Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Ban the Cluster Bomb

By Brian Cook, In These Times. Posted December 4, 2008.


More than 100 countries have agreed to stop using them. Guess which one hasn't.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

 

In late 2001, Soraj Ghulam Habib, a 10-year-old boy living in Herat Province in western Afghanistan, was walking home from a picnic with his cousin and some friends when he noticed a yellow canister. Because its color was the same as the parcels of food aid that the U.S. military had been dropping during its campaign against the Taliban, Soraj picked it up and attempted to pry it open.

"I had a lot of dreams at the beginning of my life," Soraj, now 17, said through his Dari interpreter Sulaiman Safdar, at the Cluster Bomb Survivors Tour's Oct. 7 stop in Chicago. "But cluster submunitions destroyed all my dreams and put me in a wheelchair."

The event -- sponsored by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker peace lobby -- also included heart-rending testimony from Raed Mokaled, whose son Ahmad was killed in a 1999 submunitions accident while celebrating his fifth birthday at a park in southern Lebanon; and from Lynn Bradach, whose 21-year-old son Travis, a U.S. Marine, was killed in 2003 while attempting to detonate unexploded cluster submunitions outside of Kerbala, Iraq.

The Survivors Tour traveled through several Midwestern states in October to rally public and political support for banning cluster bombs, a weapon decried by human rights organizations for its indiscriminate effects on civilians and for its failure to explode rates of up to 30 percent.

In particular, the tour focused on the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act -- a congressional bill that would restrict the use, sale and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate higher than 1 percent -- and the Oslo Process, an international treaty banning the weapons that will open for signatory countries on Dec. 3.

Norway initiated the Oslo Process in February 2007, partly in frustration over U.S. foot-dragging during discussions from 2001 to 2006 to ban the weapons through the U.N. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) treaty. (Nine months after Oslo was launched, the United States reversed its stance, and now insists that restrictions on cluster bombs should only be addressed through the CCW.) The treaty negotiations proceeded quickly, and on May 28, 2008, 107 countries -- including Britain and other NATO allies -- reached an agreement in Dublin, Ireland, to ban cluster bombs.

The treaty calls for its signatories to end cluster bomb use and destroy all stockpiles within eight years, as well as for the clearance of all unexploded ordinance within 10 years. It also includes a provision that requires countries to provide "victim assistance" to those harmed by cluster bombs. Oslo's provisions will become international law six months after the legislatures of 30 signatory countries have ratified it.

Questions remain, however, over whether the treaty's lofty goals -- in particular, its provisions on clearing cluster bombs within a decade -- can be met.

In Laos, for instance, where the United States dropped 2 million tons of bombs during its "Secret War" from 1964 and 1973, at least 9 million cluster bomblets are still strewn throughout the country.

Also speaking at the tour's Chicago event was Jim Harris, a retired Wisconsin schoolteacher who now runs We Help War Victims, a nongovernmental organization. Harris has worked with foreign companies that detonate unexploded ordinance in Laos, and he estimates the number of bombs that his crew was able to clear in one year was 1,600.

"Never in my lifetime, in Lao, will we clean up the mess that we created there," Harris says. "Unless we stop using this ordinance, it's going to be here to haunt us for generations to come."

Equally problematic are the powerful countries that haven't signed the treaty: China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and, of course, the United States, which Human Rights Watch (HRW) estimates has a stockpile of up to 1 billion submunitions.

But Steve Goose, executive director of the arms division at HRW, believes the treaty's stigmatization of cluster bombs can affect the behavior of even the countries that don't sign on. He cites the 1999 Ottawa landmine treaty, which, despite not being signed by any of the aforementioned nations, has essentially stopped all countries from trading landmines or further employing them.

"By stigmatizing a weapon, by making just the consideration of its use beyond the pale," Goose says, "you can have an impact even on those who are not part of the treaty."

For Soraj, what's most frustrating about Washington's intransigence to the Oslo Process is that the United States has also heavily pressured Afghanistan not to join. Asked what he might say to President Obama if he should meet him, Soraj says, "Think for a moment of your children and what you would do if they were like me, and let Afghanistan join the Oslo Process."

He adds with a smile: "And when the United States participates in Oslo, it will feel like I got my legs back."

 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: afghanistan, cluster bombs, u.s. military, human rights watch, soraj ghulam habib, friends committee on nati, cluster munitions civilia, cluster bomb survivors to

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
How very silly
Posted by: rickiey on Dec 4, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, really. To attempt to regulate what can and can not be used in war?

It fails the common sense check.

In war, two sides kill each other with whatever they have available. Unintended victims always result.

Instead of looking to create an "approved killing devices" list, we should be working towards avoiding wars in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How very silly Posted by: Kristian Z
» RE: How very silly Posted by: rickiey
Economic weapon.
Posted by: lugoteehalt on Dec 4, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big point about these bomblets and anti-personelle land mines is that they are an economic weapon.

The effect is to make farming difficult or impossible. So the effect is to destroy the rural economy.

We are not supposed to bring this up because it is straightforwardly a witting attack on savillians (sic).

For this reason they do not turn themselves off after a couple of months - something that could be achieved in a hundred ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: conomic weapon. Posted by: using
Obama Could and Must Act Now
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 4, 2008 7:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite his hawkish stance I believe that Obama, unlike Bush, is fundamentally a decent man. He could at once obey a moral imperative incumbent on all civilized peoples, regain support among his core progressive constituency, convince our allies of his good intentions, deprive our potential enemies of some of their grievances and uphold the tenets of his personal faith by simply announcing that he will, upon taking office, sign the treaty and submit it to the Senate for ratification.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The reason cluster bombs won't be banned
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Dec 4, 2008 8:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is because they are chock full of AWESOME

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Danger to everyone including our troops
Posted by: anambrose on Dec 7, 2008 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former infantry combat veteran I can say that the statement made by our gov't that banning them would endanger our troops as usual is as clueless a remark made by someone who never had to navigate around them in the field. They didn't keep records of where they fell in RVN and they won't in either theatre now. So our troops are at risk of coming upon these at any time and losing limbs and worse. Then men women and children for years to come will be killed and maimed by these useless devices just to make a profit for a military contractor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who loves ya, baby?
Posted by: willymack on Dec 10, 2008 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there ANY other nation in this friggin world that loves the US? I don't mean our people or culture, but our guvmint, headed up by the presidential pretender. Is there ANY SANE REASON to let the bush crime family off, given the overwhelming evidence of multiple capital crimes and an endless list of lesser ones, any one of which could be easily and convincingly proven beyond any doubt in a court of law? Will we ever regain the respect and esteem we once had? In my mind, not a chance, unless we bring these rat bastards to JUSTICE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]