Ban on cluster bombs 'very close'

[[R_H]]

BBC

Britain is to take cluster bombs out of service, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

The announcement came as diplomats in Dublin were said to be "very close" to reaching an international treaty banning their use.

Mr Brown called it a "big step forward to make the world a safer place" and said he hoped more states would follow.

But some of the world's main producers and stockpilers - including the US, Russia and China - oppose the move.

A final draft of the new convention banning cluster bombs was expected to go before delegates on Wednesday afternoon.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said negotiations could result in a deal by the end of the week, possibly sooner.

'Bomblets'

Cluster bombs have been used in countries including Cambodia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

They are made up of a big container which opens in mid-air, dropping hundreds of smaller individual bombs, or sub-munitions, across a wide area.

These "bomblets" usually explode once they hit their target, but can fail to do so, leaving a deadly legacy as civilians return to their homes.
See how a cluster bomb works

In a statement, Mr Brown said: "After 10 days of intense talks in Dublin, we are now very close to agreement on a new international convention prohibiting the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

"In order to secure as strong a convention as possible in the last hours of negotiation we have issued instructions that we should support a ban on all cluster bombs, including those currently in service by the UK.

"We will now work to encourage the widest possible international support for the new convention."

Mr Brown said the convention would be a "major breakthrough" in the effort to eliminate cluster bombs.

Simon Conway, from campaign group the Cluster Munition Coalition, said: "I believe this is a personal intervention by Mr Brown on humanitarian grounds.

"It is a major act of statesmanship."

An FCO spokesman told the BBC there were still a number of possible sticking points, including the issue of interoperability.

This involves deciding how to deal with a situation where troops from a country that has signed the treaty are involved in coalition operations with forces from a country that has not.

Another point of contention is the degree of obligation that should be placed on signatories to clear unexploded sub-munitions.

The BBC's Paul Adams said he understood the agreement would effectively outlaw the two cluster munitions currently held by UK forces, but would not prevent countries from developing future generations of weapons based on the concept of sub-munitions.

He said it appeared the UK was seeking a deal which other countries not present in Dublin, notably the US, might be persuaded to accept later.

Using British soil

Another stumbling block could be the stockpile of cluster munitions the US military keeps at bases on British soil.

Our correspondent said the UK did not appear to be pushing for a ban on the practice, but John Duncan, the British representative in Dublin, said the draft treaty would prevent stockpiling after eight years.

The UK would work with Washington to find a solution to the issue, he added.

But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey said: "If he [Mr Brown] is serious about ending the scourge of these weapons, he must bring this abuse of the 'special relationship' to an end."

The proposed ban has the support of more than 100 countries and many humanitarian organisations.

Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said: "Cluster munitions are weapons that never stop killing."

Pope Benedict XVI has also spoken out in support of a "strong and credible international agreement" to prohibit cluster bombs.

But countries like the US, India, Pakistan and Israel claim such munitions can be highly useful on the battlefield and want to see the treaty watered down.

How will the ban be enforced? Will it even be enforced?

Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said: "Cluster munitions are weapons that never stop killing."

That doesn't make sense, or is it just me. Of course they stop killing, they stop once they've exploded, they don't "never stop killing".

[Psychic_Sandwich]

How will the ban be enforced? Will it even be enforced?

Probably in the same way the ban on mines is 'enforced'. The countries that don't want them used don't use them and don't let other people store them on their land. Countries that still want to use them don't sign the treaty, and ignore the 'ban'.

That doesn't make sense, or is it just me. Of course they stop killing, they stop once they've exploded, they don't "never stop killing".

It's hyperbole, intended to say that cluster bombs keep killing people long after they've been used, because unexploded bomblets hand around for a long while.

[cosmicalstorm]

Just like with the recent peacetalks between Israel and Syria, Brown is trying to keep himself afloat with any means at hand, including pointless bans.

[Sidewinder]

Another stumbling block could be the stockpile of cluster munitions the US military keeps at bases on British soil.

Our correspondent said the UK did not appear to be pushing for a ban on the practice, but John Duncan, the British representative in Dublin, said the draft treaty would prevent stockpiling after eight years.

The UK would work with Washington to find a solution to the issue, he added.

But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey said: "If he [Mr Brown] is serious about ending the scourge of these weapons, he must bring this abuse of the 'special relationship' to an end."

This is stupid. Those cluster bombs are AMERICAN property, used on the orders of AMERICAN officers, and the media will say it's AMERICA's responsibility to clean up the mess those cluster bombs make. The British government's request that the US stop using cluster bombs will get a few lines in the media and then be forgotten.

How will the ban be enforced? Will it even be enforced?

The signatories can enforce it upon their own militaries by removing cluster from their inventory. Unfortunately, the nations that are NOT signing the treaty are the nations most likely to fight a war in the near future, e.g., the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. As for trying to make other nations' militaries to stop using cluster bombs... Doesn't that sound like the attempt to prevent Iraq from having weapons of mass destruction?

[Broomstick]

Unfortunately, the nations that are NOT signing the treaty are the nations most likely to fight a war in the near future, e.g., the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. As for trying to make other nations' militaries to stop using cluster bombs... Doesn't that sound like the attempt to prevent Iraq from having weapons of mass destruction?

Odd - aren't all those non-signing nations also nuclear powers? Just a random thought... But it's a little late to take "weapons of mass destruction" from nuke-owning countries.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

This is stupid. Those cluster bombs are AMERICAN property, used on the orders of AMERICAN officers, and the media will say it's AMERICA's responsibility to clean up the mess those cluster bombs make. The British government's request that the US stop using cluster bombs will get a few lines in the media and then be forgotten.

Um, how is it silly that Britain, after banning cluster bombs, tries to find a way to stop the US from storing banned munitions on British soil?

[Sidewinder]

Um, how is it silly that Britain, after banning cluster bombs, tries to find a way to stop the US from storing banned munitions on British soil?

I may have overreacted to this line:

"If he [Mr Brown] is serious about ending the scourge of these weapons, he must bring this abuse of the 'special relationship' to an end."

I don't see how storing cluster munitions at AMERICAN military bases (on foreign soil, but I believe the relevant treaties give the US government control over what goes on in those bases) violates the "special relationship." Cluster munitions are NOT like biological, chemical, or radiological weapons, which will make parts of the UK uninhabitable if something goes wrong at the armory. Besides, cluster munitions remain VERY useful in area denial, so the nations that are most likely to fight a war in the near future will NOT sign the treaty so they can continue using cluster munitions.

[Sidewinder]

By something going wrong at the armory, I mean explode at the armory, which will leave a big mess for the US servicemen there to clean up, but with the area outside the US military base NOT poisoned with deadly viruses, bacteria, radioactive materials, etc.