| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Allied use of cluster bombs illegal, minister admits |
| 2003-05-30 |
| The Government admitted during the war on Iraq that the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets would "not be legal." Anti-landmine charities claimed last night that the letter by Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, proved that the Ministry of Defence had broken international law by using the munitions in towns and cities. Mr Ingram admitted for the first time yesterday that cluster bombs were dropped on "built-up areas" in Iraq in an attempt to protect British servicemen. After initially denying the charge in an interview with the BBC, the minister said the unguided weapons, which release hundreds of bomblets, were used "in specific circumstances where there is a threat to our troops". Seems like a good idea to me. But on 25 March, five days after the conflict began, Mr Ingram responded on behalf of Tony Blair to the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund to set out the Government's position on the weapons. Mr Ingram stressed that the British armed forces strove to act in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. "It is clear that when we apply these principles there will be occasions when the use of cluster bombs against certain targets would not be legal," he wrote. "There will be occasions when the use of other munitions would be legal but the use of cluster bombs would not." This would be the Geneva Conventions from the mid 1970's and not the 1948-9 convention. The Brits signed the ones from the 70's, the US did not. Richard Lloyd, director of the charity Landmine Action, said the letter, with yesterday's admission, proved the Geneva Conventions were knowingly breached. "Mr Ingram has admitted the Government acted outside the law," he said. The GC from the 70's does not ban cluster bombs per se, and it's a big stretch by the loonies to claim that it does. It's what Steve DenBeste scornfully calls "emerging international law." |
| Posted by:Steve White |
#8 with yesterday's admission, proved the Geneva Conventions were knowingly breached. "Mr Ingram has admitted the Government acted outside the law," he said. So? |
| Posted by: Celissa 2003-05-30 18:11:19 |
| #7 Actually a percentage of the submunitions in a CBU are normally set with a time delay. If I recall correctly that can be up to 12 hours. (Don't bet the farm on that number) Consider a prime target for a CBU, an artillery battery. The submunitions won't, except as a matter of pure luck, destroy the gun tubes. Instead they blow up the ready ammo and hash up the cannon cockers. The delayed fuse submunitions then make it difficult and dangerous to salvage the tubes and put them back in use. That's a good thing. CBUs are not particularly well suited for destroying targets in a city setting, the bomblets are too small to take down a building and you can't aim the individual bomblets. They are an area weapon. I would submit that the only way a CBU would be used in an urban warfare setting would be to close the streets. |
| Posted by: Peter 2003-05-30 13:00:23 |
| #6 What's Landmine Action's position on Palestinian human bombs or hijacked civilian airliner missiles? Did they send pissy little letters to Yasshole and Binny protesting that? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-05-30 12:33:00 |
| #5 Douglas De Bono, the problem with cluster bombs is that they do not always explode on impact and then act sort of like mines. They need to ensure that the bombs explode when they are suppossed to, not remove the bombs from the arsenal. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-05-30 11:46:57 |
| #4 They're lucky it was Tommy Franks in charge and not me. Fallujah would be a smoking hole in the ground 12 hours after a "get out of town - it's time to pay the price, you Baathist a**holes" broadcast |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-05-30 08:57:26 |
| #3 Show me the casualties. |
| Posted by: Anomalus 2003-05-30 07:21:09 |
| #2 To me the whole concept that one kind of bomb the goes KABOOM is more legal than another bomb that goes KABOOM is nonsense. I don't care what we used as long as we killed the bad guys and minimized losses to the good guys. Cluster bombs are a highly effective munition. I am not so naive as too say they never landed on civilian targets, but I would suggest the United States took great pains to minimize civilian casualties at the risk of their forces. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-05-30 07:01:31 |
| #1 The text of the report does not support the headline. The Minister does not 'admit' to illegal use of cluster bombs. Also if the USA did not sign the relevant treaty then the Aliied part of the heading is clearly misleading. Sticking to the facts is not a strong point of the Independent. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2003-05-30 00:59:53 |