Russia used cluster bombs in Georgia--rights group
14 Apr 2009 15:19:42 GMT
Source: Reuters
* 16 said killed by cluster bombs in Russia-Georgia war
* HRW says humanitarian law was violated
* Full ban on weapons sought
GENEVA, April 14 (Reuters) - Russian cluster bombs killed at least 12 Georgian civilians and wounded or maimed at least 38 during the war between the two former Soviet states last August, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Tuesday.
The U.S.-based body, which has had investigators on the ground in Georgia since the week-long conflict, said in a report that Georgia had also illegally used the weapon, which many countries want to be banned.
"Russia definitely violated international humanitarian law with its use of cluster munitions," Bonnie Docherty, HRW researcher and author of the report, "A Dying Practice", told a news conference to mark the release of the 80-page study.
The report said Russian forces carpet-bombed the Georgian town of Variani on two different days during the fighting, and also hit the main square in the town of Gori on Aug. 12 as civilians were gathering there.
Russia has consistently denied that it deployed the weapon, which releases hundreds of small bomblets on impact. Many do not explode immediately, remaining a threat to civilians, and especially children, for a long time afterwards.
The report said HRW experts and other investigators, including a team from the Dutch Foreign Ministry, had turned up evidence showing that Russian cluster weapons killed at least 12 people and wounded at least 38.
Georgia, which admits that it used an Israeli-made version of the weapon, says it used them only against Russian or allied troops, but HRW says they killed at least four civilians and wounded eight in the enclave of South Ossetia.
The week-long war was largely fought around that enclave, which has long wanted to break away from Georgia. Since the fighting it and Abkhazia, another Soviet-era Georgian province, have declared independence and been recognised by Moscow.
The HRW report was issued as experts from a range of governments opened a four-day meeting in Geneva to discuss an agreement on limiting production and use of cluster munitions, which many military leaders are reluctant to give up.
HRW said the only solution to humanitarian and post-conflict problems the weapon posed was a total ban, as provided for by an international Convention on Cluster Munitions launched just 3 months before the Russia-Georgia conflict.
"Whoever the user, and whatever the type used, cluster munitions pose unacceptable risks to civilians and need to be eliminated," declared Docherty.
Of the 107 countries which approved the text, 96 have so far endorsed the convention since it was opened for formal signature last December, and six have ratified it. It will go into force and become legally binding when 30 have ratified it. (A full version of the report can be read on Human Rights Watch website) (Editing by Tim Pearce)
I thought the Russians didn't recognize the convention? Secondly, which international law(s) was/were violated, if only 6 countries have ratified the convention?
Human Rights Watch is full of crap as it so often is, neither state signed any treaty restricting its right to use cluster bombs, and it’s perfectly legal to kill civilians when they are in proximity to military targets, as was blatantly the case for both sides.
The war was primarily fought in and over urban areas. All the relevant laws say is you’re supposed to be proportionate, cluster bombing a village to kill one sniper is not okay, cluster bombing a mechanized company camped out in the town square is fine. This war would have seen the latter category of use.
A lot of these non government organizations simply refuse to acknowledge that just because a treaty is widely signed does not mean it has any force of law, nor can it ever have force over non signatories. This is especially the case of a treaty like the Convention on Cluster Munitions which is not even a formal UN treaty as far as I can tell. Obviously HRW has no interest in actual legality, only in gaining publicity. Its not like anyone holds THEM accountable for anything they do.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Why exactly are cluster bombs supposedly illegal? It's just a bunch of small bombs strapped together, or am I missing something?
Conversion Table:
2000 Mockingbirds = 2 Kilomockingbirds
Basic Unit of Laryngitis = 1 Hoarsepower
453.6 Graham Crackers = 1 Pound Cake
1 Kilogram of Falling Figs - 1 Fig Newton
Time Between Slipping on a Banana Peel and Smacking the Pavement = 1 Bananosecond
Half of a Large Intestine = 1 Semicolon
Ok wierd as the US uses cluster bombs in the MLRS and the Air Force has cluster bombs as well. And we used then in Iraq and Afagnistan and only a small fuss was raised.
In fact, the United States used 10,782 cluster weapons, according to the declassified executive summary of a report compiled by U.S. Central Command, which oversaw military operations in Iraq. Centcom sent the figures to the Joint Chiefs in response to queries from USA TODAY and others, but details of the report remain secret
Master_Baerne wrote:Why exactly are cluster bombs supposedly illegal? It's just a bunch of small bombs strapped together, or am I missing something?
Unexploded ordinance. A single bomb might have a hundred of these things. Lets say your fuses have a 95% rating. That means with a single bomb case might have 5 duds. So the airplane drops 4 cases. Thats 20 bombs. Now lets say you have conducted lengthy combat operations over a period of a month from a hundred planes and artillery platforms. Thats thousands of unexploded bombs. Many are located in and near human habitation. Worse, they are of a size to be deceptive in their nature. It is not uncommon for people to fail to recognize that they are bombs as they pick them up.
Cluster bombs cause significant civilian harm. They rank up there with land mines on civilian detestation. I can see why people want to restrict them. Problem is the current "ban" on cluster weapons is worthless. A UK Colonel once made a comment on it like this.
If the ban reduces my rockets from containing 20 cluster munitions to 5, that just means I am going to fire four times as many rockets to get the same effect
It was something along those lines. If cluster weapons are not outright banned (which they aren't, only restricted), then the entire thing is a pointless exercise.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
If the HRW really wanted to stop civilians from suffering in a war, it should ban wars and battles, i.e., situations in which humans use weapons against other humans. Banning a class of weapons means militaries will develop substitutes to get around the ban. If main battle tanks are banned, armored cars and heavy infantry fighting vehicles will become very popular; if machine guns are banned, expect a volley gun renaissance.
I wouldn't hold my breath; even if the cluster munitions ban is seriously enforced, I doubt it'll hard for any competent general/admiral/air marshal to get around the treaty's semantics. Worse, he/she might decide, "The treaty bans cluster munitions, but we must have an effective area denial weapon to fight this war. I know! We'll use low-yield nuclear weapons to irradiate the area, denying it to the enemy for decades!"
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
