To cluster bomb or to not?
Written by duckrabbitApparently the cluster bombs Gaddafi is using and that the media is getting into a spin about were made in Spain.
If you’re a mother and your son has just been killed does it make any difference whether it’s a Spanish cluster bomb, a Russian AK47 or a Kenyan bow and arrow?
FFS.
Think my brother Matt got it spot on:
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (10 Comments)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ6kMWA2WRk
BANG on Tom
I think you guys have gone off piste here. The finding that Gaddafi’s forces have been using cluster bombs in civilian areas comes from Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/15/libya-cluster-munitions-strike-misrata), and has been widely reported. I can’t see anything in that HRW story or the subsequent reporting that suggests, directly or indirectly, that the message to Gaddafi is ‘its ok if you use regular munitions’. I just don’t see how Matt Chesterton makes that leap. That seems like reverse engineered logic and is the opposite of how I read this issue.
It is significant that Gaddafi is using weapons that are now banned by international law. And it is equally significant that those weapons have been produced and sold by one of our NATO allies. Its easy to say a death is a death no matter how it came about. Who would dispute that? But this story is about Gaddafi’s escalating crimes against civilians, and our direct and indirect involvement in those crimes through arms sales to unsavoury regimes that we later turn against. I can’t imagine you want to downplay that hypocrisy. It’s that hypocrisy that the Bill Hicks sketch Tom linked to makes ‘fun’ of. But that’s the opposite of your original starting point in this post.
Hi David,
If he’s killing civilians, what difference does it make if he uses cluster bombs or not?
‘International law’ on cluster bombs (its not law anyway) is irrelevant because the Geneva convention tells us that killing civilians is illegal whatever method you use. Why does it become more of an issue because the regime is allegedly using cluster bombs?
That’s a separate issue to tracing back where the arms came from. I agree with you that’s an important story (one we’ve heard and never seems to make a difference) but that’s not what the media (on the whole) has been interested in.
The main issue with cluster bombs is not only the as of yet unexploded “bomblets” remaining after the fact waiting to do their deed, but that the bomblets themselves are shiny, curiously shaped objects often mistaken for toys by children.
Not disagreeing Stan. Every so often someone blows themselves up in Belgium/France because of munitions left over from WW1. The use of cluster bombs is no surprise. Lots of countries retain the right the use them. Gaddafi was propped up and armed by the West, now we fake horror when he uses our companies sold to him.
Duck: on cluster bombs and international law, the HRW report linked to in my earlier comment says – “A majority of the world’s nations have comprehensively banned the use of cluster munitions through the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which became binding international law in August 2010.” I think that’s relevant.
Thanks David but I think HRW present a partial view. Isn’t the term ‘international law’ misleading given that China, Russia and America are not signatories?
I could be wrong but I think it’s only law amongst the countries that have ratified the treaty, which I read is under 60 countries. That’s certainly not a majority of the worlds countries (although over 100 are signatories.)
There’s a cracking loophole as well:
‘In response to U.S. lobbying, and also concerns raised by diplomats from Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and others, the treaty includes a provision allowing signatory nations to cooperate militarily with non-signatory nations. This provision is designed to provide legal protections to the military personnel of signatory nations engaged in military operations with the U.S. or other non-signatory nations that might use cluster munitions.[23]’
Again, to stress my point, what people should be aware of that to kill civilians is illegal, cluster bombs or otherwise.
The HRW view is not partial, and the status of the Convention on Cluster Munitions as international law is not misleading.
The Convention became international law once it was ratified by thirty states, which happened in February last year. It has now been ratified by 38, in addition to the more than 100 who have adopted it.
International law is, of course, a weak instrument because unlike domestic law there is no easy enforcement. So its utility is very often best understood as the codification of an international consensus and norm.
You are right that major powers like the US, China and Russia have not ratified it and are therefore not bound by it. But that doesn’t formally alter its status as international law. Of course that radically limits its utility, but we then move into the realm of international politics in which the norms enshrined in international law become ‘weapons’ in an on-going debate to try and outlaw these appalling munitions.
You are also are right to point to the fact that under numerous instruments of international law (not to mention common decency) killing civilians is illegal and unjust. And that there are many instruments of death. I’m sure, though, you don’t intend that point to diminish the specific opposition to cluster munitions. Any military that uses them is demonstrating a particular disregard for human life.
We’ll have to agree to disagree but I think many people will find the term ‘International Law’ misleading in this context when made aware just how many countries actually are legally bound (whatever pragmatically that means) by it (not a majority) and which countries refuse to sign. Am I right to presume that the majority of the world’s population is not covered by the treaty?
Do HRW have a researcher looking at possible war crimes committed by the rebels? Maybe, but I’m not aware of this.
Aren’t all advocacy organizations partial? They may believe otherwise but I think impartiality is a myth, as is the idea of independence (speaking as someone who produces programmes for the an organization founded on impartiality).
The idea of BEARING WITNESS is almost always partial because we can only ever present a limited view.
Nothing wrong with that, HRW do great work. And yes you are right none of this debate should take away from your point that the use of these weapons are abhorrent and any international pressure/device that can stop them should be welcomed. If I gave another impression that was a mistake on my part.
Just sick of all this killing and where it is leading; especially having worked in Lebanon last year. Our actions in Libya could ultimately be disastrous for the local population. I hope not.