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?