Banning Cluster Bombs: Light in the Darkness of Conflicts

Image

In November 2010 the first Meeting of Parties to the Convention will take place in Laos, Laos being the State where the largest number of fragmentation weapons had been used. Therefore it is important to encourage as many States as possible to ratify the Convention prior to the November conference so as to be able to participate in this first meeting of the Parties. In a note at the end of the article, I list the 30 States which have ratified by geographic area as treaty ratification is often influenced by what other States in a region do (or do not do).

We see that it is the European States which have the most ratifications. This is in large part due to the leadership of diplomats from Norway and Ireland. There has been no such positive leadership in other world areas, with the possible exception of Laos in Asia. However the diplomatic service of Laos is small and without great resources. Thus, outside Europe, pressure for ratification will have to come from the non-governmental sector which played an important role in the preparation and promotion of the Convention.

However, all bright sunlight casts a dark shadow, and in this case the shadow is the fact that the major makers and users of cluster munitions were deliberately absent from the negotiations and the agreement: Brazil, China, India, Israel, Russia, Pakistan, and the USA.    

Yet as arms negotiations go, the cluster bomb ban has been swift.  They began in Oslo, Norway in February 2007 and were thus often called the “Oslo Process.” The negotiations were a justified reaction to their wide use by Israel in Lebanon during the July-August 2006 conflict.  The UN Mine Action Coordination Centre (UNMACC) working in southern Lebanon reported that their density there is higher than in Kosovo and Iraq, especially in built up areas, posing a constant threat to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to UN peacemakers.  It is estimated that one million cluster bombs were fired on south Lebanon during the 34 days of war, many during the last two days of war when a ceasefire was a real possibility.  The Hezbollah militia also shot off rockets with cluster bombs into northern Israel.

It is thought that the Israeli cluster bombs were “made in the USA” while those of Hezbollah came from Iran. Therefore one of the important conditions of the Convention is the ban on the transfer of cluster munitions.  Under the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, when Israel or others buy cluster bombs and other lethal equipment, a written agreement restricting use must be signed. The UNMACC has reported finding evidence that Israel used three types of US-made cluster bombs during the war in Lebanon. At the time, it was not considered against the Geneva Conventions to use cluster bombs against soldiers, but their use was banned against civilians and in heavily populated areas.

Cluster munitions are warheads that scatter scores of smaller bombs.  Many of these sub-munitions fail to detonate on impact, leaving them scattered on the ground, ready to kill and maim when disturbed or handled.  Reports from humanitarian organizations and mine-clearing groups have shown that civilians make up the vast majority of the victims of cluster bombs, especially children attracted by their small size and often bright colors.

The failure rate of cluster munitions is high, ranging from 30 to 80 per cent. But “failure” may be the wrong word.  They may, in fact, be designed to kill later.  The large number of unexploded cluster bombs means that farm lands and forests cannot be used or used with great danger.  Most people killed and wounded by cluster bombs in the 21 conflicts where they have been used are civilians, often young.  Such persons often suffer severe injuries such as loss of limbs and loss of sight.  It is difficult to resume work or schooling.

Discussions of a ban on cluster weapons had begun in 1979 during the negotiations in Geneva leading to the Convention on Prohibition on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects – the “1980 Inhumane Weapons Convention” to its friends.

The indiscriminate impact of cluster bombs was raised by the representative of the Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva and by me for the world citizens with the support of the Swedish government.  My NGO text of August 1979 for the citizens of the world on “Anti-Personnel Fragmentation Weapons” called for a ban based on the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration and recommended that “permanent verification and dispute-settlement procedures be established which may investigated all charges of the use of prohibited weapons whether in inter-State or internal conflicts, and that such a permanent body include a consultative committee of experts who could begin their work without a prior resolution of the UN Security Council.”

I was thanked for my efforts but left to understand that world citizens are not in the field of real politics and that I would do better to stick to pushing for a ban on napalm – photos of its use in Vietnam being still in the memory of many delegates.  Governments always have difficulty focusing on more than one weapon at a time.  Likewise for public pressure to build, there needs to be some stark visual reminders to draw attention and to evoke compassion.

Although cluster munitions were widely used in the Vietnam-Indochina war, they never received the media and thus the public attention of napalm. (1) The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research recently published a study on the continued destructive impact of cluster bombs in Laos noting that “The Lao People’s Democratic Republic has the dubious distinction of being the most heavily bombed country in the world” (2).  Cluster-bomb land clearance is still going on while the 1963-1973 war in Laos has largely faded from broader public memory.

The wide use by NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict again drew attention to the use of cluster bombs and unexploded ordnance.  The ironic gap between the humanitarian aims given for the war and the continued killing by cluster bombs after the war was too wide not to notice.  However, the difficulties of UN administration of Kosovo and of negotiating a “final status” soon overshadowed all other concerns.  Likewise the use of cluster bombs in Iraq is overshadowed by the continuing tensions, sectarian violence, the role of the USA and Iran, and what shape Iraq will take after the withdrawal of US troops.

Thus, it was the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs against Lebanon in a particularly senseless and inconclusive war that has finally led to sustained efforts for a ban.

The ban on cluster bombs follows closely the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction which came into force in March 1999 and has been now ratified by 156 States.  Many of the same NGOs active on anti-personnel mines were also the motors of the efforts on cluster bombs – a combination of disarmament and humanitarian groups.

We can play an active role to encourage the States which have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions to have their Parliaments ratify.  A more difficult task will be to convince those States addicted to cluster bombs: USA, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan.  The ban may discourage their use by these States, but a signature by them would be an important sign of respect for international agreements and world law. Pressure must be kept up on those outside the law.

***

Rene Wadlow is editor of the online journal of world politics www.transnational-perspectives.org and an NGO representative to the UN, Geneva.

Photo from Indymedia

Notes:

See Eric Prokosch, who called attention to the range of weapons used in the Vietnam war in his Technology of Killing: A Military and Political History of Anti-personnel Weapons ( London: Zed Books, 1995)

R. Cave, A. Lawson and A. Sherriff. Cluster Munitions in Albania and Lao PDR  (Geneva: UN Institute for Disarmament Research, 2006)

Ratifications as of 8 March 2010 by geographic areas:

Europe

Albania, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Holy See (The Vatican), Ireland, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain,

Latin America

Mexico, Nicaragua, Uruguay

Asia

Lao PDR, Japan

Africa

Burkina Faso, Burundi, Malawi, Niger, Sierra Leone, Zambia