The central mystery of the modern state is this: The necessary resources, both economic and political, will always be found for the purpose of terminating life.
The project of preserving it will always be a struggle. When did you last see a soldier shaking a can for a new rifle, or a sponsored marathon raising money for nuclear weapons? But we must beg and cajole each other for funds whenever a hospital wants a new dialysis machine.
If the money and determination expended on waging war with Iraq had been used to tackle climate change, our carbon emissions would already be in free fall. If as much money were spent on foreign aid as on fighter planes, no one would ever go hungry.
When the state was run by warrior kings, this was comprehensible -- they owed their existence to overwhelming force. Now weapons budgets and foreign wars are, if anything, an electoral liability. But the pattern has never been broken.
In Geneva on Tuesday, at the new review of the conventional weapons treaty, the British government used the full force of its diplomacy to ensure that civilians continue to be killed -- by blocking a ban on the use of cluster bombs. Sweden, supported by Austria, Mexico and New Zealand, has proposed a convention making their deployment illegal, like the Ottawa treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. But the UK, working with the US, China and Russia, spent the past week trying to prevent negotiations from being opened at all.
UNSURPRISING
Perhaps this was unsurprising. Most of the cluster bombs dropped during the past 40 years have been delivered by Britain's two principal allies -- the US and Israel -- in the "war on terror." And the UK used hundreds of thousands of them during the two Gulf wars.
Cluster munitions are tiny bombs -- generally about the size of a soft-drink can -- packed inside bigger bombs or artillery shells. They scatter over several hectares and are meant to destroy tanks and planes and to wipe out anti-aircraft positions. There are two particular problems with them.
The first is that the bombs, being widely dispersed, cannot be accurately targeted. The second is that many of them don't detonate when they hit the ground. Officially, cluster bombs have a failure rate of between 5 percent and 7 percent. In reality it's much higher. Between 20 percent and 25 percent of the cluster munitions NATO forces dropped during the Kosovo conflict failed to go off when they landed. The failure rate of the bombs dropped by the US in Indochina was roughly 30 percent. Of the cluster bombs that Israel scattered over Lebanon, 40 percent did not detonate.
The unexploded bombs then sit and wait to be defused -- leg by human leg. They are as devastating to civilian populations as landmines, or possibly worse, because far more of them have been dropped.
Even 30 years or more after they land -- as the people of Vietnam and Laos know -- they can still be detonated by the slightest concussion.
A report published last week by the independent organization Handicap International estimates that around 100,000 people have been killed or wounded by cluster bombs.
Of the known casualties, 98 percent are civilians. Most of them are hit when farming, walking by or clearing the rubble where their homes used to be. Many of the victims are children, partly because the bombs look like toys. Handicap's report tells terrible and heartbreaking stories of children finding these munitions and playing catch with them, or using them as boules or marbles. Those who survive are often blinded, lose limbs or suffer horrible abdominal injuries.
Among the case histories in the report is that of a family in Kosovo who went to swim in a lake a few kilometers from their village. One of the children, a six-year-old called Adnan, found a metal can on the bank and showed it to his family. It exploded. His father and older brother were killed and Adnan was gravely wounded. His sister later returned to the lake to collect the family's belongings, stepped on another NATO cluster bomb and was killed.
The economic effects of cluster bombs can also be deadly. Like landmines, they render agricultural areas useless because of the risk of detonation while ploughing or harvesting. In some parts of Lebanon the fields have remained unharvested this year. Cluster bombs dropped on to the rubble of Lebanese towns have made reconstruction slow and dangerous.
MIND-BOGGLING
The number of cluster bombs deployed is mind-boggling. The US Air Force released 19 million over Cambodia, 70 million in Vietnam and 208 million in Laos. Over much shorter periods, the US and the UK dropped some 54 million cluster bombs on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War and around 2 million during the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Israel scattered 4 million cluster bombs over Lebanon during its latest invasion earlier this year -- almost all of them during the final 72 hours. It looked like revenge, or -- like its deliberate bombing of the Jiyeh power plant, causing a massive oil spill -- an attempt to cripple Lebanon's economy. Since the invasion, more than two Lebanese civilians have been blown up by cluster bombs each day on average.
The only other nation which has used cluster bombs extensively since World War II is Russia, which dropped large quantities in Afghanistan and scatters them in Chechnya, sometimes deliberately bombing market places and other civilian targets. Apart from that they've been deployed in small numbers by Sudan, Libya, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Serb forces, Hezbollah and warring factions in Tajikistan.
These weapons are arguably already illegal. A protocol to the Geneva conventions prohibits attacks which "are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction" and "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."
I think 98 percent would be a fair definition of "excessive."
But their deployment will continue until there is a specific treaty banning them. It's clear the US and UK governments know their use is wrong.
Handicap International reports that the Coalition Provisional Authority -- the administration set up by the US to govern Iraq in 2003 -- "strongly discouraged casualty data collection, especially in relation to cluster submunitions."
During a debate in the UK House of Lords last month, the British Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, made such a feeble show of justifying their use that you couldn't help suspecting he was batting for the other side. The only justification he could find was that, unlike landmines, cluster bombs are not intended to lie around undetonated.
Last Sunday, a letter sent to the British Defence Minister Des Browne by the UK's international development secretary, Hilary Benn, was leaked to the press.
He argued that "cluster munitions have a very serious humanitarian impact, pushing at the boundaries of international humanitarian law. It is difficult then to see how we can hold so prominent a position against landmines, yet somehow continue to advocate that use of cluster munitions is acceptable."
But Benn appears to be alone. The foreign office maintains that "existing humanitarian law is sufficient for the conduct of military operations, including the use of cluster munitions, and no treaty is required."
The UK seems unable to break its habit of killing.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS