CHEMICAL WEAPONS
ADDRESSED IN DRAFT TEXTS INTRODUCED IN FIRST
COMMITTEE
(Excerpts)
(Full Press release can be seen at www.unhcgr.ch.
The draft text, one of four introduced this morning, would have the Assembly call upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race there, and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective.
Draft texts were also
introduced on: the effects of depleted uranium; chemical weapons; and the
landmines ban. Thematic discussions today focused on other weapons of
mass destruction and the disarmament aspects of outer space.
Introductions of draft texts on the following topics were expected: the effects of depleted uranium; chemical weapons; the weaponization of outer space; and the landmines ban.
A new draft resolution submitted by Iraq on the effects of the use of depleted uranium in armaments (document A/C.1/56/L.8) would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of States and relevant organizations on all aspects of the effects of the use of depleted uranium in weapons and to submit a report thereon to the Assembly at its next session. It would have the Assembly decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of that session.
Appendix III: UN General Assembly adopts Iraqi proposed resolution
The Resolution
was adopted after 49 countries voted with, 45 voted against and 39 abstained.
The Arab voice
was effective when most Arab States supported the Iraqi proposal, along with
the backing of other countries among which
The proposal
calls on the Secretary General of the United Nations to survey the points of
view of states and specialized organizations about the effects of using
depleted uranium in armament from all sides and to report to the 57th Session
of the General Assembly.
The resolution
takes into consideration the facts unveiled about using depleted uranium during
the US led military aggressions in several regions of the World, as these
ammunitions, when fired, is transformed into lionized particles and chemical
dust that is transported to large areas and contaminates the soil, fauna and
flora.
[1] (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/35) SPECIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES, Human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. Working paper submitted by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen in accordance with Sub-commission decision 2002/113.
[2] UNITED NATIONS, Press Release.
Sub-Commission hears introductions to reports on contemporary forms of slavery,
use of small firearms. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights, 55th session,
[3] Notes taken by Damacio A. Lopez,
[4] Notes taken by Damacio A. Lopez, August 6, 2003, NGO
conference room, “NGOs and Experts (Sub-Commission members) Meet”,
Geneva, Switzerland.
5 14 July 2003, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Fifty-fifth session, Item 6 of the provisional agenda. Specific Human Rights Issues. Written statement submitted by International Educational Development
|
|
CLICK
HERE to return
to DOCS INDEX. |
|
Document Page for IDUST, www.idust.net/Docs/xxx.htm
Last Revised:
Copyright 2003 by Dan Bishop, All Rights Reserved
Address email to: info@idust.net