Martin Bell: The UK has no ethical foreign policy if it battles to keep these munitions
Monday, 19 May 2008
This is make-up-your-mind time on cluster munitions. Right to the eve of the Dublin conference, the British Government is arguing with itself. Either it takes the lead, with other and mostly smaller nations, against these engines of death, and consigns them to the outlaw list as it did with anti-personnel mines 10 years ago. Or it continues to hold them in its arsenals. It cannot do both. And if it chooses to keep them, it can bid farewell to the vaunted ethical dimension of its foreign policy.
The killer fact – and for once the phrase is appropriate – is that the cluster bomb is a child killer. I have seen its effects in Kosovo, Iraq and elsewhere. It continues to claim regular casualties in southern Lebanon, where the Israelis rained down supposedly "smart" M85 bomblets in the last three days of the war in 2006. Many did not self-destruct. Yet the M85 remains one of two types still held by the British military. The other is the M73 rocket, fired from Apache helicopters or Harrier jets. The M73 contains nine bomblets. The Ministry of Defence is trying to redefine cluster munitions as weapons delivering 10 or more bomblets. How very convenient. How very cynical.
Most senior military figures I know have no time for cluster munitions, on military as well as humanitarian grounds. A former adjutant general, Lord Ramsbotham, told the House of Lords: "I can find no justification for the deployment of these weapons in any activity the British arms has been involved in since the end of the Cold War."
They are weapons of territory denial which substitute for infantry, but end up endangering the soldiers they are designed to protect. The UK's intervention in Kosovo was casualty-free in military terms, except for the soldiers who risked their lives – and in some cases lost them – trying to clear the unexploded ordnance.
Those deaths were exceptional. In all recent recorded cases of cluster bomb casualties, 98 per cent of the victims were civilians. Two groups are especially at risk: farmers trying to reclaim their fields after a conflict, and children, whose energy and curiosity put them in harm's way. The bomblets' toy-like appearance and bright yellow colour makes them fatally attractive to the young. Boys are extremely vulnerable. Statistics for the war in Iraq are (perhaps deliberately) hard to come by, but cluster munitions were widely used by the British, especially in the initial bombardment in March and April 2003.
When it was over, the 930,000 items of unexploded ordnance in the British sector included 5,800 bomblets, suggesting a high rate of failure.
Cluster munitions are not new. I grew up among them in the Second World War, when they were known as the "butterfly bombs" dropped by the Germans over my native Suffolk. They were weapons of terror then. They are weapons of terror now. They contravene the Geneva Conventions. They are neither more nor less than aerially sown anti-personnel mines. And the world should stigmatise themin exactly the same way.
The Truth That Sticks by Martin Bell is published by Icon, £8.99

Comments
15 Comments
I accompanied Martin Bell to view a new mineclearance machine in Sheffiield in 1997. He struck me as a wise and astute man. So I am taken aback somewhat by this article. Where has he been since 1997? Ethical Foriegn Policy? excuse me, but haven't the UK govt part elected on an 'ethical foriegn policy' ticket in 1997, invaded Iraq based on a tissue of lies to the electorate....promoted hugely unfair EU trading practices, stood by while dictatorships in Zimbabwe and Burma flourish and sustain. So getting rid of cluster weapons is the next move after the landmines ban - in the anti-British liberal self-hate brigades crusade to disarm the country. In the nasty world of International Relations, "Ethical Foriegn Policy" is a classic oxymoron.
Posted by Minekiller | 19.05.08, 15:24 GMT
The choice isn't between keeping cluster bombs and having an "ethical" foreign policy. Actually, neither position is tenable. Cluster bombs are unethical and should go, but what, preciely, is an "ethical" foreign policy?
Posted by NT | 19.05.08, 15:14 GMT
Firstly I blame the brainless and incoherent mandarins of the civil service and secondly I hate NuLabour for dragging this country to one of the lowest points for many a year. All we know is how to kill as Blair and Broon tell us how important their faith is to them. The religous right is already making a grab for power here as it has already achieved in the US.
Posted by Ray W | 19.05.08, 13:26 GMT
Martin Bell is 100% correct. Is it any wonder no-one will vote for Brown when he spouts the words from the sermon on the mount one day and demands access to munitions of death the day after. What sort of mealy mouthed monster is he? Brown may have all the dots on the sheet of paper but it seems he is getting advice from hell on how to join them up.
Posted by John | 19.05.08, 12:37 GMT
Remember the "Ethical Foreign Policy" promised by NuLab?
Cluster bombs kill thousands of innocent men, women and children every year, in many cases decades after the conflicts have ended, and yet our "leaders" CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEIR USE.
Our Government is a bloody disgrace in every sense of the word.
Posted by Guy Cavendish | 19.05.08, 11:26 GMT
CLEARLEY WE ARE DOING THE BIDING FOR THE AMRICANS BECOUSE THEY ARE NOT SIGITURES TO UNHRC AND THERE FOR CAN NOT TAKE PART IN THE MEETINGS.
Posted by Faiz | 19.05.08, 11:17 GMT
Once again, our government puts the interests of the US military and the arms industry ahead of our national interest (and in this case the interests of our own armed forces) . Which begs the question - who is REALLY in charge here? In another time, such blatant subservience to a foreign government and a small, but highly influential lobby group might have been seen as treason...
Posted by Tom | 19.05.08, 10:23 GMT
if our armed forces simply fullfilled there natural role of defending our realm instead of interfering with the affairs of other nations we would not need to stock such weapons in the first place. this prompts the question-of who is in charge of our foreign policy? the united states and her special allies or our elected officials?
Posted by pauline russell | 19.05.08, 10:20 GMT
I hate our government.
Posted by Kate | 19.05.08, 09:34 GMT
Hilda is quite correct, when she says we are "morally bankrupt". We produce cluster bombs, depleted uranium ordnance, phosphorous shells. Who are the real terrorists in the World?
All of the above cause death and injury to civilian populations, they are terror weapons far more obscene than a suicide bomber, because billions has gone into their development, and their destructive powers are known by all.
Posted by AndyUK | 19.05.08, 08:33 GMT
15 Comments