Cluster-bomb treaty

2008-06-17 00:00

The British armed forces clung to their cluster bombs like a baby to its rattle, and some suspected that they were trying to sabotage the treaty on behalf of their American friends (who were not there, of course).

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown overruled them, in the end, and Britain was among the more than 100 countries that agreed to a treaty banning cluster bombs recently in Dublin.

Well, it doesn’t actually ban all cluster bombs; just the current designs that leave large areas

littered with unexploded bomblets that go on killing civilians for years after they were dropped. Israel dropped some four million bomblets on Lebanon during the last three days of the 2006 war, for example, and more than 30 people have been killed by them since the war ended.

If someone designed a cluster bomb whose bomblets all exploded reliably on impact, or at least within 48 hours of landing, then it would presumably be legal since it mostly killed soldiers. The major producers of cluster bombs — the United States, Russia, Israel, China, India and Pakistan — were not even at the Dublin conference, and have no intention of signing the treaty. But it’s a start.

This sort of treaty does not really work by legal compulsion. The countries that sign the treaty are legally bound by it, but even for them there is no enforcement mechanism. For those that don’t sign the treaty, there are no formal constraints of any sort. But by “banning” a particular weapon, the smaller and less militarised countries can exert a real moral pressure on those nations that insist on retaining it.

Cluster bombs would have been quite useful in the environment they were originally designed for, which was industrial-scale warfare in central Europe or on the Korean peninsula. If they exploded high enough to let the bomblets scatter properly, a few well-placed cluster bombs or shells could destroy dozens of soft-skinned military vehicles and blunt the attack of an entire mechanised infantry battalion. A few hundred could stop an army corps.

But that kind of war never happened, and where cluster bombs have actually been used is in little wars against low-tech opponents: by the U.S. in Cambodia, by Russia in Afghanistan, by the U.S. again in Kosovo and Iraq and by Israel in Lebanon. They are not particularly effective against the sort of targets that are on offer in that kind of war, but what the hell, we have them, let’s use them.

Unfortunately, whether by accident or by design, the bomblets have this curious propensity not to go off right away. Between 10% and 40% of the hundreds of bomblets released by the average cluster bomb or shell fail to detonate on hitting the ground and lie there until — weeks or months or years later — a farmer drives over it in his tractor, or a child comes along and picks it up. It is estimated that 40% of the casualties of cluster bombs are not soldiers but children.

So why do some countries cling to these things, while others are willing to let them go? If you look at the list of the hold-outs, it is mainly the countries that just might, in some remote but dreadful contingency, have to face a mass assault by motorised forces: U.S. forces in Korea, Indian or Pakistani forces in the Punjab, the Israelis against Syria (although the Syrians would have to rebuild their forces first) and Russia and China mainly against each other.

None of these contingencies is at all likely to occur, but the rule in military affairs (as in much else) is better safe than sorry. None of these countries signed the 1997 treaty banning anti-personnel land-mines either and they are not going to give up their cluster bombs. So of what use is the treaty?

More than you might think. Cluster bombs are now stigmatised as immoral and (for most countries) illegal weapons and governments that do use them will have to pay a high public relations price. That certainly wouldn’t deter those countries if they would make a real difference militarily, but that has not been the case in most instances where they have been used in the past.

What the treaty really does is to shift assumptions so that international public opinion will see a country that uses cluster bombs as being in the wrong. As a result, there will be instances where a country that possesses them decides not to use them. The treaty is not a waste of time.

• Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries. His latest book, After Iraq, was published recently in London by Yale University Press.

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.