Cluster Bomb Treaty Threatens NATO Ops
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Cluster Bomb Treaty Threatens NATO Ops
Propsed Treaty Threatens Operations with NATO Allies
US Department of Defense | Feb 14, 2008
WASHINGTON: A proposed arms-control treaty banning use of cluster munitions and aiding countries that use them could affect U.S. operations with NATO allies, a Defense Department official said.
A draft treaty to enforce the ban is now circulating among Oslo Convention nations, and it prohibits any form of assistance to countries that use cluster munitions, Joseph Benkert, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for global security affairs, told online journalists and “bloggers” in a conference call yesterday.
Cluster munitions -- small explosives dropped from airplanes and fired from artillery -- have ignited heated international debate, with detractors saying they are indiscriminate and cause civilian casualties. In February 2007, representatives of several foreign nations, including some U.S. allies, gathered at a convention in Oslo, Norway, to negotiate a ban on cluster munitions by the end of 2008.
A NATO ally that signs the Olso Treaty would not be able to operate with U.S. forces in a NATO operation using cluster munitions, Benkert said. Benkert explained that the United States, which is using cluster munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan, shares the concern over the weapons and has taken steps to minimize harm to civilians. “We in DoD have, over the years, made considerable efforts to reduce the risk to civilians from cluster munitions or any other weapon,” he said.
But the U.S. government does not believe a complete ban on cluster munitions, as proposed by the Oslo process, would be in the best interest of national security or of the international community, Benkert said. “A complete ban would put at risk the lives of our soldiers and those of our coalition partners, and make it more difficult to fulfill our security guarantees to others,” he explained. “And for certain types of targets, use of cluster munitions could, in fact, result in fewer civilian casualties and less damage of civilian infrastructure than would be the case if conventional unitary warheads were used against the same target.”
Instead, the United States is participating in the Convention on Conventional Weapons, a standing forum attempting to address the cluster munitions issue by balancing military requirements with humanitarian needs, he said.
The Convention on Conventional Weapons involves all key producers and users of cluster munitions -- including Brazil, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and South Korea -- that are not supporting the Oslo Treaty. “All of the major producers and users of cluster munitions are represented in the CCW, and so any resulting instrument from the CCW that these parties agree to is likely to have a much more practical impact than in Olso,” Benkert explained.
The Oslo process risks producing a “feel-good” arms-control outcome, he said, where nations without imminent need for cluster munitions produce a ban that has very little effect on their national security, but does have an impact on the security needs of the United States and its NATO allies. “In our view, (the convention) is the proper forum with the greatest number of states who are producers and users of cluster munitions and most likely to have the impact,” he said.
Benkert said the United States is pushing to conclude a protocol for use of cluster munitions within the Convention on Conventional Weapons by November.
US Department of Defense | Feb 14, 2008
WASHINGTON: A proposed arms-control treaty banning use of cluster munitions and aiding countries that use them could affect U.S. operations with NATO allies, a Defense Department official said.
A draft treaty to enforce the ban is now circulating among Oslo Convention nations, and it prohibits any form of assistance to countries that use cluster munitions, Joseph Benkert, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for global security affairs, told online journalists and “bloggers” in a conference call yesterday.
Cluster munitions -- small explosives dropped from airplanes and fired from artillery -- have ignited heated international debate, with detractors saying they are indiscriminate and cause civilian casualties. In February 2007, representatives of several foreign nations, including some U.S. allies, gathered at a convention in Oslo, Norway, to negotiate a ban on cluster munitions by the end of 2008.
A NATO ally that signs the Olso Treaty would not be able to operate with U.S. forces in a NATO operation using cluster munitions, Benkert said. Benkert explained that the United States, which is using cluster munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan, shares the concern over the weapons and has taken steps to minimize harm to civilians. “We in DoD have, over the years, made considerable efforts to reduce the risk to civilians from cluster munitions or any other weapon,” he said.
But the U.S. government does not believe a complete ban on cluster munitions, as proposed by the Oslo process, would be in the best interest of national security or of the international community, Benkert said. “A complete ban would put at risk the lives of our soldiers and those of our coalition partners, and make it more difficult to fulfill our security guarantees to others,” he explained. “And for certain types of targets, use of cluster munitions could, in fact, result in fewer civilian casualties and less damage of civilian infrastructure than would be the case if conventional unitary warheads were used against the same target.”
Instead, the United States is participating in the Convention on Conventional Weapons, a standing forum attempting to address the cluster munitions issue by balancing military requirements with humanitarian needs, he said.
The Convention on Conventional Weapons involves all key producers and users of cluster munitions -- including Brazil, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and South Korea -- that are not supporting the Oslo Treaty. “All of the major producers and users of cluster munitions are represented in the CCW, and so any resulting instrument from the CCW that these parties agree to is likely to have a much more practical impact than in Olso,” Benkert explained.
The Oslo process risks producing a “feel-good” arms-control outcome, he said, where nations without imminent need for cluster munitions produce a ban that has very little effect on their national security, but does have an impact on the security needs of the United States and its NATO allies. “In our view, (the convention) is the proper forum with the greatest number of states who are producers and users of cluster munitions and most likely to have the impact,” he said.
Benkert said the United States is pushing to conclude a protocol for use of cluster munitions within the Convention on Conventional Weapons by November.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At risk of proving my long suspected ignorance, but were cluster munitions not banned under a previous treaty on landmines? From what I can remember, if the bomblet failed to go off it fell into the same category as a landmine, and somewhere I read that was one of the reasons the RAF stopped using JP233.
Or I could be VERY mistaken......
Ogre
Or I could be VERY mistaken......
Ogre
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC the sub-munition load in JP233 included some that were DESIGNED not to go off on impact (ie mines), to hamper strip repair efforts.
I think the real reason we got shot of them, though, was because they were crap. And risky to deliver.
One can still legally use cluster munitions, as long as one doesn't load any mine-type sub-munitions. The issue with them is the dud rate - if you're dropping 100 bombs in one go, you're likely to get several duds every time.
I think the real reason we got shot of them, though, was because they were crap. And risky to deliver.
One can still legally use cluster munitions, as long as one doesn't load any mine-type sub-munitions. The issue with them is the dud rate - if you're dropping 100 bombs in one go, you're likely to get several duds every time.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what it is saying is that we (UK for example) could not be part of a coalition with the US if they were using cluster munitions. I assume that the US has not signed the treaty because of their love of/need for mines in Korea.
I don't know. These darned pinkos. No agent orange. No landmines, no torturing folk. No humiliating and degrading enemy PoWs. They don't like nape and nukes make 'em uncomfortable. They don't approve of Gitmo.
They're taking the fun out of war.
They're taking the fun out of war.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some very effective weapons in your list there, jacko.
As are cluster bombs.
Don't like things to get ugly, then don't call for a military solution. Work it out at a negotiating table.
I do not want my hands tied if the politicians pull the military option book from the shelf.
As are cluster bombs.
Don't like things to get ugly, then don't call for a military solution. Work it out at a negotiating table.
I do not want my hands tied if the politicians pull the military option book from the shelf.
There are some nasty things in my list that would, in my view, fall into the 'nasty but acceptable' category.
Torturing PoWs and Gitmo don't come into that category, however, and in today's context, in ongoing ops, I'm not sure about CBUs and landmines.
Torturing PoWs and Gitmo don't come into that category, however, and in today's context, in ongoing ops, I'm not sure about CBUs and landmines.
Jacko
A double edged sword for you, or at least your past logic. You pooped all over the Harrier and other naval assets. Not affordable and not needed as the UK would always be operating with US forces that had the good kit. You seemed sure of yourself then.
I told you so...
A double edged sword for you, or at least your past logic. You pooped all over the Harrier and other naval assets. Not affordable and not needed as the UK would always be operating with US forces that had the good kit. You seemed sure of yourself then.
I told you so...
