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.

& you will be doing your bit when Sir Vivor?

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?

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.

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.