Countries agree cluster bomb ban

[CptSternn]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe...aty/index.html

(CNN) -- More than 100 countries attending a conference in Dublin, Ireland formally adopted a treaty Friday to ban cluster bombs -- a large, unreliable and inaccurate weapon that often affects civilians long after the end of armed conflict.

The countries agreed never to use cluster munitions or the explosive bomblets they contain, and they also agreed never to develop, acquire, retain or transfer cluster munitions, according to the official treaty document.

The 111 countries attending the two-week meeting agreed to the treaty Wednesday but formally signed it Friday.

The countries said they are "deeply concerned" about civilians suffering the long-term effects of cluster bombs.

They are "concerned that cluster munition remnants kill or maim civilians, including women and children, obstruct economic and social development, including through the loss of livelihood, impede post-conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction, delay or prevent the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, can negatively impact on national and international peace-building and humanitarian assistance efforts, and have other severe consequences that can persist for many years after use," the document said.

In addition to calling for a total, immediate ban of the weapons, the international accord calls for strong standards to protect those injured by them and to make sure that contaminated areas are cleaned up as quickly as possible and that the weapons are immediately destroyed, a spokesman for the Cluster Munition Coalition told CNN.

Some of the biggest makers and users of cluster bombs cited by human rights groups -- such the United States, Russia, China and Israel -- were not involved in the talks and did not sign the accord. Organizers expressed hope that those nations would nevertheless be pressured into compliance.

"Even though we all know that there are important states not present, I am also convinced that together we will have succeeded in stigmatizing any future use of cluster munitions," said Micheal Martin, Ireland's minister for foreign affairs.

Martin said he ultimately wants to see all U.N. member states ratify the treaty.

The agreement requires the destruction of stockpiles of the weapons within eight years, said Thomas Nash, coordinator of the Cluster Munition Coalition.

Cluster munitions, which break apart in flight to scatter hundreds of smaller bomblets, are what the International Committee of the Red Cross has called a "persistent humanitarian problem."

Most of a cluster bomb's bomblets are meant to explode on impact, but many do not. Credible estimates show the weapons fail to explode on impact between 10 and 40 percent of the time, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

That means unexploded bomblets lie scattered across a target area, often exploding only when handled or disturbed -- posing a serious risk to civilians.

Earlier this month, a U.S. State Department representative called it "an absolute moral obligation" to rid a battlefield of unexploded ordnance after the battle.

But Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs Stephen D. Mull said the United States was attempting to solve the problem through a disarmament body called the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, or the CCW, which meets in Geneva and comprises major military powers and military trade producers.

The CCW is to meet next in July.

The United States would not agree to any ban because the country considers cluster munitions an important part of its defense strategy, Mull said. He urged regulation of the weapons to render them harmless after battle.

During the 34-day war in Lebanon in 2006, the United Nations estimated that Israel dropped 4 million bomblets, 1 million of which may not have exploded, according to the ICRC. More than 250 civilians and bomb-disposal operators have been killed or injured by them in southern Lebanon since the war ended.

Cluster bombs were also used in the 1999 war in Kosovo.

"Very quickly after the Kosovo conflict, the major killer of civilians (was) not antipersonnel mines or anti-vehicle mines or conventional munitions, but these munitions," said Lt. Col. Jim Burke, a military adviser to the Irish Defense Forces.

In more than 20 countries, according to the ICRC, cluster bombs have created lasting "no-go" areas, rendering them as dangerous as minefields.

Laos is the most affected country. Millions of bomblets dropped during the Vietnam War continue to kill civilians more than three decades later.

Still, militaries consider cluster bombs important for use against multiple targets dispersed over a wide area, such as tanks or military personnel moving across the landscape. A single bomb containing hundreds of submunitions can cover more than 18 square miles.

[CptSternn]

You have to love America. They invade a country claiming it has WMD's, yet when a conference to ban a weapon, a WMD, that kills hundreds of innocent children a year comes about, America states 'we like WMDs and want to keep them for our use'.

America, right alongside China, Russia, and of course israel.

The top four human-rights violating nations on the planet.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Look I suck at naval invasion. How else can I make Britain surrender?

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

You have to love America. They invade a country claiming it has WMD's, yet when a conference to ban a weapon, a WMD, that kills hundreds of innocent children a year comes about, America states 'we like WMDs and want to keep them for our use'.

America, right alongside China, Russia, and of course israel.

The top four human-rights violating nations on the planet.

LMFAO @ CptSternn! Ya really think some conference on banning of ANY type of weapon is going to work on Any country??? Irrespective of what YOU think, USA will Not give up their “ace card” because somebody (or any other country for that matter) thinks that lives will be affected for many years after…Lawls…The weaker country would do better to yield to the Dominant American Ideology or die whilst repudiating it…Heck, Why not have a ban on all nuclear weapons??? That is even more ridiculous in today’s age….Oh, okay mother Russia We’ll scrap our nuclear weapons if you scrap yours….LMFAO! T’ain’t gonna work, friend!

[Renatus]

Hmm I guess we won't be seeing the Iron Man movie's Jericho missile anytime soon then. Eh though no law has been made against power suits thankfully. I have to agree with number name guy here, there is no stopping the machines of war as far as I can see.

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

You have to love America. They invade a country claiming it has WMD's, yet when a conference to ban a weapon, a WMD, that kills hundreds of innocent children a year comes about, America states 'we like WMDs and want to keep them for our use'.

America, right alongside China, Russia, and of course israel.

The top four human-rights violating nations on the planet.

And how many of those countries that signed that agreement are among the two dozen or so in the entire world that actually use cluster bombs?

@ 7734¯7IA3:

WTF?!

[TheBloodEternity]

As has already been stated, its not shocking, but it still sure as hell pisses me off that the US has the hubris to invade another country citing the reason that they posses WMDs when we ourselves do. And its a known fact that we do, not just a hunch.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Tumor

And how many of those countries that signed that agreement are among the two dozen or so in the entire world that actually use cluster bombs?

France, Sudan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Chile, Germany, Spain, are the ones I can think off hand that signed the treaty.

Compare this list to this list.

[CptSternn]

You have to love the fact that in 80% of all historical conflicts where these WMD's were used, they were used by the US. You also have to love that the countries where the problems surrounding them (i.e. killing people decades later) are happening are again the countries that America used them on.

To this day people are dying in Vietnam because of the bombs the US used back in the 60's.

This year alone hundreds of CHILDREN have been killed in Lebanon thanks to israel using the same WMD's there last year.

[PortraitOfSanity]

I agree with the ban, but it's such a joke. The only three recognized countries in the world (they were also used in a few civil wars over the years, but most rebel forces aren't known for holding to treaties, nor are the forces they fight) that still use cluster bombs (to the best of my knowledge anyway) are Israel, the U.S and the U.K. Of those three, the only one who will even think twice about stopping their use is the U.K, Israel and the U.S are just way too paranoid to give up their edge.

Oh and by the way, calling cluster bombs a "MWD" isn't even close to accurate. "MWD" is a term used to describe nuclear, biological, chemical or radioactive weapons. Cluster bombs fall into none of these categories, so please stop using the term in reference to them.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Also, your statement "You have to love the fact that in 80% of all historical conflicts where these WMD's were used, they were used by the US". Here's a list of countries where civilian deaths occur to unexploded cluster bomb ordnance, taken off Wikipedia (I couldn't find a quick list on a more reliable website)

* Afghanistan * Albania * Bosnia & Herzegovina* Cambodia* Chad* Croatia
* Eritrea* Ethiopia* Iraq* Israel* Kuwait* Laos* Lebanon* Montenegro
* Pakistan* Russia (Chechnya)* Saudi Arabia* Serbia (including Kosovo)
* Sierra Leone* Sudan* Syria* Tajikistan* Vietnam
* Western Sahara
The only countries on this list where the U.S was engaged are Afghanistan (and Afghanistan on this list refers to bombs used by the Russians in the 80's, but we'll count Afghanistan anyway, for argument), Bosnia, Cambodia, Iraq, Kuwait and Vietnam. That's hardly 80%.

Again, I'm not arguing against this ban, quite the opposite. Just please get your facts straight before you go off on a rant.

[PortraitOfSanity]

In the first one I meant WMD... obviously I can't type very well at 6AM.

[KontanKarite]

I love how 111 countries came together and decided that a weapon was just too much to endure in times for war. War. Fucking idiots, the lot of them. Killing is killing.

To think they have the fucking audacity to say a weapon is too much in war and yet fail to realize that the biggest problem for innocent civilians in wars is the fucking war itself. Seriously. Fuck them. Fuck them, fuck them, fuck them in their fucking asses.

[PortraitOfSanity]

If Kentucky were scattered with unexploded ordnance, I'm sure you'd have a different opinion.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

If Kentucky were scattered with unexploded ordnance, I'm sure you'd have a different opinion.

No, I actually wouldn't. I was pointing out the irony of those deciding that a weapon was something they weren't willing to use because it's "inhumane", all the while, still agreeing that war was ever a viable option or reason for anything.

Basically, "Oh, yeah, we still hate you and want to kill you and take all your resources, but we just wont use this one weapon because it's so bad and you know, when we're still viciously killing each other, there's no reason we can't be nice about it with all the other machines we have for killing is tearing us asunder."

[PortraitOfSanity]

Ah, ok, I see what you're getting at.

[Catch]

Cluster bombs are one of the fastest ways of clearing out mine fields. Why ban those? There are a lot worse things out there than cluster bombs.

[Corpsey]

Even if they ban such weapons, there will always be the MLRS.

Also those countries are saying they're trying to use a slightly more virtuous method to get to the same unvirtuous result.

Yaaaaaaay! We're being virtuous and looking good for people!

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Catch

Cluster bombs are one of the fastest ways of clearing out mine fields. Why ban those? There are a lot worse things out there than cluster bombs.

Cluster bombs are also one of the fastest ways to create mine fields. Depending on the model used and the quality of the bomb, it can do anything from having all bomblets fail to detonate (Instant minefield), the bomblets release too early and drift in the wind (Carpet bombing a village/minefielding the village), only some of the bomblets detonate (Smaller instant minefield), etc.

True, there are far worse things out there then cluster bombs. However, it's a good start.

[PortraitOfSanity]

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the ban isn't going to accomplish anything.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Oh and another thing. When anyone uses a phrase containing the word "village" as an example of a use of a weapon that should be banned, you instantly know they have no clue what they're talking about. It's the most tired argument out there, so just stop it.

I'm as antiwar as the next guy, but you making shit up makes us all look stupid.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

I agree with the ban, but it's such a joke. The only three recognized countries in the world (they were also used in a few civil wars over the years, but most rebel forces aren't known for holding to treaties, nor are the forces they fight) that still use cluster bombs (to the best of my knowledge anyway) are Israel, the U.S and the U.K. Of those three, the only one who will even think twice about stopping their use is the U.K, Israel and the U.S are just way too paranoid to give up their edge.

Oh and by the way, calling cluster bombs a "MWD" isn't even close to accurate. "MWD" is a term used to describe nuclear, biological, chemical or radioactive weapons. Cluster bombs fall into none of these categories, so please stop using the term in reference to them.

Do you mean WMD? Also, there are no 'rebel forces' that have cluster bombs. To have cluster bombs one must first have an air force to drop them. That leaves out most groups which you claim wouldn't abide by the treaty.

Furthermore, in the Dublin conference it was discussed the fact WMD's don't include cluster bombs, yet they kill just as indiscriminately and on an even larger level than most poison gases. During the conference it was debated on the best way to have them properly classified. Turns out, for years various groups have petitioned the UN and other bodies to have them listed as WMD's, however the US/UK block the attempts each time. There is a bit about that here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200308250011

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Also, your statement "You have to love the fact that in 80% of all historical conflicts where these WMD's were used, they were used by the US". Here's a list of countries where civilian deaths occur to unexploded cluster bomb ordnance, taken off Wikipedia (I couldn't find a quick list on a more reliable website)

* Afghanistan * Albania * Bosnia & Herzegovina* Cambodia* Chad* Croatia
* Eritrea* Ethiopia* Iraq* Israel* Kuwait* Laos* Lebanon* Montenegro
* Pakistan* Russia (Chechnya)* Saudi Arabia* Serbia (including Kosovo)
* Sierra Leone* Sudan* Syria* Tajikistan* Vietnam
* Western Sahara
The only countries on this list where the U.S was engaged are Afghanistan (and Afghanistan on this list refers to bombs used by the Russians in the 80's, but we'll count Afghanistan anyway, for argument), Bosnia, Cambodia, Iraq, Kuwait and Vietnam.

Your missing Serbia, Albania, and Herzegovina - both part of the Croatian conflict where the US dropped these bombs just a few years back. You also left off Ethiopia, again the US was the group who dropped these bombs and of course Sierra Leone - thats the US again at work.

Lets also not forget the overall percentage. In the other conflicts they were dropped, but no where in the same numbers as when they are dropped during a US air campaign. The US drops cluster bombs at a massive rate that dwarfs other countries.

[bleedingheart344]

Ok, Sternn, I'll bite. So, if you seem to be so against taking away the rights of the citizen, which by the way makes them easier to control in a time of crisis, or any time for that matter, and against the use of WMD's in war, how exactly do you expect a country to rise to the top? Like it or not, there's always going to be a central hierarchy based on skill in war.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

When anyone uses a phrase containing the word "village" as an example of a use of a weapon that should be banned, you instantly know they have no clue what they're talking about. It's the most tired argument out there, so just stop it.

No. The reason people say village is because they mean a place where civilians are living. War might be wrong, but its going to happen. Might as well keep civilians out of it as much as possible. Indiscriminate weapons that affect large areas are going to be more of danger to those people. Obviously stopping wars altogether would be the ideal solution, but I don't see that happening.