U.S. defeated in bid on cluster bomb accord

Related Topics

GENEVA | Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:15pm EST

GENEVA (Reuters) - A U.S.-led push to regulate, rather than ban, cluster munitions failed Friday after 50 countries objected, following humanitarian campaigners' claims that anything less than a outright ban would be an unprecedented reversal of human rights law.

While the United States, China and Russia want rules about the manufacture and use of cluster bombs, activists say such regulations would legitimize the munitions, backtracking from the Oslo Convention, an international treaty that seeks a worldwide ban.

"Against all odds it looks like we're going to have success this evening," Steve Goose, head of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, told a press conference in Geneva.

"How often do you see the U.S., Russia, China, India, Israel and Belarus push for something, and they don't get it? That has happened largely because of one powerful alliance driving the Oslo partnership."

Cluster bombs, dropped by air or fired by artillery, scatter hundreds of bomblets across a wide area and can kill and maim civilians long after conflicts end.

U.S. officials say it makes sense to bring in rules because 85-90 percent of cluster munition stockpiles are held by countries that are not parties to the Oslo Convention and have no intention of joining.

A senior U.S. official said cluster munitions were a military necessity and were needed to hit targets spread over wide areas, while using alternative armaments would cause more collateral damage and prolong conflicts.

Opponents want them banned because they are indiscriminate weapons, raining bomblets that may fail to explode on impact and lie dormant, ready to kill or injure anyone who picks them up or touches them by mistake.

Those lining up against the U.S. plan included the International Committee of the Red Cross and the top U.N. officials for human rights, emergency relief and development.

The U.N. agency chiefs said cluster bombs were a particular threat to children, who were attracted by their unusual, toy-like shapes and colors. They said they were extremely concerned at plans to do anything less than ban them.

"The adoption of (the U.S.-led plan) that contains such provisions would set a disturbing precedent in international humanitarian law. It would, for the first time, create a new international treaty that is actually weaker than existing international humanitarian law," they said in a statement.

The U.S. measure, which would have regulated cluster bombs under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), proposed to ban those manufactured before 1980 and to ensure a failure rate of no more than one percent by 2018.

Opponents say the old weapons are likely to be phased out anyway and failure rates are unverified.

"The actual failure rates of cluster munitions used in actual wars are much higher than in tests," said Grethe Ostern of Norwegian People's Aid. "There are many differences between testing conditions and real conditions."

She cited a "top notch" cluster bomb used by Israel in Lebanon which was supposed to have a one percent failure rate but in fact failed more than 10 percent of the time.

Human Rights Watch's Goose contrasted the U.S. approach on cluster bombs to its approach to torture, and said nobody would accept a proposal to regulate and allow torture.

"Wouldn't it be better to have something out there for people who still practice torture? No."

Activists said the opposition to the U.S. proposal was led by Norway, Mexico and Austria, while 12 signatories to the 2008 Oslo Convention, including Japan, France and Germany, said they were in favor of regulation of cluster bombs under the CCW.

China and Russia, which like the United States are major producers of cluster munitions, were strongly supportive of the U.S. measure.

(Reporting by Tom Miles; Editing by Rosalind Russell)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
Majick1 wrote:
Now if we could only relegate fighting wars to politicians and military officers instead of troops maybe we could get rid of war all together. What a huge waste of money and technology to devote to killing. Hand those Politicians and Military Officers a gun and let THEM go at it. Mankind gets more barbaric as time passes.

Nov 25, 2011 5:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Eideard wrote:
American foreign policy continues the monolithic style that marches straight back to the xenophobia of the days of Joseph McCarthy.

Face it. It’s always been profitable for a certain segment of the American economy. Those military-industrialists who learned early and thoroughly to buy patronage in Congress and the White House.

Nov 25, 2011 5:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rob1990 wrote:
If the countries don’t sign it, what is the UN going to do? Send them a letter? They can’t put trade restrictions on China, Russia or the US. The UN would cease to exist if they even hinted at it, any/all funding would be cut, etc. The UN is a pretty useless organisation.

Cluster munitions should still be used, simply because they work. However, the detonation component should be much more sensitive so that they either explode when they hit the ground, or after a pre-determined time. That way, the number of bomblets left after a battle would be practically nil. I’m pretty sure the current bomblets are only detonated when they hit something, which means they are useless over water, sand and I’d guess the jungle because they don’t carry enough speed to go off.

Nov 25, 2011 11:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.