Cluster bombs

Cluster weapons are air dropped or ground launched explosives which break up into hundreds of small bomblets which then scatter over a wide area. They have been controversial for some years now, with human rights groups claiming they are so indiscriminate that no one using them can possibly guarantee that civilians will be spared.

The new proposals on the table at the UN in Geneva are backed by the world's major users and producers of cluster munitions, the United States, Russia, and China, and would ban all weapons produced before 1980.

"The ban on clusters produced before 1980 would immediately prohibit over two million cluster munitions, representing over 100 million sub munitions," said US representative Phillip Spector.

What's more the proposals would outlaw more modern cluster weapons which do not comply with safety guarantees designed to ensure they explode on impact, rather than months or years later when civilians have returned to the area.

NGO skepticism

Perhaps surprisingly, disarmament and human rights groups are firmly against the US proposals.

"It is an awkward position to be in," agrees Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch.

"Usually NGOs are pushing to create new laws that offer increased protection to civilians, but in this case we already have a good law on cluster munitions."

What Goose is referring to is the Oslo convention, which came into force in 2010 and has been signed by 111 countries. It prohibits the production, transfer, and use of cluster weapons, in effect a comprehensive ban which disarmament groups regard as the gold standard.

The problem is, the nations which produce 85 percent of all cluster weapons (the United States, Russia, and China) have not signed the Oslo convention, and say they are never likely to.

The US proposals in Geneva are, Washington insists, the last best chance to get those countries to sign up to at least some controls of their cluster weapons. Approving just the clause to eliminate all clusters produced before 1980 would, the US points out, get rid of more weapons than the Oslo convention has prohibited for all its member states combined.

But these arguments have not calmed the suspicions of human rights groups, who point out that cluster munitions made before 1980 are due for destruction anyway, and the US or Russian military will probably be delighted to replace them with more modern varieties.

What's more, NGOs claim, the proposal to permit some types of cluster munitions will serve to legitimise their use permanently.

"Regrettably, what we are seeing is a kind of back door maneuver by the United States and others to allow them to use most of the cluster munitions in existence today," says Steve Goose.

Shift in standards

A further objection comes from the neutral International Committee of the Red Cross. Peter Herby of the ICRC's legal division warns that introducing new regulations which are weaker than an existing convention could set a dangerous precedent in international humanitarian law.

"If we had a convention that banned torture and then a group of countries couldn't go that far, and wanted to allow certain types of torture it would be pretty shocking," he points out.

For its part the United States seems taken aback by the strength of the opposition. Despite the US's super power status, it is increasingly likely that the proposals will fail: too many UN member states, many of whom have already signed Oslo, are queasy about supporting something they regard as weak and ineffective.

And, many have been moved by Lynn Bradach. She came to Geneva to tell the story of her son Travis, a US marine killed in Iraq by a cluster bomb made, and laid, by his own country.

When Lynn heard of the US offer to immediately destroy millions of ageing cluster weapons, she rejected the idea.

"No," she said firmly, "No I'm sorry, but you have to stop, no more protocols, this is it, Oslo is the standard, I hope my country one day wants to meet that standard. But I don't want the rest of the world coming down to the standard the US has decided to set."

Author: Imogen Foulkes, Geneva
Editor: Rob Mudge