I'm pretty excited about the ban on cluster bombs. These little things, which spread bomblets on a wide radius and which explode when someone steps on them, are among the most mischievous ideas of warfare.
This is how a cluster bomb works:
(from BBC News)I've seen them in South Lebanon -- it's fucking ugly. Kinda like mines, only cheaper and don't require to be actually planted in the ground, just shot from a plane.
After the 2006 war on Lebanon, many agricultural fields were unusable for fear of unexploded cluster bombs. And many courageous - or are they just hungry? - farmers who have attempted to walk their fields to gather their crops have lost limbs or lives.
So, good news overall.
Too good to be true, though.
First, the countries that use it the most - US, India, Pakistan and Israel - don't want to sign the agreement. Hmm. So we got a cool agreement but those who signed it aren't those concerned. Bummer.
Second, the ban goes for current designs of cluster bombs, so there's no guarantee that later prototypes will be developed - and those will, of course, be outside the scope of the treaty.
Third, I'm concerned that some countries would try to reassign certain models of cluster bombs to be defined as, well, something else: Britain, for one, did. Sneaky bastards...
I only hope that we won't start to feel good and pat ourselves on the back - until we get all the bad guys to sign the treaty (and then to actually ban the use of these munitions, which is a different story for some...), we're still far from a real ban.
8 comments:
Your pointing the finger at Israel et al as a "major" user of cluter-bombs is quite biased, if not plain wrong.
I'm not sure were you get your info from but Wikipedia and its listed sources (see example link on bottom)cite 36 different countries that manufacture and stockpile cluster bombs to this very day, with the major producers being: Russia, China, and USA.
In addition, the Oslo conference had the following countries (also stockpiling cluster-toys) argue in favor keeping certain types of cluter-bombs legeal (those with self-distruct mechanisms):
Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland.
But we shouldnt let facts interfere with presenting Israel as the spectre of world-evil...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/07/europe/cluster.php
this is a good blog, dude.
Forsoothsayer: to quote Harrison Ford in ‘The Empire Strikes Back’: “I know”.
:)
Thank you for the compliment, highly appreciated!
Anonymous: Thanks for your comment.
You’re listing main producers; I’m talking about users. Demand creates supply, my friend, not the other way round, and those that need to be restrained the most are the ones buying and using the bombs.
“I'm not sure were you get your info from”
Hmm, BBC News? The article I referenced had this four-country list. And I didn’t particularly single out Israel (which was fourth on the list, not even first).
I’m not quite sure why you’re complaining. Rather than accusing me of demonizing Israel, aren’t you trying to pass it off for the lamb that it isn’t?
I mean, I didn’t bitch about the fact that I walked into a unmarked cluster bomb field in South Lebanon after the 2006 war and could’ve lost a leg or could’ve fucking DIED courtesy of your country, did I? No. I was just veeeeeeeeeery objective (:-) and stated facts, the main one being that as long as the main wrongdoers don’t stop using cluster bombs, we’re far from a real ban.
And if such facts upset you, I seriously invite you to change them. If you are, as I hope, against the use of cluster bombs, I urge you to do something about it in your country, and be part of the dynamic peace movement at home!
And thanks for the extra info about the Oslo Conference, which is new to me.
Keep these comments coming! :)
I think what ticked me off is that these attempts (like the Oslo conference, etc) trying to ‘regulate’ warfare, like its some kind of spectator extreme sport, are very naive (at best) and downright cynical and hypocritical.
Before you write me off as another right-wing trigger-happy Israeli (which I am not, except for the Israeli part), consider this:
1st, ALL wars, and the weapons used to fight them, are inhumane, by their very definition. No weapon has yet been invented that can distinguish between a 'legit' target and an innocent child. Is a 200-bomblet cluster bomb that different from a volley of 20 Grad missiles? Both aren't too picky about who they kill....
In addition, I think that the countries pushing those bans are not really sincere about it. Any of those countries will drop the ban faster than you can say 'Jack-in-the-cluster-bomb' if it becomes involved in a conflict (Historical examples abundant).
Israel is no lamb, and I am against many actions taken by my country. Even so, it's a country in a century-old armed conflict. Whether you consider its fight just or not is completely beside the point.
During the 2006 war the IDF did take some steps to limit civilian casualties. I say 'limit' because anyone who thinks you can fight any kind of armed conflict without harming innocents is living in Mars.
You want to stop innocents being killed, children safe in their homes? It’s the conflicts you need to address (if I go into that, this comment will truly become endless)…
Anonymous -
I never thought you were a right-wing trigger-happy chap/lady. Quite the opposite.
True, war is ugly and all weapons are inhumane, but is that a good enough reason for us to let it go unregulated? It's ugly enough as it is.. Weapons of mass destruction (nuclear/biological/chemical) are banned because the extent of their harm far exceeds the target in many uncontrollable ways - wind carrying nuclear dust. Generation upon generation of physically disabled children because of nuclear-induced genetic mutations. This - along with basic (human) cost/benefit calculations - is why some weapons are banned..
Now - regardless of the justice in Israel's wars, as you said - the question is: did Israel need to drop bomblets in corn fields? Did this help it win the war, or achieve some defense purpose? Nope. Therefore, the use of such weapons was morally wrong.
As for the insincerity - yeah, you're probably right. So? The fact is, some people within the government/the country are sincere about it (think civil society or something).
Even if they aren't sincere - that doesn't mean we should keep pushing for it...
And you're welcome to leave endlessly long comments. I'll be happy to respond.
Mohamed;
I wouldn’t mind the insincerity if I thought the regulation would actually do good and save lives. Currently, I see it as just another tool in the political game.
I mean, nuclear weapons have been regulated for 50 years (mainly by the same countries who already acquired them), and that has not prevented countries in conflict, who feel they need it (Israel included), to develop / attempt to develop them.
It’s the technical difficulties of acquiring nuclear capabilities and superpower interests that has kept those weapons at bay, not the regulation.
And nuclear / chemical weapons are at a completely different level (in my opinion), than other types of weapons, because the can literally wipe out nations and whole populations.
As for the Israeli use of cluster bombs in the Lebanon war, may I point out that your wisdom is after the fact. Many decisions made during war turn out to be strategically unsound or not beneficial. Looking up ANY war, you find strategies and decisions that turned out to be foolish.
I think that you have an underlying assumption that the Israelis used the bombs out of malice, with the sole intention of causing misery on civilians. I see no evidence of that, and moreover, I think it is not true. I do think it was part of an Israeli (unwise) effort to maximize military gains before the fighting stops.
Given that nearly 90% of all cluster bombs were shot in the final 72 hours before the ceasefire, when an end of hostilities was within sight, I don't think that was any 'unwise effort' here. It was a pure attempt to continue to inflict damage on civilian populations after the cease-fire and guess what, it worked!
As for regulating weapons -- believe me, if nuclear weapons weren't regulated, every madman, from central america to subsaharan africa (and of course in our lovely region, do i need to specify??) would seek to acquire them. You'd have nuclear bombings in Kinshasa and threats in Nepal. And, oh yeah, everyone in the Middle East would have a nuke. That will be fun.
And since you mentioned Israel developing nuclear weapons - I staunchly believe that we'd be safer in a nuclear-free Middle East (which is a long-abandoned initiative from the IAEA...)
Post a Comment