The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Will Australia truly commit to the eradication of cluster munitions? > Comments

Will Australia truly commit to the eradication of cluster munitions? : Comments

By Matthew Zagor, published 1/3/2011

While Australia has forsworn cluster munitions it allows allied troops to store and use them on Australian soil.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
So long as we bow to the US for "defence" we will continue to play these word games with the law.
US military strategy is an important part of their economic strategy and partly relies on the "mad dog" factor: Unrestrained, sometimes illogical and unlawful terror. Other nations know that the CIA can do what it likes, rendition is the tip of the iceberg. Individuals can be made to pay "off the books" for any anti-US policy while US politicians can claim deniability. For highly illegal operations they also use mercenaries which can also "belong" to any nation. Their use to terrorise is more flexible than a proper national army which is why "contractors" played such a big part of the recent oil wars. Once again, power to terrorise plus deniability.
The US has also long used illegal weapons to it's advantage such as during the Iran/Iraq war where chemical weapons were tested and refined...however never "officially" used by US forces.
In South America the use drugs, drug crime, "freedom fighters" and gun running is rampant.
To the military mind there are no rules that cannot be broken: "Alls fair in love and war". Trouble is "war" is a constant necessity to the US oligarchs: When you are a bully that has pushed others beyond endurance the war never ends, and will not be allowed to while war is *so* profitable!
We need the out clauses because we have bought into this strategy. Since Howard we are faithful little deputies nodding to everything the US war machine says. Suckers, fools and bastards is what we are for falling into this ethical nightmare.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 9:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Legislation without the loopholes should be implemented. Banning of the manufacture, use and cooperation with other political entities using cluster munitions should be accompanied by similar legislation banning land mines and depleted uranium.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 12:13:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mattew Zagor,

Your posting has succeeded in getting two comments plus mine out of about, say 40,000 readers.

Probably it doesn’t matter how and by whom we get maimed or killed.
Posted by skeptic, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 9:02:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will add my thoughts.
As a citizen of Australia, I feel that I don't belong here.
Although I vote, my government doesn't listen to me.
If we have so much mineral wealth in this country with such a small population, why aren't we all rich? Or at least have a decent standard of living?

The reason that my Government does not listen to me is because it is run by the Corporates, the Overseas Interests, the Military.

To do away with the maufacture of cluster bombs would be counter to our pact with the USA and other overseas munitions buyers. They would have to be consulted first before us Australian Citizens. We are only the little people. When our politicians travel overseas, do we get a detailed report, published for all to read, of their overseas dealings? No. Thank God for Wikileaks, opening up a small chink in their armor.
Posted by Raise the Dust, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 9:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skeptic and Raise the Dust

To me, the discouraging thing about this issue is that its crucial aspects are removed from the everyday stream of publicity and advertorials that passes for news.

Discouragement is disempowering if you succumb. The countermessages must often be read between the lines, must be actively sought. I don't know of Online Opinion making it onto the evening TV news, but you are here reading, instead of waiting for the sun to go down.

Many groups are working on this issue, and many individuals have contributed. Although only a few of the many are represented by submissions to the Senate Committee reviewing our ratifying legislation, you can read their views, both expert and lay, at
http://bit.ly/fpwojY

The one point M. Zagor did not cover is disinvestment. Investing in cluster munitions assists in killing civilians, during and after wars. Where is your Super money being invested, on your behalf? Does it help pay for the production of cluster munitions? The submission by the Australian Council of Super Investors raises that concern.
See
http://bit.ly/hG2UdA

If you're interested in the issue, read up. If you're concerned about the issue, phone or write your parliamentarians. Silence is as good as consent. If you don't like cluster munitions, add your voice to the protest.

A quote from Margaret Mead is worth re-reading:

"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Skeptic, & Raise the Dust,
This issue comes before the Senate on 24 March. Can you commit to writing a letter, or will you remain disaffected?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 11:33:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this is a wonderful idea, & will go along with it on just one condition.

That is that those who propose this reduction in our armed forces ability to defend themselves, will guarantee to be in the forefront of our forces, wherever our government send them.

If they will not give this guarantee they expose themselves to being categorised as the useless chattering class, for whom the lives of our own forces mean nothing.

Have a nice safe day, at some young army privates expense.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 11:54:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

You may be interested to know that, by the current lists easily available, 10 NATO countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM)
(see http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

The list and numbers changes as more countries ratify the treaty.
Alongside Australia (not a NATO member, but an undisputed ally), the following NATO countries have signed the CCM:

Belgium
Croatia
Denmark
France
Germany
Luxembourg
Norway
Slovakia
Spain
United Kingdom

France, Germany, the UK and others have taken the advice of their generals, and have decided against cluster munitions. Perhaps there is something more to the issue than you have considered.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 1:01:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
& you will be doing your bit when Sir Vivor?
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 3:36:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
I don't understand what you're asking.
How can I answer your question if you don't explain your assumptions?

As an aside, non-state actors (like the Taliban) do not use cluster munitions, even as improvised explosive devices. If there is an exception to this generalisation, kindly provide me with good evidence. I have sifted through the Wikileaks Afghanistan database, and could find nothing about them (as opposed to 155 mm artillery duds) being used as IEDs.

Cluster munition duds are treacherous. If they are found by our troops, they are destroyed in situ whenever possible. If they are found by children, or disturbed by rural (or urban) people) in their day to day lives, they are at best a hazard that is dealt with professionally. At worst they cause death &/or injury.

The high dud rate of these obsolete armaments may have made them a weapon of choice in the last 36 hours of the Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006, when it was plain to all that a settlement was in sight. How many Israeli privates were saved by this strategy, and how many Lebanese casualties were there? I don't know. But the cleanup and Lebanese casualties are ongoing, four and a half years later.

Cluster munitions are the "gift" that keeps on killing. My guess is that Lebanese peasants will keep on getting the worst of the 2006 war until the last CBU is located. Likewise for the Lao PDR, where the last cluster bombs were dropped in the 1970s.

Clusters are indiscriminate weapons, and they are currently stigmatised, worldwide. A few weeks ago, Cambodia and Thailand were trading accusations that one used clusters against the other in fighting around Preah Vihear. There is still no conclusive evidence that either party used them, although UNESCO has sent representatives to make an independent assessment.

What kind of weapon has more value against its user than against the opponent? An obsolete weapon, I would say. NATO generals have moved on. I am in no position to gainsay their strategies. Are you?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 8:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is unfortunate that "Hasbeen" hasn't bothered to research this issue.
Perhaps he doesn't realise that the main victims of cluster munitions are civilians, not soldiers. Perhaps he also doesn't realise that in Laos (for example) some 78 million cluster bombs dropped in anger did not explode. Those bombs remained to blow up an average 300 civilians per year, every year almost in perpetuity. Three decades since that war, they are still dying - adults, children, all innocent people.

We sign treaties like this to try and minimise the after-effects of war and to protect innocent lives. Apparently "Hasbeen" feels that the people of Laos deserve to have restricted access to their own fields, and to experience death and mutilation as they work their way through those 78,000,000 bombs that lie in wait for them. Most of us would find that unacceptable.
Posted by Thinking voter, Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:13:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most authoritative list of who has signed the treaty, and who has ratified it is available at
http://treaties.un.org/
on the page
http://bit.ly/eY3xdn

The Netherlands has now ratified. I'm hoping their ratification legislation is better than our current bill. The remarks submitted by the Holy See, when they ratified in December 2008, included that

"The Holy See considers the Convention on Cluster Munitions an important step in the protection of civilians during and after conflicts from the indiscriminate effects of this inhumane type of weapons. The new Convention is a remarkable achievement for multilateralism in disarmament, based on constructive cooperation between governmental and non governmental actors, and on the link between humanitarian law and human rights."

Let's hope that our current Australian Parliament can legislate so as to genuinely bolster the CCM. Currently, the Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010 does very little beyond satisfying our nonsignatory allies and neighbours that they can carry forward with at least the threat of "business as usual". It comprises a collection of "yes-buts", loopholes and caveats, and entirely fails to address the treaty's powerful advocacy for human dignity.

Australia can do better than this.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 3 March 2011 4:13:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy