Why is this even up for discussion?

Heineken Helen

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article3964841.ece

Britain will probably succeed in getting the ugly compromise on the use of cluster bombs that it wants from this week's international conference in Dublin.

From a reluctance to throw away what is in the store cupboard, even if out of date, it is insisting on holding on to the right to use one type, maybe two, of the weapon.

Like use of the bombs themselves, this manoeuvre may bring it short-term tactical relief at a great long-term cost.

More than 100 countries are turning up in Dublin with the aim of signing a pact by May 30 to ban at least some of these weapons, which fire clusters of little bombs.

They are controversial because of their propensity to kill people — often civilians — outside the target, and to stay lethal across a wide zone, laying an instant minefield. Campaigners say that at least a tenth fail to explode on impact.

But the line-up of countries in Dublin does not include the US, Russia, China, India or Pakistan — all of whom have significant arsenals — which have made clear they have no interest at all in such a pact.

“The big players are never going to turn up for this,” said Major Charles Heyman, editor of Armed Forces of the UK. So whatever agreement emerges in the next ten days will be a voluntary pact by the small players. That does not mean it has to be worthless, although the most important points still have to be negotiated.

On one point — allowing operations with forces that do have such weapons — Britain has a fair point. On another — keeping stockpiles of them itself — it does not.

The generals and former defence chiefs who wrote a joint letter to The Times on Monday arguing against Britain's retention of such weapons put it best: “Cluster munitions were developed to combat a level of Cold War confrontation that never happened.

“If we are to be accepted as legitimate users of force then we must demonstrate our determination to employ that force only in the most responsible and accountable way.”

Britain wants to hold on to two weapons: the M73, fired from rockets on helicopters or jets, each containing nine smaller bombs; and the M85, delivered by shells containing 49.

Its position is that these are “smart” weapons, more accurate than older models, and that they can be designed to self-destruct if they do not explode.

Officials have indicated that the M73 is not negotiable, partly because it is crucial to the effective use of Apache helicopters, but that the M85 might be (although they are not keen on that line of negotiations).

Michael Codner, director of military science at the Royal United Services Institute, said that there was an argument that these [more sophisticated] cluster munitions could be more ethical than unguided bombs if their accuracy was higher.

But Heyman said: “Personally, I don't think that they are of that much use. Other military forces say they need that short-term fix, but they cause a massive long-term problem.”

Britain is on stronger ground arguing that the draft text is wrong to make it a crime for one country's forces to co-operate with another that uses such weapons — an insistance which would undermine all military cooperation, including the Nato alliance.

But in its own determination to hang on to these weapons, it makes an ugly case for expediency. This is one deal where it would be better to take the moral high ground.

Heineken Helen

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h3gUR3acxYO6marL2LMabBjZezsw

DUBLIN (AFP) — UN chief Ban Ki-moon called Monday for a "visionary" global deal to ban cluster bombs, as delegates from more than 100 countries opened a conference here aimed at outlawing the lethal weapons.

The 12-day talks, at Dublin's Croke Park Gaelic sports stadium, is aiming for a wide-ranging international pact that would completely wipe out the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions among signatories.

Ireland's Foreign Minister Micheal Martin, opening the conference, said: "Together, we owe it to the survivors of cluster munitions to ease their pain and give them hope.

"We owe it to humanity to ensure there will be no more innocent civilian victims of cluster munitions," he told envoys from 109 countries and 19 observer nations, largely represented by foreign ministry officials.

Dropped from warplanes or fired from artillery guns, cluster bombs explode in mid-air, randomly scattering bomblets -- ramping up the risk of civilians being killed or maimed by their indiscriminate, wide-area effect.

They also pose a lasting threat to civilians, as many bomblets fail to explode on impact.

The United Nations secretary-general, in a video message, urged delegates to agree a ban on cluster bombs to "help relieve communities from the hidden horrors of these weapons."

Ban said cluster munitions "should be prohibited", calling them "inherently inaccurate, particularly indiscriminate and unreliable."

"I hope you will be bold and visionary in your deliberations and wish you every success," he said.

Under the draft treaty, signatories would never use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions. They would also have six years to destroy their stockpiles.

It also includes provisions for the welfare of victims and for cleaning up affected areas.

Delegates heard from the Red Cross and from a Serbian cluster bomb victim, Branislav Kapetanovic.

"These deadly weapons destroy lives and communities for years after use," the former deminer said.

"The treaty obliges states to provide badly needed humanitarian assistance to that survivors like me can live with dignity."

Some countries, particularly Britain, are seeking exemptions, said the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), an umbrella group of non-governmental organisations.

"The political pressure is going to be very high on the UK," CMC coordinator Thomas Nash told AFP.

"If their allies like France, Germany, Australia, Canada and others sign up, we think it will be very difficult for the UK to walk away."

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan and Switzerland are among other states seeking amendments -- which could take days to thrash out.

Some want exemptions on certain types of cluster weapons, more time to dismantle their arsenals, looser language on assistance -- for example in joint military operations -- or transition periods in which they could still be used.

The process, started by Norway in February 2007, has taken the same path as the landmark 1997 Ottawa Treaty ban on anti-personnel landmines, sidestepping the UN to seal a swift pact.

Ban supporters hope a treaty would stigmatise the use of cluster munitions by non-signatories, as happened with landmines.

Notably absent from the conference -- even in an observer capacity -- are China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States -- all major producers and stockpilers.

"I think it will mean a great deal" even without them, Martin told AFP.

"Given the scale of this, it ultimately creates momentum and a dynamic, there's no doubt about that."

The Dublin gathering aims to secure an agreement that would be signed in Oslo on December 2-3. Signatories would then need to ratify it.