Cluster Bombs Treaty

[marshbags]

Bangkok Post, General news, Saturday, December 06, 2008

EDITORIAL

Rid the world of this menace

An important bridge was crossed this week when more than 90 nations signed an international treaty in Norway to ban cluster bombs that have killed or maimed tens of thousands of people. Known as the Oslo Process, the treaty signing was the climax of a campaign inspired by the Ottawa convention in 1997 that banned landmines and won the Nobel Peace Prize for those spearheading the drive.

For one reason or another, Thailand was not among the signatories, an oversight that can be rectified when there is an appropriate rethink of policy. This year's succession of revolving-door governments has almost certainly been preoccupied with other matters, which might explain why we aligned our stance with that of Burma, Singapore and Vietnam and not the majority of the Asean states, which supported the draft outlawing such weapons.

This was not the only disappointment in recent weeks. After winning well-deserved acclaim for being in the forefront of those ratifying the Mine Ban Treaty in 1998, we now find ourselves in the disturbing position of missing our 10-year deadline for clearance of these landmines and having to seek an extension. And the fact that we are not among the early signatories in Oslo this week will be a matter of concern for many, especially now that we are listed by the umbrella Cluster Munition Coalition as being among the 75 countries with existing stockpiles of the weapons they are campaigning against.

Dropped from warplanes or fired from artillery guns, cluster bombs explode in mid-air to randomly scatter hundreds of bomblets, which can be as small as eight centimetres. Many bomblets fail to explode, littering war zones with de facto landmines that can kill and maim long after a conflict ends.

Worldwide, about 100,000 people have been killed or maimed by cluster bombs since 1965, 98% of them civilians, says Handicap International, a group campaigning for their abolition. More than a quarter of the victims are children who mistake bomblets for toys.

Unquote

Ref url for the rest of this important article is :-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/061208_News/06Dec2008_news13.php

marshbags

[terrier123]

Bangkok Post, General news, Saturday, December 06, 2008

EDITORIAL

Rid the world of this menace

An important bridge was crossed this week when more than 90 nations signed an international treaty in Norway to ban cluster bombs that have killed or maimed tens of thousands of people. Known as the Oslo Process, the treaty signing was the climax of a campaign inspired by the Ottawa convention in 1997 that banned landmines and won the Nobel Peace Prize for those spearheading the drive.

For one reason or another, Thailand was not among the signatories, an oversight that can be rectified when there is an appropriate rethink of policy. This year's succession of revolving-door governments has almost certainly been preoccupied with other matters, which might explain why we aligned our stance with that of Burma, Singapore and Vietnam and not the majority of the Asean states, which supported the draft outlawing such weapons.

This was not the only disappointment in recent weeks. After winning well-deserved acclaim for being in the forefront of those ratifying the Mine Ban Treaty in 1998, we now find ourselves in the disturbing position of missing our 10-year deadline for clearance of these landmines and having to seek an extension. And the fact that we are not among the early signatories in Oslo this week will be a matter of concern for many, especially now that we are listed by the umbrella Cluster Munition Coalition as being among the 75 countries with existing stockpiles of the weapons they are campaigning against.

Dropped from warplanes or fired from artillery guns, cluster bombs explode in mid-air to randomly scatter hundreds of bomblets, which can be as small as eight centimetres. Many bomblets fail to explode, littering war zones with de facto landmines that can kill and maim long after a conflict ends.

Worldwide, about 100,000 people have been killed or maimed by cluster bombs since 1965, 98% of them civilians, says Handicap International, a group campaigning for their abolition. More than a quarter of the victims are children who mistake bomblets for toys.

Unquote

Ref url for the rest of this important article is :-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/061208_News/06Dec2008_news13.php

marshbags

We all hope for a world without cluster bombs, land-mines, nuclear bombs and the list goes on and on and on. Do WE really believe that treaties and associated pieces of paper show us the way towards world peace?? In an ideal world, maybe they would. But we are living here in Asia. USA, Europe and wherever. Throughout history there are 2 constants which quantify wars. In the name of religion AND/OR the fat cats get richer.

We can be selective and adopt the Thai ideal of living for today and hope and pray that tomorrow something better will turn up.

Peace bretheren.

[sabaijai]

Signing the treaty couldn't hurt.

[geriatrickid]

There are many situations where cluster bombs and even landmines are justified. The border between North Korea and South Korea is subject to mining. The South Koreans believe that the mines serve a purpose, although many of the mines are now being removed. When faced with a nutter nation like North Korea, South Korea has the right to defend themselves.

In an ideal world it would be nice to tell India and Pakistan to do away with their cluster bomb and nuclear arsenals, but I don't think India is now in any mood to reconsider its position. It's all well and nice for those countries that don't have to face military threats to say ban the devices, but it's a different perspective for those that face a daily threat of invasion or war from hostile forces.

The immediate focus should be on obtaining agreements that the munitions would not be used in non combatant populated areas and that if used, a record would be kept to facilitate their deactivation subsequent to their deployment.

[madjbs]

^ They don't just blow up soldiers trying to attack, they kill indiscriminately, children refugees, mothers and babies etc.. and when the conflict ends? All the landmines are left for kids and farmers to walk over. Hardly justifiable unless every single one is removed, which currently is impossible as the location of mines hasn't been recorded for decades.

Edited December 7, 2008 by madjbs

[marshbags]

^ They don't just blow up soldiers trying to attack, they kill indiscriminately, children refugees, mothers and babies etc.. and when the conflict ends? All the landmines are left for kids and farmers to walk over. Hardly justifiable unless every single one is removed, which currently is impossible as the location of mines hasn't been recorded for decades.

My first thoughts as well MJbs.

Why do the inhuman offenders who use them...

MAKE SURE THEY CLEAN THE AREAS AND RESTORE THEM TO A POSITION OF SAFETY.

I,d add the same regarding any explosive devices, especially land mines, as i have for many years now.

Never mind the children and their innocent families having to locate them via being blown to bits, get the soldiers who place them, have the horrendous aftermath " of it all ".

If anyone has to in this day and age, that is.

The human suffering and misery caused by the left over munitions of this nature is abhorent, inhuman and evil beyond description

IMHO

marshbags and ened

Edited December 7, 2008 by marshbags

[yabaaaa]

Its simple they dont give a sh*t what they leave behind! Here in Thailand you could say the same about rubbish everywhere they dont care.

[h90]

^ They don't just blow up soldiers trying to attack, they kill indiscriminately, children refugees, mothers and babies etc.. and when the conflict ends? All the landmines are left for kids and farmers to walk over. Hardly justifiable unless every single one is removed, which currently is impossible as the location of mines hasn't been recorded for decades.

Well nuclear weapons do worse, even napalm bombs were recently used. As well I can't see the difference if you kill a soldier or a children or a mother.

To forbid some weapons does not make war cleaner. If I kill a baby or if I wait 17 years put him in an uniform and kill him them does not make much difference.

It is just cheating the people, making them believe that there is something like a clean war.

[madjbs]

People killed by mines don't have a chance to surrender, they don't have a chance to fight and defend themselves either. It is basically an inhumane and cowardly act. Soldiers on the other hand have both choices, even if it is the same person 17 years on.

And yes nuclear bombs are obviously much worse, look how many innocents were killed in Japan.

[zaza]

Neither United States nor United Kingdom had signed this treaty too.

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

[jasreeve17]

Neither United States nor United Kingdom had signed this treaty too.

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

Or China or Russia, sad to say. I agree it's shameful.

Madjps makes some sensible comments, too.

[yabaaaa]

People killed by mines don't have a chance to surrender, they don't have a chance to fight and defend themselves either. It is basically an inhumane and cowardly act. Soldiers on the other hand have both choices, even if it is the same person 17 years on.

And yes nuclear bombs are obviously much worse, look how many innocents were killed in Japan.

Yes Im sure the war would have been over in days without the H Bomb and the Japanese were so kind ot POW's too werent they?

[madjbs]

That's not the point

[PhilHarries]

Neither United States nor United Kingdom had signed this treaty too.

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

That is not what the article says.

Unsurprisingly, Laos, the country worst affected by cluster bombs, beat Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Australia and Japan to become the second signatory to the new Convention on Cluster Munitions after Norway.

Criticism where criticism is due but don't twist words to suit your own agenda.

[Kerryd]

The problem with this treaty, like so many others, is that there is a big difference between simply signing (and agreeing to the terms), and actually living up to those terms.

Much like all the countries that pledge huge dollars to help this or that. Sounds great at the time, but in reality many of those countries send token amounts no where near what they originally pledged.

Many of the countries lining up to sign these treaties (land mine, cluster bomb, etc) are countries which don't use (or manufacture) them any ways. It's nothing but some free publicity for them. Countries get to pat themselves on the back and strut around a bit, proclaiming their nobleness for agreeing to not use something they have no need to use in the first place.

I wonder how many of those "noble" countries, if faced with persistent and deadly threats, would hastily reconsider their positions, or conveniently forget that they had agreed to not use such weapons ?

Don't get me wrong. I don't like those weapons personally. Land mines and unexploded ordnance (like cluster bombs) are things that I am reminded about everyday here.

Just yesterday I was driving someone around to an area we will be working in soon (on camp), and pointed out to him the areas that were still marked off and being "de-mined", on camp, 5+ years after the US took control of it.

Too many of these treaties sound great in the press releases, but contain no terminology that forces compliance. They are just "feel good" pieces of paper, nothing more.

[bonobo]

If you are a small military defensive force, and your neighbor's opposing army starts coming down the valley to attack you, a cluster bomb is a logical way to deny the attacking force use of the avenues of approach. Unless you maintain extensive minefields all the time (thereby denying locals the legitimate use of the land), there are not too many other ways to deny these avenues.

Current technology is to better develop cluster bombs where the bomlets automatiicaly self-destruct after a set period of time (ie, after the battle is expected to be over.)

And unlike mines, which are generally buried, cluster bomblets are easily cleared. It is just a matter of will and manpower to get it done.

Civilian casualties should always be minmimized, but dead is dead. Whether from cluster bombs, napalm, laser-guided missles. gunshots, or whatever, families will mourn those who are killed.

From my post, you might assume that I served in combat, and you would be correct in that assumption. BUt I do care about civilian casualites, as do most military people, I believe. While under fire once, I ordered my men to hold their fire due to the large number of panicking civilians running back and forth between the gunman and us, and this was straight out of our Rules of Engagement (where we are told when and where we can use deadly force). With some evil exceptions, military personnel try to protect civlian lives, and with a more concerted effort, cleanup of areas where cluster bombs have been deployed can be pretty effective.

The treaty is nice symbolism, but cluster munitions are not going away.

[bonobo]

Neither United States nor United Kingdom had signed this treaty too.

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

"Small-uranium bombs." What the heck are they, and when have any ever been used?

[marshbags]

Neither United States nor United Kingdom had signed this treaty too.

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

Shame also on all those countries who allow their business people to trade with despots and unethical, low life governments, which include the U.K., incidently, the last time i heard.

HTF can anyone justify lame excuses to facilitate these obhorrent deals / trade included, is beyond my comprehension.

marshbags

Edited December 8, 2008 by marshbags

[Kerryd]

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

"Small-uranium bombs." What the heck are they, and when have any ever been used?

Probably thinking of "depleted uranium" shells.

[zaza]

Neither United States nor United Kingdom had signed this treaty too.

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

"Small-uranium bombs." What the heck are they, and when have any ever been used?

Sir; I am not a weapon expert ,thus, I don't know the exact name of such evil weapons.

You can refer to the reports of WHO on Iraq's cancer statistics since 1991 till now,

Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry has been used against Iraq for the first time in the history of recent wars. The magnitude of the complications and damage related to the use of such radioactive and toxic weapons on the environment and the human population mostly results from the intended concealment, denial and misleading information released by the Pentagon about the quantities, characteristics and the area’s in Iraq, in which these weapons have been used.

[bonobo]

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

"Small-uranium bombs." What the heck are they, and when have any ever been used?

Probably thinking of "depleted uranium" shells.

Yes, you are probably right.

My mind was centering on the small man-packed nucs which have never been used (but which are a major terroist concern), not direct-fire rounds. This is probably just a case where improper translation made something out to sound far worse that in really is. Add the word "clever" and you are now talking about deliberate misinformation (although I am not accusing Zaza of knowingly doing that.)

[dotcom]

Signing the treaty couldn't hurt.

Maybe because they have no intention of complying with it?

[permanent_disorder]

USERS OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS

At least 15 countries have used cluster munitions:

Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Israel, Morocco, The Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia (USSR), Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, UK, US, FR Yugoslavia

PRODUCERS OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS

27 countries have produced cluster munitions:

Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, UK, US

http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/countries/

"...Signatories of the treaty include dozens of users, producers and stockpilers and affected states including the Lao PDR, Lebanon and Afghanistan. With 18 of the 26 NATO countries signing the treaty, future use by the US will be severely hampered.

...

Among the 45 Foreign, Defence and other government ministers signing the treaty were Bernard Kouchner, Foreign Affairs Minister for France, and David Miliband, Foreign Secretary for the UK. Miliband, representing the world’s third largest user of the weapon in the past decade, said all states should “tell those not here in Oslo that the world has changed, that we have changed it and that a new norm has been created..."

http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/news/?id=1068

...Cambodia recognized the great importance of the CCM, but disappointingly stated that due to recent security developments in the region, the government would need more time to study how the CCM will impact Cambodia’s national security and national defense requirements. ‘Do we have the courage [to sign the CCM]?’ Cambodia asked. ‘Yes, we do. Do we have the commitment? Yes, we do. Let’s make it happen in the near future,’ Cambodia replied.

Likewise, Thailand stated that it must take a closer look at the obligations under the CCM in relation to its national military capacity and readiness. Thailand said that its stocks of cluster munitions fall under the prohibition in the CCM and must be destroyed. Thailand cited concerns over the heavy cost in regard to manpower and expertise involved in destruction but stated it is seeking ways to develop a comprehensive national plan and had no intention to use cluster munitions or acquire more...

http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/news/?id=1074

_______

note: thailand stockpile cluster bombs like 75 other nations, but never used them, never produced them. is willing to sign but a) have first to check how long it will take to get ride of the stock otherwise it would be a hypocritical lip service and 'current situation and defence requirements' - means we have to buy other bomb shit first, otherwise we would be defenseless/ can not scare off evil enemies not to mess with us.

that is what the Bangkok Post editorial call "For one reason or another...". for sure a Junta Government ("there are no plans for a coup") would just have sign it.

and yeah, heavy user like the UK make a big show of it

Edited December 12, 2008 by permanent_disorder

[h90]

Neither United States nor United Kingdom had signed this treaty too.

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

"Small-uranium bombs." What the heck are they, and when have any ever been used?

Sir; I am not a weapon expert ,thus, I don't know the exact name of such evil weapons.

You can refer to the reports of WHO on Iraq's cancer statistics since 1991 till now,

Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry has been used against Iraq for the first time in the history of recent wars. The magnitude of the complications and damage related to the use of such radioactive and toxic weapons on the environment and the human population mostly results from the intended concealment, denial and misleading information released by the Pentagon about the quantities, characteristics and the area’s in Iraq, in which these weapons have been used.

That is for making special bullets. You can use other things but they are more expensive, while the uranium costs almost nothing.

[bonobo]

Neither United States nor United Kingdom had signed this treaty too.

All these evil weapons( napalm,cluster,clever small-uranium) bombs were used in Iraq by United States and coalition forces in the two gulf wars (1991,2003). shame on them.

"Small-uranium bombs." What the heck are they, and when have any ever been used?

Sir; I am not a weapon expert ,thus, I don't know the exact name of such evil weapons.

You can refer to the reports of WHO on Iraq's cancer statistics since 1991 till now,

Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry has been used against Iraq for the first time in the history of recent wars. The magnitude of the complications and damage related to the use of such radioactive and toxic weapons on the environment and the human population mostly results from the intended concealment, denial and misleading information released by the Pentagon about the quantities, characteristics and the area's in Iraq, in which these weapons have been used.

That is for making special bullets. You can use other things but they are more expensive, while the uranium costs almost nothing.

Yes, a depleted uranium round is a "bullet" made of, yes, depleted uranium. It is far heavier than a lead round and can punch through armor far easier.

However, they have been used in many, many conflicts, not for the first time in Iraq as zaza's quote seems to indicate, and there has not been yet any real proof that DU causes cancer to the public at large (this according to the WHO.) Before firing, the rounds are completely inert. After firing, some rounds disintigrate upon impact, and that is what concerns some scientists. Radiation levels of up to 30 times the normal radiation levels have been recorded in destroyed vehicles, so it is certainly possible that the radiation, just like radiation caused my too many x-rays, might cause some cancers. But it is hardly a concluded scientific finding.

The increase in cancers in Iraq from 1991 to 2003 could be attributed to any number of reasons. Pointing out DU rounds as the culprit is just too easy.

Zaza, I applaud your apparent humanity, but DU rounds are no more or less "evil" than any other weapon of war.

[Kerryd]

The increase in cancers in Iraq from 1991 to 2003 could be attributed to any number of reasons. Pointing out DU rounds as the culprit is just too easy.

Zaza, I applaud your apparent humanity, but DU rounds are no more or less "evil" than any other weapon of war.

Agreed.

One has to remember that even if some DU fragments were emitting higher than normal levels of radiation, it would take repeated, prolonged exposure to those emissions before any harmful effects were produced. Here is a short note regarding Depleted Uranium:

Depleted uranium munitions are controversial because of unanswered questions about potential long-term health effects. DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury, and is only very weakly radioactive because of its long half-life. While any radiation exposure has risks, no conclusive epidemiological data have correlated DU exposure to specific human health effects such as cancer.

As bonobo mentions, there could be numerous reasons for increases in cancer rates in Iraq. As in other facets of life though, there always seems to be someone looking to blame someone else for any and everything wrong in the world.

I'm sure that all the oil wells that were lit on fire had absolutely no harmful effects on the population.

The increase in cancers could also simply be better technology (identifying various cancers) and perhaps more people going to hospitals (and thus having their illnesses identified and recorded). Better training (of health professionals) and better diagnostic equipment could be a prime reason why it seems the cancer rate is higher than before.

In this day and age, it seems everything is blamed for causing cancer. Too much cell phone use can cause brain cancer. White bread can cause cancer. Smoking causes cancer. Not enough sex can cause cancer (True ! An Australian research team found that men who tend to whack off more, have less of a chance of getting prostrate cancer !)

Some years ago I remember reading that scientists had determined that drinking to much coke-a-cola could give you cancer. They tested this on rats.

Only problem with their theory was, to get the same result in humans, a person would have to drink 40 cans of coke a day, for 20 years ! (or 20 cans a day for 40 years).

Your kidneys and digestive tract would probably be long gone before cancer ever got chance at you !

As for cluster bombs. Like I mentioned earlier, many nations will toady up and sign such treaties, but of the countries that produce, stockpile and perhaps use (or are willing to use) them, few will likely honour any commitment made in such treaties.

[zaza]

I can't utter any word anymore; I had been warned on a deleted reply in this same thread.

But;anyway; I have the spirit of a man.Thus; I'll keep on posting until the goals on my agenda are well achieved

1- Thanks bonobo for the compliment;but;honestly ;I don't deserve it, I am just a lucky coward who is enjoying another day in paradise here in Thailand.

2- I totally agree that there are many reasons for the increases in cancer rates in Iraq; but only the one thing I strongly roll out is the:

The increase in cancers could also simply be better technology (identifying various cancers) and perhaps more people going to hospitals (and thus having their illnesses identified and recorded). Better training (of health professionals) and better diagnostic equipment could be a prime reason why it seems the cancer rate is higher than before.

The hospitals there are lacking all the points you had mentioned because of, the brutal sanctions since 1990, most of the doctors and qualified professionals either had been killed or fled to other countries. and simply; there is no better technology or equipment , the reconstruction are not yet planned or established ,or have been already given to multiple sub-contractors, whom most of them would never care to provide good quality ,but; only wish to make wide profits.

on another note:

Kerryd;I'd like to state a personal confession over here; you are always -The Wise Man- and I take your words as a bible

Edited December 12, 2008 by zaza