12 Nov Welcome Protocol V and Let the Bomb “Cleaning” Begin!
Today, Protocol V to the Convention on Conventional Weapons enters into force. The Protocol on the Explosive Remnants of War requires members states to “mark and clear, remove or destroy explosive remnants of war in affected territories under its control.” Its obligations are phrased somewhat too broadly for some advocates’ taste (see the Human Rights Watch take on it here). But it seems fairly uncontroversial and President Bush sent it to the Senate for ratification back in June.
The body that adopted Protocol V, the Review Session of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, has more on its plate, however, than bomb-cleaning. This week, it is meeting in Geneva and advocates are now calling on the to consider further protocols limiting or eliminating the use of cluster bombs. This is facing much stiffer opposition than Protocol V, however, especially from the United States. The U.S. is currently pushing its preferred Protocol, which would impose new prohibitions on anti-vehicle mines. I don’t know all the arguments, not knowing much about these types of weapons, but it does strike me that the U.S. support for this prohibition on anti-vehicle mines opens the door to others to push for prohibitions on cluster munitions – both seem to have lots of post-conflict effects. But maybe I’m missing something.
I really don’t agree… a anti-vehicle mine is designed so as not to be set off accidentally by pedestrians, be it a soldier or farmer. They’re generally shaped charges designed to penetrate armored vehicles, and thus relatively ineffective against troops (Although triggering one at point blank would undoubtedly lead to immediate death.)
AVMs are often distributed with anti-personel mines to keep the enemy from disabling them. This measure doesn’t seem to address that, but instead bans making the mine automatically detonate when magnetically detected or tampered with. In addition, it bans fuzes that would possibly detonate from pedestrians.
So, basically, they’re trying to make AVMs less likely to kill civilians. Which is nice, but they’re not what kill or maim the vast majority of civilians to begin with.
Exactly, I think better controls on anti-personnel mines would be a higher priority.
Cluster munitions are quite an issue. There was a fascinating conversation on The Thinking Lebanese between an IDF artilleryman and a Lebanese doc who’d worked in villages where civilians had been wounded by cluster UXBs. Assuming both parties were honest, and they struck me that way, it appears that cluster shells may not work as designed in rough terrrain. The behavior of the shells as described by the artilleryman should not have led to the spread of UXBs described by the doc, even in rough terrain. I think the actual behavior of cluster munitions in realistic use case mockups needs to be studied more closely. The cluster munitions the US defends may not be the cluster munitions that actually exist.