This letter is as insignificant to the ordinary man as are the high sounding qualifications of its signatories.

If all that these people can do with their time is signing a letter of objection to one kind of bombs, they indeed live in a state of hypnosis.

Better not wake them up

Greg and Co,

Skeptic has a point. Advocacy/activism does seem to suffer from RDS. This may be attributed to the lack of proportionality. We cannot be other than sad at the loss of 28 Australian soldiers in eight years however; we get little air time for the annual loss of 250 children in our own homes or the 1,500 dead on our roads during a similar period.

We have refugee advocacy stuffing enforced compassion in our faces whilst we have the most appalling situation of indigenous Australians, many times greater and more distressing.

Perhaps proportionality is worth considering. Or you could try one of the “New Wave” of emerging alarmism of peak population, peak food or peak refugee immigration

I agree with the other posters, but will wait to see what the results of focus group testing by the ALP are ..

If the focus group test results deem this is an issue of unusual importance, then the government will jump on, make many announcements, run around wildly denouncing everything, will have the foreign affairs minister go to the opposite side of the planet, will make snippy comments in parliament alluding to the coalition supporting planetary death, being negative, being misogynous, hating puppies and being effective as an opposition.

All the while, not supporting the government in its clear and oft stated role of wanting to eliminate cluster bombs, and has always maintained that, regardless of no evidence whatever and it is a primary goal of the ALP.

The Canberra press gallery will focus their scalpel sharp investigatory minds to this, and question whether the coalitions policy of cutting down trees in Antarctica, is carbon neutral.

There will be Dorothy Dixers allowing the government to call attention to the coalition not going first in wanting to eliminate cluster munitions, and they will be asked in fact why do they continue, by being slow, to support cluster munitions.

There will be many Dix before the ALP is done, we will see the RH Albanese scream at the opposition that their scare campaign will not work as the public are well aware that the world will collapse if the ALP does not get this into their faces and homes by tonight at the very latest.

The ABC will then come up with articles every day with a new insulting name to apply to conservatives, not being of the left, must be bomb manufacturers and in the pay of big gunpowder.

All other aspects of running the country and looking like dills to the rest of the world by our knee jerk over reactions to minority bullying by little self important activist loudmouths, will be put aside to deal with this immensely important issue of the day ..

until something else distracts them ..

You know, I did not see a single one there who is likely to have a HE round, or a mortar bomb land on them, while they are eating their dinner, or drinking their wine.

If they would like to spend a 6 months tour in Afghanistan, then come back & give us the benefit of their experience, I would be interested.

Other wise they are just noise, & not very pleasant or useful noise at that.

I support the signatories, I would also call upon them to get the various groups to move toward banning camouflaged/hidden explosive devices, which are deliberately designed to kill civilians and those who seek to make areas safe for the same.

These are much more deadly and pernicious than land mines, they breach the rules of land warfare, cause massive civilian casualties, in the most horrific way possible.

Oh, hang on... We aren't talking about banning the weapons that are actually killing people are we? Certainly not when those weapons are used by the poor disenfranchised extremists of this world? No, they can use any weapons systems they please....

Wonder what will happen when they wake up and start using gas?

Hasbeen : I agree with you .
To me , the contributors to whom you refer seem to be a rent-a-crowd , smoke screening for those shining paragons of justice & decency - the US & Israel .

Great initiative by Greg Barns and the 46 others. The Australian Government and the Australian Parliament should amend the draft legislation to eradicate cluster bombs. There are many diasporas in Australia who have suffered directly or indirectly the deadly effects of cluster bombs overseas and they too would have joined this campaign.

Hi there HASBEEN...

I couldn't have put it better myself. As a Veteran, the primary focus is to kill sorry, to decommission your enemy. Not annoy them, nor make 'em ill.

I realize in my old age and with my advancing dotage, I'm starting to become rather 'prickly' with some. Particularly when they've never worn a set of greens, covered in sweat and dirt, outside the wire for a couple of weeks at a time, etc etc, ad nauseam.

Having set a command initiated 'Claymore' the section I was with, was required to search our 'results'. My Cpl found amongst other things, a couple of small, tattered B&W photos, bearing images of an elderly couple, a female and some kids.

How do you reckon we felt, eh ?

NOBODY can abide war. It's abhorrent - absolutely, the notion of killing another, literally nauseates and disgusts me. You can NEVER EVER remove the image(s) from you mind ! I'm nearly seventy now, and it doesn't get any easier. If anything, the memories become clearer.

So when these insipid academics, and do- gooders, have the temerity and effrontery to lecture us all how war is to be prosecuted, well it gets right up my nose.

In conclusion, on scanning the forty odd signatures, I note it's the same dreary old crew - God help our country.

The current Cluster Munitions legislation is important, relevant and internationally endorsed by over 100 countries. This call for improvements to the proposed legislation by 46 eminent Australians carries a lot more weight with me that the rantings of the luminaries on this blog. I assume those commenting do not support the killing and maiming of thousands of innocent civilians by these remnants of war BUT I may be mistaken.

The aim of war may be to kill as some of you have pointed out but is it to kill people indiscriminately decades after the conflict has ended? Is it to deprive farmers of their land to grow food for their families? Is it to maim kids who pick up the shiny cluster bomblets on their way home from school? Many have missed the point here. These weapons have no target, 30-40% fail to detonate, they lay scattered waiting for refugees to return to their homes after war, when people are trying to rebuild, when they are fetching firewood or water, they lose arms and legs and eyes. Imagine never being involved in a war but living in poverty in wars wake and having your leg blown off. I commend the actions of civil society in striving for justice.

Strangely, the aim of just about every one I have known, who has defended this country is to survive. They are prepared to put their lives on the line for us, but they would like to come home.

Now I realise that the academics, & do gooders sitting safely at home, protected by these people don't give a damn, if our blokes, [& possibly soon to be ladies] survive, or not. They will probably be too busy pontificating to even notice.

I wonder how long it will be before they demand we take all these dangerous guns off our defence forces, so as not to hurt the enemy too much. They might as well, they want to take some of the weapons they need to defend themselves, & so achieve their goal of coming home.

Every year the percentage of people in Oz not worth defending continues to grow.

Thank you to the signatories of this letter for being courageous,compassionate and informed.God help our country indeed if they are classified as "the same dreary bunch" and their views discounted.They are not alone in their call. 108 countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Bombs,acknowledging them as weapons that need to be eradicated. Yes,there are many dreadful weapons used in war, but when the war stops,so should the killing. Cluster bombs continue to kill and maim for decades after a war is over.Millions of unexploded cluster bombs left from previous wars continue claiming lives and limbs, usually of civilians, many of children.
Many cluster bomb campaigners have spent time in Afghanistan, and Iraq and Lebanon,and Kosovo, putting their own lives at risk to document the horrendous legacy left behind by cluster bombs.
It's time for our government to enact legislation with no loopholes.

Some of these correspondents having been using their cynical and hateful views to divert us from the point - which is that cluster munitions, deployed during warfare, are still killing and maiming civilians NOW, often decades later! Many of the victims are children. Do we want this to continue? This Open Letter has been printed now because the Cluster Munition Bill is awaiting debate in the Senate. Unfortunately, its wording has been diluted from the true spirit and intent of the international Convention. This 'interoperability' clause is just one of the clauses needing improvement, to help prevent further deployment of this weapon that goes on killing... and maiming... long after conflict has ceased.

These "virtuous Australians" are looking to ban munitions that one day some poor bugger may have been saved by? These munitions are NOT used without a target, they are used to kill the enemy as quickly and as effectively as possible. Cluster munitions are designed to effectively kill people, that is what they do.

They aren't shiny or painted in pretty colors to attract children, they are marked as they are to allow them to be readily recognised and avoided by those in war-zones. Unfortunately our enemies have found that they can hide amongst civilians and shoot, if anyone responds, of course they are targeting civilians, because everyone who makes it through psychological assessments and rigorous training is killing for the sheer joy of it, not because they want to protect their mates from being killed by ratbags.

When such moral exemplars as the signatories to this noisome legislation travel overseas and enforce bans on hidden, camouflaged, improvised explosive devices which are designed SPECIFICALLY to kill civilians, then they'll have some credibility. IED's have dodgy, improvised explosive and equally dodgy mechanisms. They are much more prone to undesired outcomes, which kill people just as surely as they were intended to do. They are used as tools of collective punishment, by extremists, on those who try and make a life as best they can.

Its funny in a non-amusing way, how 'collective punishment' and 'explosive devices' are only mentioned by hand-wringers when it suits their views. Deliberate use of the same is conducted daily by those they support, but we wouldn't want to ban that.

'Custard's particular obsession seems to be with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), but seems to have no understanding of what Cluster Munitions are and how they are deployed - nor that they act like IEDs, only randomly instead of intentionally.

So here are the undisputed facts: A cluster bomb is a weapon containing multiple explosive submunitions. When the canister opens, these small bombs are spread over a wide area. The US dropped huge numbers of them in the Vietnam War, not only on Vietnam, but also on Laos (on which the US had not declared war). Many were jettisoned over "empty" jungle because the bombers were not allowed to return to base with bombs on board.

Cluster munitions are indiscriminate and inhumane weapons. The high failure rate means that those that failed to explode at the time can lie in wait for decades as de facto landmines, killing and maiming for generations after a conflict has ended. There are accidents from landmines and cluster munitions every day.

So, Custard, they did not "kill the enemy as quickly and effectively as possible". Many WERE used without a target, jettisoned to make the planes safe to land. Many are in shapes and colours attractive to children, for instance the Soviet Union's past use of yellow plastic 'butterflies'. Or how about those deployed in Lebanon by Israel? - each attached to a little parachute. Or the US BLU bomblets used in the Vietnam War, each the size and shape of a tennis ball. I could go on - but I hope you've got the point. And decades after deployment, many of the mechanisms are very dodgy indeed!

I agree that IEDs are dreadful weapons. I hope that you now understand that cluster munitions are also dreadful, deadly, indiscriminate weapons. Unlike IEDs which are often detonated by vehicles, even the footfall of a child can set them off - or just the effect of years of corrosion.

The percentage of 'cluster munitions' that do not explode as designed is minimal. The number that pose an unacceptable risk to 'innocent civilians' - other than those in the area intentionally targeted - is miniscule. The unacceptable risk of 'IED's' (the single leading cause of civilian deaths in Iraq, Lebanon & Afghanistan) cannot be calculated, they are designed as a means of attacking unarmed civilians, preferably those who think they are otherwise safe.

When they are banned and life-sentences (or preferably death sentences) are enforced for those who make/use them and hand-wringers take action to enforce the same, then perhaps try and outlaw useful weapons systems. What next? Ban artillery altogether? Require Australian troops to risk their lives and incur greater casualties operating against enemy forces who use whatever they please, wherever & whenever they please?

Banning effective weapons systems means that the people on the ground are left with only ineffective weapons systems. The lesser weapons systems 'might' be marginally more selective, but they are still filled with high-explosive and inside shrapnel producing metal casings. ie. High Explosive rounds aren't a tool of brain-surgeons, they too have a serious non-selective blast radius and a lethal distance which is taken into account when they are used. There is also a statistically insignificant (not when it is in your loungeroom though) number of 'unexploded devices' ("UD's") per 1,000 rounds utilized with ALL explosive shells.

Areas in Lebanon that had numerous "UD's" lying around after their being bombarded by the IDF had been bombarded heavily for days on end. The reason they were bombarded is because Hezbollah had built fortifications into those areas to protect their rocket launching sites. The statistically insignificant becomes visually significant when tens/hundreds of thousands of rounds are directed at a small area in a short time frame.

But the single most deadly 'weapon' system, the 'IED' (that I'm obsessed with) is a concern of mine and rightly so. They are evil weapons, like landmines, designed and used to terrify people out of pursuing their normal existence through fear of the consequences of an innocent step.

I would say that a 30% failure rate from US cluster munitions deployed in the Vietnam War is NOT ‘minimal’! And I would say that present-day victims of cluster munitions left in the ground from the Vietnam War ARE ‘innocent civilians’. These accidents are still happening every day in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Many of the victims are children. The Vietnam War ended over 35 years ago.

But of course, this was not the only war in which cluster munitions were deployed. In fact, they have been used in some 35 countries and regions since World War 2. More recently, they were used in Angola, Chechnya, the former Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and now Libya. Of the four million cluster bomblets dropped on southern Lebanon, the United Nations estimates that one million did not explode and that two-thirds of these were scattered in populated areas. Fully 98 percent of the casualties caused by cluster munitions are civilians.

By any measure these weapons cause indiscriminate civilian casualties. These wide-area weapons do not meet the two most important obligations of international humanitarian law to protect civilians during armed conflict:
1) the need to distinguish between civilians and combatants and
2) the need to avoid civilian losses that are out of proportion to direct military gains. Cluster munitions pose severe risks to civilian lives at the time of use and for decades afterward. They also have long-term impacts on peace operations, post-conflict rehabilitation and civilian livelihoods. Communities are deprived of their productive land and family breadwinners are often deprived of a livelihood.

Every year the percentage of people in Oz not worth defending continues to grow.
Hasbeen,
there hasn't been such a spot-on observation/statement for a long time. The sad thing is that way too many are way beyond comprehending the gist of it.

Improvised Explosive Devices are used outside the normal rules of engagement, and unfortunately are at present beyond the scope of international treaties. But since the introduction of the Mine Ban Treaty in 1999, 165 countries have agreed to be bound by its conditions. The Convention on Cluster Munitions became binding international law on 1st August 2010, and has the potential to be just as effective. However, only governments which have acceded to the Convention will be bound by its conditions. The legislation will soon be presented to the Australian Senate, and for Australia to set a good example in our region, this Bill needs to be strong, with no loopholes. This is the reason that this Open Letter was written, signed by Australians well known in military, legal and humanitarian circles. Even if some critics take exception to some of these individuals, they should not condemn the cause or the legislation out-of-hand. If the spirit and intent of the Convention are adhered to, there may come a time when the force of public opinion forbids the use of these indiscriminate weapons which cause a deadly post-conflict legacy for local children, women and men.

Australia to set a good example in our region.
Adelaide,
why stop at cluster bombs, why not outlaw conflict & war altogether ? The problem is it can't be done, just like using bombs. If we really want to do away with these dreadful implements then we must have a word with those who profit from them & perhaps compensate them for loss of income ?
It reminds of those people who say we must reduce the road toll. Is it ok if only a few die ?

They are NOT indiscriminate weapons systems, they are highly developed weapons systems, with a known spread. What's next? Banning artillery? Banning rifles?

Cool, how do you intend that these bans should be enforced?

Let me guess, the same way the 'bans' on IED's are enforced? By poor bl**dy infantry on the ground, whose lives are progressively being placed at greater and greater risk, as they are forced to use less and less effective weapons in order to achieve greater gains with less cost?

Ultimately, the responsibility for cleaning up post-conflict "UD's" lies with the government in control of the area fought over.

Unfortunately, some Governments don't care, they were quite willing to pay to put the problem there in the first place, but aren't going to clean it up. For example, minefields in Libya & Egypt from WWII still claim victims today.

However, the fact remains, as a nation that fields forces overseas we have a solid, positive obligation to ensure that those forces are provided with the necessary equipment in order to do their job without requiring them to risk their life/welfare any more than absolutely necessary.

Oh yeah, for the purists, if you don't want your civilians to have to deal with unexploded devices, DON'T pick fights from built up areas.

As to them being bright colors, that is so people with even basic intelligence don't put their hands/feet/face on them. They are designed to stand out, unlike High Explosive Artillery/Mortar/etc. rounds, which are painted olive drab, granted with one or more yellow lines.

They do not cause indiscriminate civilian casualties, as to the need not to be disproportionate to the military outcome (which IS the law), what is proportionate? The nutcases in a village open up with several machine guns at a dismounted Australian "Infantry" unit, what sort of casualties would you regard as "proportionate"? 10%? 20%? 30%?

Imagine for a minute you've just been ambushed passing by a village, by 10+ heavy machine guns firing from the same... Understanding that without using artillery/mortars, your casualty rate is going to be about double (if you're lucky) that if you do? Would you be willing to assault the village knowing you've just condemned several people, friends of yours, to being seriously injured, to having limbs amputated, or even being killed, when you could have done something else?

Please tell me precisely how much thought you are going to put into what "might" happen in 10 years, as opposed to what WILL happen in the next 5-10 minutes? Understand too, your decision is going to have to be quick, or the casualty rate will climb dramatically while you dither.

Also understand, one of the people who doesn't make it home as a consequence of your decision, or lack thereof, might well be you.

Custard is off the point, which is that the Open Letter is on the subject of cluster munitions, and the need to ban their further use. (For further information on the undisputed facts, see my post on Saturday evening). In referring instead to other weapons, Custard shows his lack of understanding of cluster munitions and what they do. The supposed 3% failure rate claimed by the US using these weapons in the Vietnam War was later independently verified at around 30%. That doesn’t mean that they only did one-third of the damage that was expected; it means that one-third of them did not detonate at the time of bombing, but instead have lain there, in the ground or in trees, being detonated randomly and indiscriminately over the years since the bombing of the area. “Randomly” because they were expected to have exploded at the time of bombing, instead of years – often decades – later. “Indiscriminately” because, as de facto landmines, they can be set off by a vehicle, an animal, an adult or a child, or simply by corrosion of the “dodgy” mechanism. This is why I refer to innocent victims, since so many are civilians who had not even been born at the time of conflict. Many came as refugees to re-settle areas after the original population had been killed or forced from the land. Why should they be rewarded for this by the grim legacy of war that goes on killing and maiming, often decades after conflict?

Adelaide, I think it is you who miss the point. While none of us want to see innocents killed, that is not what you were asked.

The question was how many more Ozzie casualties would you be happy accept, to enable you to ban these cluster weapons?

You can answer in a number, or a percentage of the deployed force, but please give a number.

Should my neighbours son, who is there right now, be one of those put in extra danger, & will you come & tell him his son is worth less than some future foreign civilian?

Will you sign up, & go to Afghanistan, to show the way for the others?

See Adelaide, Hasbeen has picked up on the question asked. Banning "effective" weapons systems, based upon past stuff-ups (the USA used landmines extensively in Vietnam, Cambodia as well) is to miss the point.

These weapons systems were designed, primarily, to destroy troop & armour concentrations in Europe and Northern Asia. The only system with "high" numbers of duds, that has been accepted by the US Senate (that I can find) is the MRLS M77 (with up to 23% of some batches being defective as found in studies after "Desert Storm"). Those launchers aren't widely used in present conflict(s), however, they are likely to be utilized in future, high-intensity conflicts. Where the need to stop heavy concentrations of enemy troops/armour rapidly is fairly urgent. What would you have people on the ground do, when those weapons systems are urgently required, wait for them to get delivered from the USA or just die quietly?

The bigger problem is the continued movement toward banning any weapons systems that work, in order to win "brownie points" from such unbiased foreign observers as the UNHCR/UN. That pretty much boils down to anything that works, as is seen repeatedly with the IDF, where for example there are constant investigations into casualties caused by using "smart-bombs" in built up areas, when that is the only effective way to stop extremists using those areas with impunity, in order to SPECIFICALLY target civilians.

Couple that with the statements that "IED's are not covered by treaties", presumably only real weapons systems, utilized by real armies can be so restricted (Hamas/Hezbollah/Talliban/etc. don't really go for inspections or make for enforceable obligations do they?) and the problem becomes apparent.

If the world were perfect, weapons wouldn't be needed at all. The world is a LONG way from perfect and they are needed, generally quickly. Weapons systems that aren't so vital today, might well be lifesavers tomorrow. Short-sighted attempts to get around caveats that acknowledge such realities are dangerous.

Cluster bombs or cluster f...'s . What gets me is that we send our troops over there to try & keep a lid on mayhem yet at the same time we invite many of those idiot troublemakers to live over here.
Go figure ?

Of course Hasbeen and Custard perceive a different point – because they have their own agenda, which they seize every opportunity to push. But these comments are supposed to be on the Open Letter, which is on the topic of cluster munitions and the adequacy of Australia’s legislation to follow through on having signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008.

Hey Custard,
Well Done. I appreciate your comments very much. I don't know why those international dudes want to ban nuclear weapons either. Why not just use nukes and solve the problem completely. All your mates would be saved and everyone could just go home.

By the way, the failure rate on these wonderful modern cluster munitions is up to 30% (based on those found on the ground after use) not the 1% to 2% stated by the manufacturers.
But what the hell, they are only civilians!!

Many well-put points, Adelaide.

By the bye, to the best of my knowledge, cluster munitions haven't been used in Libya, where I would have thought the military strategists would have deemed them appropriate for targeting highly visible and clearly isolated troops and armour.

In fact, I know of no case of their being used by our allies since 2004, at latest. I'd be pleased to be corrected on this one, with facts and accessible sources, of course.

Could it be that the military advantage of cluster munitions is trumped by their propanda liability? (Of course it's always easy to generate propaganda against indiscriminate weapons that kill and maim for decades after a conflict.)

I am awaiting Custard's last stand.

I recall hearing on the News in mid- April that Gaddafi’s troops had fired cluster munitions into residential areas in Misrata; Spanish-produced weapons, as I recall. For further details try Googling ‘Cluster Munition use in Libya’, which brings up a Fact Sheet produced by Human Rights Watch. There are also photos of a submunition casing, a remnant tail section and the lettering on the projectile body, clearly stating: “MAT – 120 Mortar Cargo Bomb 120mm Lot 3-07” (this photo copyright of Misurata Hospital; the others from Human Rights Watch). Or try ‘bomb attacks on Misrata’. There are plenty of references to follow.

The benefit of cluster munitions is when they are used for their designed purpose. The fact they are not being used "CURRENTLY" is due to the fact that we are not engaged in full-scale conflict. They were designed to stop major assaults by the Soviet-Bloc/China/North Korea, those threats have not gone away.

The simple fact that weapons systems are not "currently" used, does not mean they will not be needed. That, I strongly suspect, is the reason for the caveat(s) in the legislation.

The failure rate in several BATCHES of the ammunition, as found during "Desert Storm" topped out at around 23%, that was for MRLS Ammunition. That has been dealt with, apparently, but regardless, the unexploded devices are sufficient to cause area denial, preventing use of the target area.

Then again, that is one type of cluster munition (that had been stored for over a decade, improperly as was conceded), all that says to me is that the contractor should be penalised for providing munitions that don't meet fitness for purpose.

When (not if) we need the support of our allies, using this very type of munition, we will need that assistance immediately. Large scale assaults are of their very nature difficult to stop without the requisite weaponry. This type of weapon system is one of the very few options that some poor b*st*rd may have to rely upon to avoid being overrun (by such patrons of Human Rights as China and North Korea).

Don't like it, perhaps try and introduce legislation to stop these Countries trying to prey upon their neighbours. Otherwise, it may well be your son or daughter (thank god for political correctness) that has to stand their ground without the appropriate weapons.

Thank you for your further opinion, Custard.

Was that your last stand, or are you willing to provide some corroborating evidence for your statements?

Adelaide, I commend you for sharing your considered and informed views.

There is the suggestion from people like custard and hasbeen that by banning the use of cluster bombs we are taking away life saving mechanisms from our own soldiers.

"Banning effective weapons systems means that the people on the ground are left with only ineffective weapons systems." - Custard

"Should my neighbours son, who is there right now, be one of those put in extra danger?" - Hasbeen

This is ridiculous. They make it sound like Australian soldiers throw cluster bombs in the face of their enemies saving themselves from what would otherwise be certain death.

If you want to protect Australian soldiers overseas surely sending them to a land littered by cluster bombs is not a good start. There is no way that Australian soldiers would drop cluster bombs on our own soil...what kind of government would allow their lands to be rendered dangerous and useless for decades to come?

Why would we not use them at home but think it's acceptable to use them abroad?

They are nationalists who need to look at the larger picture.

Custard,

you note that

"The fact [cluster munitions] are not being used "CURRENTLY" is due to the fact that we are not engaged in full-scale conflict. They were designed to stop major assaults by the Soviet-Bloc/China/North Korea, those threats have not gone away."

But Custer, I thought those threats of full-scale conflict were meant to be countered by our Allies' nuclear arsenals, and the sobering effect of reflection, by enemy military strategists, on mutual assured destruction.

Are you now placing cluster munitions and atomic bombs in the same category of last-resort, indiscriminate weapons?

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that one of the signatories in the open letter is former Chief of the Defence Force, Peter Gration...this speaks volumes.