In 2008, Australia signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, an international legal instrument that bans the use, production and stockpiling of cluster bombs: indiscriminate weapons that cause suffering and casualties to civilian populations.

This is what success looks like for a cluster bomb… Picture: AFP

This week, the Senate passed national legislation to ratify the Convention that stands in direct contrast to the spirit of the treaty, which was established to “unequivocally, and for all time, end the suffering caused by cluster munitions”.

The Cluster Munitions Prohibition Bill allows cluster munitions to be stockpiled on Australian soil and Australian troops to assist in all aspects of the weapon’s future use.

The Bill’s “interoperability” provisions allow Australia to continue full cooperation with its military allies who have not joined the Convention. Australian defence forces will be free to assist in the use of cluster bombs in every way. The only thing that the legislation prevents them from doing, when collaborating in bombing missions, is actually pushing the button.

Weak jurisdiction provisions in the Bill will allow Australian allies to stockpile their cluster munitions on Australian soil, and to use Australian resources to transfer them. The Bill reads:

“Section 72.38 [which lists the criminal offences under the Bill] does not apply to the stockpiling, retention or transfer of a cluster munition that is done by a member of the armed forces of a foreign country that is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions…”

And herein lies the crux of it: our very favourite ally is not among the 111 states that have signed the Convention and has clearly indicated that it does not intend to become so in the near future. Does allowing our dear friend, the United States, to fully utilize – and perhaps even rely on - Australian resources in their use of cluster munitions really amount to an unequivocal ban of the weapon on our part?

Australia spends a significant amount of international aid on Mine Action—which includes the clearance of unexploded cluster bombs and victim assistance for those who have had accidents with them.

The government is currently halfway through the implementation of a four-year $100 million international Mine Action strategy to “reduce the threat and socioeconomic impact” of landmines, cluster munitions, and other explosive remnants of war.

This money, like Australia’s signature to the Convention, constitutes a pledge to the rest of the world of our commitment to eradicating these munitions and their impediment to the socioeconomic development of developing countries.

Given these apparent inconsistencies, we have to question: What is our real position on cluster munitions?

Are we unequivocally opposed to them and the harm that they cause, as our aid and our signature to the Convention suggest? Or do we believe that our obligation to support the military activities of our allies takes precedence over our commitment to human rights?

Australia is fond of the moral high ground in the international arena. We like to make sweeping egalitarian gestures and cast our largesse upon our less well-provisioned neighbours. But how deep does this go?

We will stand as a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, in the attractive glow of humanitarianism. But our ratification of it ensures that we need not compromise our support of the USA. Incredibly, the legislation with which we will ratify the Convention actually makes provision to facilitate the use of these very cluster munitions in as yet unforeseen conflicts.

Moral double dipping, to say the least. This legislation abolishes all hope that Australia will honour its commitment to banning cluster bombs.

The Cluster Munitions Prohibition Bill is an indictment of the Australian government’s hypocrisy and moral ambiguity. It is an exercise in legislative fancy footwork to curry favour with the USA while maintaining our putative international image as one of the good guys. And tragically, human rights are once again the victim of moral expediency.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

25 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      06:19am | 25/08/12

      ‘Australia is fond of the moral high ground in the international arena. We like to make sweeping egalitarian gestures and cast our largesse upon our less well-provisioned neighbours. But how deep does this go?’

      White phosphorus shell ?

    • Fiddler says:

      11:48am | 25/08/12

      as a former RAA officer I can say then WP is an invaluable tool for marking targets, deploying smokescreens and incendiary against equipment. We don’t use it against personnel or in built up areas.

      Of course there is the likelihood that it will come into contact with enemy troops if used but lets face it, war is a dirty business.

    • Jaz says:

      08:05am | 25/08/12

      And the Australian population will not blink an eye, we are to distracted by tabloid rubbish to care that our country’s foreign policy and democracy is completely subservient to the U.S. And we are to removed from the suffering that these weapons cause to feel empathy for the lives that are ruined by them.
      I don’t understand why it is a war crime if a group of soldiers round up a village and take to every man woman and child in that village the with a flame thrower because some of them might be terrorists but if you do it from 50 thousand feet with a drone that is perfectly acceptable.

    • John says:

      12:14pm | 25/08/12

      If you were to describe democracy in computer terms, it would be a virus, Trojan’s inside a computer (country) with all the ports and backdoors open to infect it and to be taken over by the parasite (hacker). All credit taken stolen and protection mechanic’s make the virus more complex and self replicating. All security systems, get undermined and weaken (culture) in order for the virus to maintain total control.

      Another way to describe a democracy is leave you all your windows and doors opened, go on holiday and come back to see your home (country) infested by illegals, sqautors, all you stuff stolen, your house destroyed, you credit cards all maxed out by illegal squatters. Also have few gangs, crimnals operating from your house,(country) their criminal activities. Democracy! the castle gates are opened, there is now law, all the scum of the earth will pour in to loot and defile it.

      The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that democracy allows the best cunning dictator group to rule.

    • marley says:

      01:37pm | 25/08/12

      @John - well, I have to give you an A for Absolute Lack of Logic in that argument. 

      You claim that a democracy leaves things wide open to be stolen by outsiders. I assume that means you would prefer the protections of a more authoritarian system of government.

      But at the same time, you say that a democracy is really just a dictatorship with better quality dictators.

      So, according to your own logic, if we’re the same as a dictatorship but with more competent tyrants, we should be better able than they are to fend off those thieving foreigners.  So what’s your concern?

    • John says:

      03:17pm | 25/08/12

      marley

      You fail to see what’s going on around you, western nations are no longer nations, their national media are now owned by internationalists groups, governments now serve internationalist interests we no longer control our own economy, not even allowed to create our own money. Nationalism is anti-marketed, while internationalism is marketed.

      You might look back at totalitarian regimes, but these regimes might not have had all the answers, but at-least they protected and pushed for the interests of their nation. These groups in time were taken down and replaced with democratic movements, which lead to internationalists groups to come in to buyout the media, politics’s, politicans and finance. There never was any real democracy, it was just propaganda to topple the other leaders and to replace them with more organized internationalists totalitarianism, who care nothing for the nation that control.

      The same thing happened with communism, they preached it, toppled the czar, who funded Trotsky? International Banking Cartel. Then Stalin came along and opposed Trotsky and international banking cartel pulled the pull on Stalin. When soviet union collapsed, they tried again, then Putin came along and soiled their vulture feast.

      This is totalitarianism, international totalitarianism. They are creating powerful dictatorial international body that feed’s off the wealth of all nations that occupy and control. They are dividing and weakening all nations and people’s.

      The WEST is under total occupation, it’s biggest authoritarian dictatorial regime on this planet. Look at the capitalistic structure on company’s and cooperation’s, who runs the show? The CEO! He doesn’t place company decisions on thousands of employee’s, his decisions on based on his individual interest.

      You think the western governments follow the interests of mass’s who have no power or wealth, or do they follow the interests of those who own the media, banks and politics? You have a society where the mass’s are put into perpetual debt. They keep on feeding and making the upper class’s more and more powerful. Even the middle class has been targeted by the elite. It’s going go back to Trotsky days, one class, and one party. The one class will be poor divided weak herd of people. This is where the west is heading to because it embraced Democracy. Democracy just makes it easier to subvert and hijacked a nation by internationalists groups.

      You underestimate the elite, their intellectual, their wealth, their power. You have no idea how powerful and influential they are.

    • marley says:

      07:37pm | 25/08/12

      @John - umm, I pointed out a total failure of logic in your argument, and you haven’t addressed it.  If you aren’t capable of making a rational defence of your own statements, why on earth should I give credibility to anything you say?

    • thatmosis says:

      08:07am | 25/08/12

      Lets face facts, there are no real rules in warfare, its kill or be killed and any means that will make the enemy surrender is applicable even if it means collateral damage like civilians.
        This has never been more apparent than in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2 where the most horrendous weapon known to man was used to wipe out hundreds of thousands of civilians to put an end to the war.
        If there is a weapon that will do the job then it will be used and no amount of treaties or moral high ground is going to stop it. Its just the way it is and you either live with it or go under.

    • pa_kelvin says:

      12:19pm | 25/08/12

      A right cluster f#&k…....... Some-one had to say it. smile

    • DOB says:

      01:26pm | 25/08/12

      Thats nonsense. You may be unaware of this but every type of modern war - even the dirtiest going - is highly regulated. For example it is impossible to buy any high powered cartridge ammunition that is not full copper jacketed. It is easier to manufacture unjacketed ammunition but that is illegal for any type of relevant weapon. Manufacturers do not manufacture such ammunition simply becuase it is illegal and if they did they wouldnt be able to sell anything else.

      The Geneva conventions are encyclopedic on this stuff - and the use of legal weapons is also heavily controlled under the conventions. This is why miltary lawyers are deployed to warzones.

      Cluster ammunitions are one of the last exceptions and everyone - except the americans - recognizes that they have to go.

      You are simply ignorant of the salient facts.

    • youdy beaudy says:

      08:54am | 25/08/12

      If there were decent human beings involved in all this then it would be surely a different situation. Why do we have to suck hole to the Americans all the time. Their evil regime has caused enormous troubles around the world and it has been going on since the last war.

      Message for the Americans. Get your Army out of our country troublemakers. We thought it might be a good idea to let you build your base in the NT but typically it will be misused and we are the suckers again.

      When is the world going to wake up. America is bankrupt and it is probably because they have been warring around the world and causing trouble, stirring the masses. I can’t recall any world style election happening where the American Military or their President, whoever that might be at the time, being voted in by all of the countries as their Leaders. They push their way around and muddy the landscape.

      Well, they have lots of bombs and are developing more and they need wars to try them out. It is obvious that that would be true. The mongrel George Bush, Howard and Blair did their best to try out their bombs on Iraq and killed 500,000 innocent citizens and nothing was done to them in the international courts as regarding human rights violations. If it had been the other side, you know the ones, then they would have been tried in the hague or elsewhere for crimes against humanity. Alexander Downer said the other day that no inquirey was necessary over Iraq and the murders there. Well, there should and it should be thorough. Bombs kill people and it is about time that we practiced peace in what is left of this world.

      As far as i’m concerned and going on the results in Iraq and the illegal war that was raged on the Iraquis i say that Howard , Blair and Bush are guilty of crimes against humanity and should be tried in an international court which is what is done to the other side. It’s amazing how we get away with this all the time. And the Americans should take their cluster bombs and whatever else they are going to hide in our country without the public opinion being consulted and go home and muddy their own backyard. Aren’t we sick of all this warmongering yet?. The americans are master manipulators and can’t be trusted. They should go asap.!

    • Muggles says:

      11:49am | 25/08/12

      “Bombs kill people and it is about time that we practiced peace in what is left of this world.”

      Fine. But do you have any practical suggestions?

      Right now, Iran is installing centrifuges at a rapid rate, in bunkered chambers, spread across remote desert areas, surrounded by SAM defences. Their nuclear program has been hidden and repeatedly blocked from UN inspectors, despite Iran claiming the program is for a civilian power system.

      Please tell us how your “practising of peace” will ensure that:

      1) Iran—a military-run theocracy with a history of threatening exterminating its neighbours—will not get access to nuclear weapons, and

      2) Iran will not use those nuclear weapons to attack Israel, in its attempts to become the regional super-power?

      (Keep in mind that any attack on Israel would result in the nuclear destruction of Tehran. Tens of millions would die almost immediately, and hundreds of millions would die or be permanently affected in the aftermath. But then, rationality isn’t a theocratic strongpoint.)

      Unless you have some REAL-WORLD answers to these questions, your anti-American rant means little more than all the other anti-American rants that we see every day.

      Banging on about the nasty yanks is easy and fashionable. It takes zero effort. But don’t pretend it will solve anything.

    • stephen says:

      08:58am | 25/08/12

      Has Assad got these, or chemical weapons.
      I know which of the 2 are the more serious.

    • John says:

      10:13am | 25/08/12

      Humans rights violations are great justification for war and genocide. UN council votes also moralizes death, genocide and destruction.  Look at what happened with Libya, when US, UK, France and the 7 other third world country’s who most likely go paided to vote. Their vote caused 20,000+ plus deaths, spilled blood all over the hands of the French, US and UK.

      The western media even had like 7 day blackout on the war in order to control descent, then after the 7 days they propagandized the war. The West military seems be a form of mercenary’s force serving the interests of cold blooded financial elite who see humanity on a whole including their duped western mercenary’s soldiers as nothing more then excrement.

    • John says:

      11:44am | 25/08/12

      When the west’s condemns Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Germany, Syria, Iran the population’s don’t even wash their hands of the coming slaughter. The western politicians are worse as they are quick to dig their hands into the bloody corpse and the western media celebrates such immoral deeds.

    • Yasemin says:

      10:09am | 25/08/12

      Russia is evil because it is trading arms with Syria & the Syrian Government is using these against armed civilians who don’t quite represent what we stand for! What will we say in the future when Israel openly & defiantly once again uses white phosphorus bombs in 1 of the worlds most densely populated area Gaza? I believe the USA, GB, Australia etc. went to war in Iraq to find these bombs & to noones surprise there was non!

    • John says:

      11:59am | 25/08/12

      What do you expect, it’s all lies, the 9/11 story is also utterly baloney. It nothing more then false flag operation in order to target the America mass conciseness to support the invasion and occupation of the middleast. Who benefited from such an act? The financial elite who rule America. It’s no surprise that so called terror leader osama bin laden is dead and lying at bottom of the Atlantic ocean (I don’t believe it) and the west still has troops in Afghanistan, and more justification for the occupation on the so called Taliban and how we need to maintain a presence to maintain a bullshit democracy.

      They are there to maintain long term presence, you could add Iran as one of the reasons, oil reasons and maybe culture reasons to maybe try subdue the population and bring them into western empire where they can be easily managed and controlled with excessive debt coming from international banker printing press’s, also using the corrupt sellouts as their agents in the middleast.

    • Craig says:

      10:48am | 25/08/12

      The Senate has not gone far enough!

      Giving foreign nationals the right to store and transport cluster munitions in Australia and to deploy them with the assistance of our armed forces is an insult to the Australian people.

      We demand the right to store and transport cluster munitions ourselves, to share in this profitable arms trade currently being monopolised by our US ally.

      Indeed, Australian families demand the right to store their own cluster munitions, to build their own stockpiles in our homes, our schools, our hospitals and in our aged care facilities.

      No Australian child should live without cluster munitions, they should have the same right to lose their limbs, eyes and lives as children in third world countries supported by our US allies.

      Our communities deserve the right to see their loved ones die in agony through these explosive devices, to have their houses and livelihoods destroyed and to have their land salted with thousands of unexploded bombs, waiting for the next vehicle, plow or curious child to activate one by accident.

      After all, this is only fair. If Australia’s government supports the use of these devices overseas then they should equally support their domestic use as well.

      Our parliamentarians need to realise that the eyes of all Australia are on them to if they will do the right thing - at least until most of these eyes have been blinded by shrapnel from exploding cluster munitions.

    • Yak says:

      11:31am | 25/08/12

      Excellent post Craig.

      Succinct and sarcastic, just the way I like it.

    • Yak says:

      11:27am | 25/08/12

      Good article Holly. Thank you.

      These indiscriminate killing weapons should not be on Australian soil. Maintain the rage.

      I find it incredulous that these devices are the same colour as UN food aid packages. Someone must have made a conscious decision to colour them that way. That in its self should be a war crime.

    • Anjuli says:

      11:32am | 25/08/12

      Australia has lost the plot, who on earth would sanction the storage of these weapons after seeing what they do once the wartime situation has finished in the countries these have been used on.
      Not only do we allow this to happen but we give millions which we have to borrow , to a country who are buying billion of dollars worth of fighter jets ,which country Pakistan.

    • the cynic says:

      02:03pm | 25/08/12

      Anjuli They do no more or no less than the same amount of carnage that some raghead does when he or she walks into a crowded place somewhere that is not in a a war zone and blows themselves and heaps of innocents to bits. I don’t care a rats that cluster bombs are used. The end result is all that matters. If they work use them if not make them more lethal. In the end he who has the biggest box of tricks wins.

    • Muggles says:

      11:34am | 25/08/12

      ” ... hypocrisy and moral ambiguity. “

      Oh, my.

      Let me help you out on the “hypocrisy and moral ambiguity stuff”.

      Some advocates of weapon prohibition are genuinely interested in the welfare of innocents during war.  Some even know what they’re talking about.

      But many advocates hold partisan or ideological views; only willing to single out specific weapons when used by specific parties.

      You can tell these apart from the garden-variety anti-war hippies, because the partisans are usually very critical of the US and its allies But they’re very quiet or circumspect when it comes to attacking other powers.

      Wearing a “no-cluster-bombs” button on your lapel does not mean you know anything about warfare. Or even that you care about people.

      Seen anyone wear a “No Katyusha Rockets” badge?  Or “No AK47s”?  Of course you haven’t; the US doesn’t use either weapon.

      Ideally, yes, cluster bombs should not be used.  But in the real world, it makes NO sense to single out cluster bombs, given the nature of modern conflicts, and the nature of weapons used.

      In the real world, combatants will launch attacks from within CIVILIAN centres, and will use civilians as human shields.  They will deliberately use OUR sense of ethics against US.

      One example: in 1996, Hezbollah launched 4000 (Iranian-supplied) rockets against Israel, from Southern Lebanon.  Their targets were indiscriminate:  the townships and farming communities of Northern Israel.  True to form, Hezbollah operated from within dense population centres, and fired their weapons from apartment blocks. They even stationed missile launchers next to hospitals and schools.

      This was done to:

      1) Help prevent retaliation from an Israeli military concerned at the loss of innocent life (and wary of international scorn),

      2) Enrage the Lebanese through the loss of innocent life, helping to push them to (marginal) Hezbollah political positions.

      3) Provide propaganda tools. The massacre of innocents could and would be broadcast on Al Jazeera, the BBC, ABC and other suitable/friendly media organisations.

      In response, Israel bombarded Southern Lebanon’s infrastructure, launched about 2000 cluster bombs, and used white phosphorous.

      There was an enormous “outrage” by all the usual suspects against the use of such weapons. How dare Israel!  War criminals!

      BUT… where was the outrage against Hezbollah?  Who attacked Hezbollah’s murderous tactics?  The political and media outrage was overwhelmingly directed against Israel.

      For every media shot of Israeli children hunkered down in their bomb shelters, day after day, night after night, there were a hundred shots of Lebanese children on stretchers, bombed buildings. Some in slow motion, with moody music.  Nightly, the ABC showed BBC feeds deploring the violence, calling an end to hostilities (without examining the causes or proposing a workable solution), and generally slamming Israel’s actions.  The direct role of Iran and Syria in the violence, and their aims, was glossed over, if mentioned at all.

      The message was clear:  cluster bombs and white phosphorous (when used by Israelis) is bad, but attacking civilians with rockets is acceptable (or least nothing to really get in to a huff about., particularly when they’re used against Israel.)

      Not even “morally ambiguous”. Just plain old “immoral”.


      So, Holly,  if you’re REALLY interested in the horrors of war and mass destruction, then you should be arguing against Iran’s weapon program.  RIGHT NOW.

      Because that horror is coming, and soon, unless Iran can be convinced to change course.  And if it’s good enough for you to moralise about cluster bombs, it’s good enough for you to campaign against a belligerent, repressive state that REPEATEDLY THREATENS the very existence of another race of people.

      So how about it, Holly?  Add your voice to a cause that REALLY MATTERS. It’s easy to bitch and moan about the nasty old US.  But how about putting your voice to something that is not only urgent, but which could affect millions of people directly, and many millions more indirectly?

      To put it in terms you can understand, Holly, “you’re either against mass destruction or you’re not”.

      Which is it?

    • jaz says:

      01:20pm | 25/08/12

      As citizens of our country we cannot have an impact on how other nations let alone terrorist organisations conduct themselves in war, but we can stand up and say how we will conduct ourselves. We can chose to be better than the likes of Hezbolla, in which case we need to be vigilant against the darkest elements of war and speak out when we are crossing the line of acceptable conduct, or we can throw our hands up and say war is war and bad things happen. Which is what Japan has said to justify the atrocities committed by the Japanese army in world war 2. I think we are better than Hezbola or the Japanese army in WW2.
      The Idea that if the enemy are using unethical tactics and killing civilians indiscriminately then we have to shut up when we do the same is childish. Also the article didn’t mention Israel or the conflict there it is about Australias hypocrisy on the issue .

    • the cynic says:

      02:26pm | 25/08/12

      “Also the article didn’t mention Israel or the conflict there it is about Australias hypocrisy on the issue ”  Australia allowing the weapons to be stored here is beside the point . Herein does the hipocrisy lie. If the cluster bombs belonged to the Taliban or any of the hundreds of drop kicks around the world other than an allie of ours would these so outraged people be directing their venom towards those groups.  Of course not.  Australia is dead against whaling but do we stop trading with Japan or do we ban their ships from berthing in this country? NO. Just because we are against a certain practice doesn’t make one a hipocrit if we still accommodate another nations beliefs and practices. Bugger me look at the UN, nobody cares less about their lack of intestinal fortitude, lack of moral convictions and blatant hipocricy. If the loudmouth anti everything US brigade here had half a brain they would be condemming the UN.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @andrewjbutcher: I hope I never agree to write a press release with a first par as full of nonsensical spin as this one from Ford. http:…

Lucy Kippist

RT @sarahvmac: In session about Women's fiction at @SydWritersFest w @overingtonc Publishers say it not taken seriously but it's up to 70% …

Paul Colgan

HSBC's China Flash PMI hits a seven-month low... http://t.co/nOpQv9GtUB

Lucy Kippist

RT @victoria_craw: Government will allocate $30 million to fund to help communities, calls on #Ford to make substantial donation http://t.c…

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter