Denmark

The Kingdom of Denmark signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Oslo on 3 December 2008. The status of the ratification process is not known.

Denmark is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and ratified Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War on 28 June 2005. Ambassador Bent Wigotski of Denmark was the chaired the five sessions of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) in 2008 aimed, ultimately unsuccessfully, at negotiating a new protocol on cluster munitions.

Cluster Munition Ban Policy

Denmark was an early supporter of efforts to address the humanitarian problems caused by cluster munitions. However, it consistently expressed a preference for work in the CCW and, while it regularly participated in the Oslo Process, also consistently expressed strong reservations about both the process and the text of the draft convention, including the concept of a comprehensive prohibition.

In May 2004, the Danish Parliament encouraged the government to pursue “efforts in all international fora to establish as quickly as possible an internationally binding legal ban against all kinds of cluster munitions not equipped with self-destruction, self-deactivation, or self-neutralization mechanisms.”^[1] Denmark announced in November 2004 a temporary ban on the use and procurement of submunitions with a failure rate of greater than 1% or those not equipped with self-destruction or self-neutralization devices. At the same time, Denmark said that there were no cluster munitions of any type included in the procurement plans of its armed forces.^[2]

In August 2005, during a CCW session, Denmark stated that “while cluster munitions can serve legitimate military purposes, it is clear that there is currently an imbalance between military necessity and the humanitarian risk posed.” In the same statement Denmark committed to work toward a legally-binding international instrument regulating cluster munitions.^[3]

In November 2006, at the Third Review Conference of the CCW, Denmark supported a proposal for a mandate to negotiate a legally-binding instrument “that addresses the humanitarian concerns posed by cluster munitions.”^[4] After the mandate was rejected by a number of other countries, Denmark was one of 25 nations that issued 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.^[5] Norway then announced that it would start an independent process outside the CCW to negotiate a cluster munition treaty and invited other governments to join.

Denmark participated in the initial Oslo Process conference in Oslo in February 2007, the three international diplomatic conferences to develop the convention text in Lima, Vienna, and Wellington, as well as the formal negotiations in Dublin in May 2008. It also attended the regional conference in Brussels in October 2007.

At the end of the Oslo conference in February 2007, Denmark joined 45 other countries in endorsing the Oslo Declaration, committing the states to conclude in 2008 a legally-binding instrument prohibiting cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. However, Denmark stated its preference for work in the CCW and said that it viewed the 2008 deadline as an “ambition” and not an obligation.^[6]

At the Lima conference in May 2007, Denmark was part of a group of countries pushing for a definition that would exempt from prohibition submunitions with self-destruct mechanisms.^[7] At the Vienna conference in December 2007, Denmark stated that the purpose of the Oslo Process was not to agree on a categorical ban on cluster munitions, but rather, to draw a line between types of cluster munitions that were accurate and reliable and those that were not. ^[8] Denmark supported a proposal by Germany for a draft CCW protocol on cluster munitions which it saw as drawing the right line between cluster munitions that caused unacceptable harm and those that did not.^[9] Denmark raised concerns about the issue of “interoperability” (joint military operations with states not party), as it feared the treaty’s provisions would make it difficult to participate in joint operations with states not party, such as the United States.^[10]

More generally, Denmark insisted that an agreement must balance humanitarian and military concerns and must have a “critical mass” of adherents, including major users and producers. It could not be taken for granted that additional states would rally to a future agreement on cluster munitions as they had the Mine Ban Treaty, because cluster munitions had greater military utility than antipersonnel mines, Denmark argued.^[11] It declared that cluster munitions would not go away by “grand-standing” in the Oslo Process.^[12]

Danish NGOs, such as DanChurchAid and the Danish Red Cross, were highly critical of the government’s position on cluster munitions, and launched in 2007 a webpage addressing the issue: Stopklyngebomber.nu (stop cluster bombs).^[13] They carried out other national actions, notably the collection of more than 10,000 signatures calling for a ban which were presented to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and a public protest at Town Hall Square in Copenhagen.

At the Wellington conference in February 2008, Denmark took strong positions on the need for exemptions to a prohibition based on technical elements, for a transition period before prohibitions took effect, for provisions addressing interoperability concerns, and for a provision on retaining cluster munitions for training and development purposes.^[14] Denmark associated itself with the so-called like-minded group that put forth a number of proposals strongly criticized by the CMC as weakening the draft text. It supported the joint statement of the like-minded group at the end of the conference expressing disappointment with the proceedings and the unwillingness to incorporate their proposals into the draft text.^[15]

Denmark subscribed to the Wellington Declaration, indicating its intention to participate fully in the formal negotiations in Dublin on the basis of the Wellington draft text. But, it called the conference “disappointing,” and stated, “At the very worst the Oslo Process has become almost synonymous with proceedings where the Chair, ordered by a small group of countries, uses all the powers at its disposal to impose a predetermined result in the Conference, under a cloud of intransparency and lack of inclusiveness.”^[16] Denmark declared it would attend the Dublin conference with a clear understanding that the proposals it supported, while not formal amendments, would be treated on an equal basis with the draft text.^[17]

In April 2008, before the Dublin Diplomatic Conference, the Danish government presented an analysis of its policy on cluster munitions to the Danish Parliament, stating that while it supported a ban, it would continue to seek a 10-year transition period for certain types, such as the DM642 155mm artillery projectiles still in its stockpiles. The report also stated the government’s intention to destroy all of its stocks of the DM662 155mm artillery projectiles with submunitions, as tests had shown them to be too unreliable.^[18]

After the government’s report in April 2008, DanChurchAid and the Danish Red Cross published an alternative report criticizing the governments’ decision to keep some cluster munitions, its role in the Oslo Process, and its continued push for an agreement in the CCW.^[19] The ethical watchdog DanWatch and other Danish NGOS were active in calling for transparency about the Danish pension funds’ investment in cluster munition producers. As a direct result of this action several funds have changed their policies and sold off their shares in companies producing cluster munitions.^[20]

During the Dublin negotiations in May 2008, Denmark continued to push on the issues of definitions, interoperability, transition periods, and retention. It stated that a transition period was a question of national security, and necessary because the convention would not “be equivalent to waving a magic wand to make all unacceptable cluster munitions go away.”^[21] On interoperability, the Danish ambassador said that the Danish Minister of Defense had told him he would not take part in the funerals of Danish service personnel in Afghanistan because Denmark was constrained in its alliances by the Convention on Cluster Munitions.^[22] Although not satisfied with the outcomes on key matters such as the definition and a transition period, at the conclusion of the negotiations, Denmark expressed its support for the convention and joined the consensus adoption.

Denmark signed the convention on 3 December 2008 in Oslo. In its statement to the plenary, Denmark said that the convention was “an important step” on cluster munitions, but that “not all problems caused by cluster munitions will cease as of tomorrow…. The Oslo Convention has in number attracted the support of many countries, but unfortunately it has been unable to gain support from the largest user and producer countries, which hold around 90% of the world’s stockpiles of cluster munitions. This is particularly sad as it is primarily countries belonging to the latter group which have used unreliable and inaccurate cluster munitions in recent conflicts. These weapons unfortunately remain unregulated.” Denmark said that its hope was that the Convention on Cluster Munitions would be “a stepping-stone to reaching an international agreement supported also by the larger user and producer countries.”^[23]

As chair of the 2008 sessions of the GGE on cluster munitions in the CCW, Denmark had considerable investment in securing an outcome on cluster munitions in that forum. The Danish chair’s proposed draft text of a protocol could not generate consensus, however, with criticism coming from states inside and outside of the Oslo Process, as well as NGOs.^[24] In November, as CCW negotiations were scheduled to conclude, 26 states issued a joint statement expressing their opposition to the weak draft text on a possible CCW protocol on cluster munitions, indicating it was an unacceptable step back from the standards set by the Convention on Cluster Munitions.^[25] CCW States Parties failed to reach agreement at the end of an acrimonious year of discussions, but, with Denmark’s support, decided to continue work on cluster munitions in 2009.

Use, Production, Stockpiling, and Transfer

Denmark is not known to have used or produced cluster munitions. The precise status and composition of its current stoc kpile of imported cluster munitions is not known.

In 2005, the Ministry of Defense stated, “No [air-dropped] cluster bombs…are in service with the Danish Armed Forces” and “no ground-launched cluster munition is currently in service with the Danish Armed Forces.” It said that Denmark had retired its inventory of US-produced Rockeye cluster bombs,^[26] while retaining a small number for training of explosive ordnance disposal personnel. It also said it had removed from service 155mm Improved Conventional Munition (ICM) and ICM Base Bleed (extended range) artillery projectiles with submunitions.^[27]

Denmark has acknowledged having stockpiles of German-produced DM642 and DM662 155mm artillery projectiles with submunitions.^[28] Presumably these are the same as the ICM and ICM Base Bleed projectiles that Denmark has removed from service. It is not known how many of these Denmark possesses. In early 2008, Denmark decided to destroy the DM662 because of tests showing them to be highly unreliable.^[29]