India’s Pride has been opened for everyone now
12 Jun 2011 Leave a Comment
Due to some technical difficulties this page was prohibited but it is now opened for everyone. Please check it now. Thank you.
UPA Government : Synonym To Corruption, Shamelessness And Sleekness
12 Jun 2011 Leave a Comment
What was done in Ramlila Ground in Delhi is in no way can be said Democracy. Brutally beaten children, women, senior citizens, and most of all, those 125700 people whose fathers and grandfathers have been fought against the Britishers at a time to free India were all evident that we are still slaves of those so called leaders who are playing with the future of India and still want to be parasites. Personally i have a very deep sympathy for all those people and Baba Ramdeo who tried to brought back the black money which is the sole property of every Indian. We have chosen this government and i don’t think that it was the right decision because all leaders in this so-called government are none but just parasites who know the best way to suck the blood of Indian Nation and its offspring. This UPA government has crossed each and every limit in corruption, brutal suppression of its own people, buttering stronger countries and forcibly handing over the land from poor peasants. If Mahatma Gandhi could be alive today than by looking it he would have been died again.
What is the crime of Baba Ramdeo? He is not asking the government to bring the money back to give it to Patanjali Yoga Trust. Neither he wants to redistribute it to those who are not in possession. He just wants to bring this black money back so that it can be declared as the “National Property”. And while Baba is on satyagraha without putting a single piece of bread in his mouth, the government officials are biting the feast in royal buildings and five-star hotels. Where is Rahul Gandhi now who started a fake campaign against U.P. Government by doing so. Where is the Rahul Gandhi, who tries to show him as the leader and messiah of the depressed. No one can be declared a good leader by popularity stunts such as to eat with poor and to get between the people without security. Real sympathy and a feeling of brotherhood for our own people is necessary for that which is nowhere in Rahul Gandhi. Brutal opression at Ramlila Ground by UPA government shows that most of all persons related directly and indirectly to this government are corrupt and have the black money themselves.
Manmohan Singh : A puppet and Slave of Sonia Italian Gandhi
According to Sudarshan Kumar Kapoor One is reminded of an anecdote concerning Giani Zail Singh, who became the President of India in July 1982 on account of the patronage bestowed on him by Smt. Indira Gandhi. While expressing his humble gratitude to Smt. Indira Gandhi for the favour, the president-elect was reported to have remarked that he would gladly sweep the floor with a broom if Smt. Indira Gandhi desired so.
The UPA government headed by Dr Manmohan Singh is in the saddle at the Centre for the last one year and it is time to assess its work as well as to appraise the performance of Dr Manmohan Singh as a Prime Minister of the country during this year.
The man is known by the company he keeps so goes a popular saying. If we judge our worthy Prime Minister by this yardstick, then we find that his cabinet box contains many rotten apples. There is no denying the fact that many of his companions and advisers inside and outside the government, whether chosen by him or thrust upon him, presenting the excuse of compulsions of coalition politics, are confirmed crooks and manipulators. In the presence of a such a privileged company, how can Dr Manmohan Singh, otherwise percieved to be a simple, honest and decent man, keep his image unsullied or uninjured? That is the real tragedy for a person who is otherwise considered a man of character, integrity and conscience. In the process, one loses both character and integrity.
In this context, one is reminded of an anecdote concerning Giani Zail Singh who became the President of India in July 1982 on account of the patronage bestowed on him by Smt. Indira Gandhi. While expressing his humble gratitude to Smt. Indira Gandhi for the favour, the president-elect was reported to have remarked that he would gladly sweep the floor with a broom if Smt. Indira Gandhi desired so. One may call it ones utmost humility or abject sycophancy. While comparing the conduct of Zail Singh and Manmohan Singh, one should not ignore their political backgrounds for an objective appraisal of their positions and standings.
The position of Dr Manmohan Singh is highly vulnerable. He has no following of his own. Neither is he a leader by his own right. His political and official existence exclusively depends on the discretion of Smt. Sonia Gandhi and he is obliged to follow her dictates willy-nilly. The decision-making power in the government does not rest with him any more. It lies somewhere else, a source, not unidentified but visible enough.
The Constitution of India speaks of the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers but Dr Manmohan Singh is obliged to preside over the cabinet of a disjointed lot. Each minister seems to have his own agenda, stratagem and programme to pursue. There is an utter lack of cohesiveness in the functioning of the government and the Prime Minister seems to have lost the track of direction.
The hon’ble ministers of Dr Manmohan Singh’s cabinet have been speaking in different voices over the same issue, thus misleading the people and causing confusion all around. Read the statements of the worthies such as Mani Shankar Aiyer, Kamal Nath, Kapil Sibal, Arjun Singh, etc. Everywhere there is deception laced with a travesty of facts. P. Chidambaram’s juggling with the recent Budget proposals are a classical example of the confused state of mind of Manmohan Singh’s government. The ill-conceived VAT, brazenly and autocratically levied, has misfired and is proving a thorn in his flesh. Surprisingly, some of the Budget proposals presented by the Finance Minister were not only absurd, obnoxious and exhortative but also lacked seriousness and a sense of sincerety that accompany a Budget. Budget session is not the period for showing juvenille tantrums. It is a serious business.
Another illustrious minister of the Central Government is the unbridled and irrepressible Railway Minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav. He is a past master in the fine art of political chicanery and knows every trick of political trade and histrionics. What to talk of Dr Manmohan Singh, even Smt. Sonia Gandhi holds him in awe. He has been quite successful in making congress his captive party, thanks to his manipulatory skills, despite being out of power in Bihar.
The one-year period of the UPA government headed by Dr Manmohan Singh, under the tutelage of Sonia Gandhi, reminds one of the dark days of Emergency when Smt Indira Gandhi, actively supported by the communists and their bedfellows, asked for a committed judiciary, a committed Election Commission, a committed bureaucracy and a committed press/media. She started denigrating and humiliating every constitutional independent authority that the Indian Constitution provided.
Now Lalu Prasad Yadav indulged in the despicable act of using an IAS officer to denigrate and undermine the credibility of the Election Commission and tarnish its image, with Dr Manmohan Singh overlooking this unconstitutional tamasha as a spectator. It was a crude attempt on the part of the UPA and RJD to have a committed Election Commission, though this attempt has backfired for the time being. It, however, cannot be said that things are not in motion to achieve this objective.
Unfortunately, a dangerous trend that has been witnessed during the UPA rule is that the UPA government, aided by communists and Leftists, has almost captured the so-called national English press and made it captive, with the result that it does not remain free or independent anymore. In the last few months, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry of the Central Government, under the stewardship of Shri Jaipal Reddy, has misused the AIR and Doordarshan in spreading canards against the Opposition parties and their leaders in the same manner in which it was done during the period of Emergency.
It is a sad reflection on the functioning of the UPA government that it has not been able to ensure a smooth running of the Parliament due to its arrogant and overbearing attitude. There is no denying the fact that all democratic norms of a parliamentary democracy have taken a nosedive during the UPA’s one-year rule.
While commenting on the Saptarishi episode, the Prime Minister advised the Election Commission to keep their house in order. On the other hand, the Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, threateningly advised the judiciary to keep their house in order. But who would tell and advise Dr Manmohan Singh and Somnath to put their own houses in order before they render any advice to anybody else. The Constitution also enjoins on the Prime Minister and the Speaker to uphold the norms and values of a parliamentary democracy. Physician, heal thyself first!
Sonia Gandhi Destroying Indian Religion, Culture and Traditions
Conservative religious and political organizations in both the United States and India are following a similar strategy to reclaim the political power that they once enjoyed. In both these countries the elected leaders have been called names, their religious and cultural allegiances called into question and doubts raised about their citizenship.
Sonia Gandhi is an easy target for the Indian right. She is Italian Indian, a Catholic, a member of the Gandhi family and the President of the Indian National Congress. She is by far the most powerful and influential political leader in India but she is not the Prime Minister. This gives the impression that she is actually running the country and that the Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh is just her puppet.
In a democracy like India no one should be above criticism including Sonia Gandhi. She became the President of the Congress Party in 1998 and in the 12 years since the party has become one of the most corrupt political organizations in the country. During her tenure the Congress Party which started the economic reforms under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao in 1992 has slowed down the rate of reform (political, social and economic) significantly. The party has started implementing failed socialistic policies of the 70’s and 80’s all over again. The total national debt and the budget deficits are increasing.
In addition Sonia Gandhi has done very little to dispel the notion that she is the real leader of the country. She is always seen with the Indian Prime Minister at every major photo opportunity although she is just a member of the parliament. One can also argue that Sonia Gandhi and her UPA government has failed to keep India safe from terrorist attacks and has also failed to check the millions of dollars sent to the country from the West and the Middle East for religious propaganda.
But can any sane person accuse Sonia Gandhi of destroying Indian religions, culture and traditions? To be fair no one so far has come up with an agreeable definition and scope of what is and what is not Indian culture and traditions. The religious beliefs, culture and traditions of 1.2 billion people cannot be easily defined. Don’t we have to define who we are before we accuse someone of destroying it?
When we look at India one of the words that comes to mind is pluralism. There is diversity wherever we look. An overwhelming majority of us are “Hindus”. But Hinduism itself is made up of many different religions and belief systems. This is true for the Buddhists, Muslims and Sikhs of India as well. This pluralism can also be seen in our culture and traditions. India has a huge population but very few leaders to represent them. It is very difficult for an Indian even to represent a small section of Indian society because of the diversity.
Organizations like the VHP want to change this pluralistic society that has worked very well for us for thousands of years. They want to represent Indian culture and traditions and take on the onus of protecting “Hindu” interests. In many ways they are creating their own definitions of what Hinduism is (One of the important issues for the VHP is to ban cow-slaughter. According to VHP’s definition a Hindu should not eat Beef. This narrow interpretation of what a Hindu can or cannot eat goes against Indian culinary traditions and scriptures).
VHP Chief said the following in the very same statement: “Over 85 per cent Muslims want peace. However, the remaining 15 per cent have been dominant and involved in terrorist activities. They purposely attack Hindus.” This statement shows more than anything else the real intent of organizations like the VHP. They are trying to divide the nation by making baseless allegations against those they disagree with. There are about 150 Muslims in India. According to VHP 15% of them are “involved in terrorist activities”. Does the VHP wants the rest of us to believe that about 21 million Indian Muslims are terrorists and that they are purposely attacking the Hindus?
Ashok Singhal owes an apology to the Muslim community of India. Indians should make it clear to the VHP and other right wing religious organizations that hate mongering and divisive strategies will not work. Ashok Singhal should also stop talking on behalf of Hinduism or Indians.
According to Indiafirsthand
At last i urge you to please read this article, make it read and link it to others and spread this thought that Ramdeo is not fighting for himself alone. He is fighting for every Indian and it is our moral duty to support him at any cost because the government has denied to negotiate with Baba. If the government do so, it will show the brutal and corrupt face of inconsequential UPA government, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Digvijay Singh aka hundred-tongued broker who on the one hand calls Baba a thug and Terrorist Ossama-Bin-Laden, Laden-ji (Laden sir) and Kapil Sibbal who says that no one was hurt at Ramlila Ground while every Indian know the truth that hundreds of innocent were brutally beaten up and lethally wounded there. Please do it not for any political party but because you are Indian and every Indian should support for such a pious cause to bring the Indian National property back home. Proud to be an Indian.
Use Of Cluster Bombs In Afghanistan Against Civilians
05 Jun 2011 Leave a Comment
A Human Rights Watch Backgrounder
October 2001
The United States-led alliance began its air campaign in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. While the Pentagon has been reluctant to talk of specific weapons used in the bombing, U.S. military sources have told Human Rights Watch that the Air Force began dropping cluster bombs within a matter of days. During the first week of the campaign, it is believed that Air Force B-1 bombers dropped 50 CBU-87 cluster bombs in some five missions. CBU-87 cluster bomb use has continued after the first week, and it is believed that other airplanes joined B-1s in dropping cluster bombs on both fixed and mobile targets.
Human Rights Watch has called for a global moratorium on use of cluster bombs because they have been shown to cause unacceptable civilian casualties both during and after conflict. Cluster bombs have a wide dispersal pattern and cannot be targeted precisely, making them especially dangerous when used near civilian areas. Cluster bombs are usually used in very large numbers and have a high initial failure rate which results in numerous explosive “duds” that pose the same post-conflict problem as antipersonnel landmines. United Nations officials have stated that on October 22 U.S. cluster bomb submunitions landed on the village of Shaker Qala, near the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, killing nine civilians and injuring fourteen. The head of the United Nations Mine Action Program in Afghanistan (U.N. MAPA) noted that villagers are afraid to leave their homes after encountering the yellow soda can- like objects characteristic of CBU-87 submunitions that were left scattered in the village after an air strike on a nearby military camp. He called upon the United States to provide information on the types of ordnance dropped on Shaker Qala and elsewhere.
On October 25, the U.S. for the first time publicly acknowledged using cluster bombs. In response to a media question, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers said, “Yes, we have used cluster bomb units…. There have not been a great number of them used, but they have been used.” Each CBU-87 cluster bomb contains 202 individual submunitions, also called “bomblets,” designated BLU-97/B. The CBU-87s are formally known as Combined Effects Munitions (CEM) because each bomblet has an antitank and antipersonnel effect, as well as an incendiary capability. The bomblets from each CBU-87 are typically distributed over an area roughly 100 x 50 meters. They can be dropped from virtually any U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft. Recent experience in Kosovo, and before that in the Gulf War, has shown that the exact “footprint,” or landing area, of the CBU-87’s bomblets is difficult to control and that an initial failure-to-explode rate of some 7 percent can be expected. When the bomblets contained inside cluster bombs fail to explode on contact as intended, they become in effect antipersonnel landmines–volatile and deadly remnants of war that can explode from a simple touch. They have proven to be a serious and longlasting threat to civilians, soldiers, peacekeepers, and even clearance experts, because of the high initial failure rate of the bomblets, because of the large number typically dispersed over la rge areas, and because of the difficulty in precisely targeting the bomblets. A key United Nations clearance expert has expressed concern about the similarity of the coloring of the yellow BLU-97/B cluster bomblets and the small yellow food aid parcels being airdropped in Afghanistan, noting that people are being encouraged to pick up the food parcels, but that picking up a bomblet would be lethal. He said, “Our experience in Kosovo showed us that children and youths were highly susceptible to the submunitions…. It is highly likely that many in Afghanistan will not know the difference between aerially delivered food aid and aerially delivered munitions.” BBC Worldwide Monitoring reported that U.S. Psychological Operations units broadcast a radio message warning Afghan civilians of the similar yellow color of the cluster bomblets and the food packages, noting that cluster bombs will not be dropped in areas where food is airdropped but stating, “[W]e do not wish to see an innocent civilian mistake the bombs for
food bags and take it away believing that it might contain food.”
It is noteworthy that during Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia in 1995, air combat commander Major General Michael Ryan (later U.S. Air Force chief of staff) decided to prohibit the use of cluster bombs, in recognition of the inherent danger to civilians. “The problem was that the fragmentation pattern was too large to sufficiently limit collateral damage and there was also the further problem of potential unexploded ordnance,” says one Air Force-sponsored study. During Operation Allied Force in Yugoslavia in 1999, the White House prohibited further use of CBU-87s until technical adjustments could be made, after a cluster bomb malfunction on May 7 killed many civilians.
Afghanistan is already one of the countries most severely affected by landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO). Prior to October 7, 2001, the known contaminated area was estimated at 724 million square meters, including 344 million square meters classified as high priority land for clearance. From 1990 through 2000, more than 225,000 landmines and 1.3 million pieces of unexploded ordnance (including submunition duds) were detected and destroyed. The Taliban and the United Front (Northern Alliance) have used surface-delivered cluster munitions, fired from BM-21 122mm multiple rocket launchers.
According to information received by Human Rights Watch, the U.S. inventory alone contains more than one billion individual submunitions. The United States has more than forty different types of air and surface-delivered cluster bombs and submunitions. It is thought that at least eighteen nations produce cluster munitions and more than four dozen have stockpiles of the weapons.
What Are Cluster Bombs?
Modern cluster bombs are of two main types—those delivered by air and those delivered by surface artillery or rockets (including artillery projectiles and multiple rocket launchers). The bombs are designed to disperse submunitions (often called “grenades” in surface-delivered weapons and “bomblets” in air-delivered weapons) over a large area, thereby increasing the radius of destructive effect over a target. Typical targets for cluster bombs would include troop concentrations, airfields, and air defense units. The large number delivered increases the density of explosives in the target area, with submunitions designed to strike every few feet or so. They saturate an area with explosives and tiny flying shards of steel. Depending on the type, bomblets can be dispersed to areas as large as the size of several football fields. An air attack typically disperses thousands of submunitions within a small space; a common target area for a single weapon under optimal conditions covers an area of roughly 100 x 50 meters. Air-delivered cluster bombs are composed of a large dispenser with attached fins (called the tactical munitions dispenser, or TMD, in the newest systems); fuzes and electronic devices to control, spin, and direct the weapon during fall; and submunitions or bomblets. The bomblets themselves are of a variety of designs and shapes. Once released, cluster bomb units (CBUs) fall for a specified amount of time or distance before the dispenser opens and dispenses the submunitions, allowing them to cover a wide-area target. Depending on the type, the submunitions are activated by an internal fuze, and can detonate above ground, at impact, or in a delayed mode. Existing versions of submunitions do not incorporate self-destruct or self-deactivating mechanisms. Modern air-delivered cluster bombs can be set to determine height of burst and the dispersal pattern. As the aircraft drops the TMD, tail fins open and stabilize the bomb body. At the selected time or altitude, the dispenser begins to spin, the spin rate determining the dispersal pattern. As the bomblets fall and disperse, they arm in different ways depending on their design.
The CBU-87
The U.S. CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition is one of the newest standard airdelivered
cluster bomb units (CBUs) in the U.S. arsenal. It has been in the U.S. Air
Force inventory since 1986 (and in production since 1984), and has replaced aging and
less effective Vietnam-era cluster bomb units and antitank mines. A myriad of delivery
settings (high and low altitudes, extremely high speeds, and various toss modes) makes it
a significant advance over older bombs. Combining light antiarmor capabilities with
antipersonnel and incendiary effects, it was the first weapon in the U.S. inventory to
include all three “kill mechanisms.”
The 1,000-lb. class cluster bomb is compatible with virtually all current Westernproduced
tactical fighter aircraft, U.S. and foreign. The dispenser has been approved for
use on the A-10, AV-8B, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, B-1, and B-52 aircraft. International
aircraft currently certified for the CBU-87 include NATO F-16s, British Hawk and
Harrier, French Mirage V, German Alpha Jet, Japanese F-1 and FX, and multinational
Tornado and Jaguar. It is manufactured by Alliant Techsystems of Minnesota. The
weapon contains 202 BLU-97B bomblets (officially called “combined effects bomblets,”
CEBs), which are seven inches long, with a two-and-a-half inch diameter and a weight of
3.41 pounds.
In contrast with earlier cluster bombs, the ground pattern size and shape of the
bomblet dispersal can be determined in the CBU-87 by setting the spin rate of the
dispenser and the height of burst. A single CBU-87 set at a low spin rate (e.g., 500 rpm)
can disperse bomblets to an area 120 by 200 feet, with bomblets scattered an average of
nine feet apart. A range of impact patterns from 70 by 70 feet to 150 by 450 feet can be
achieved depending on altitude. In general, the bomblets cover an area of 800 by 400
feet, given medium- to high-altitude delivery.
As the CBU-87’s soda can-sized bomblets fall, a “spider” cup is stripped off the
body, releasing a spring which pushes out a nylon “parachute” (called the decelerator),
which inflates and then stabilizes and arms the bomblet. The bomblets orient
perpendicular to the ground for optimal top attack, and the descent is slowed to
approximately 125 feet per second. On impact the primary firing mechanism detonates
the bomblet. A secondary firing system is included to detonate if the bomblet impacts
other than straight on, or if the bomblet lands in soft terrain or water.
The BLU-97’s parachute-like decelerator, firing system, fuze, and downwardfiring
shaped charge are all packed in a steel case with a fire-starting (incendiary)
zirconium ring. The case is the main part, made of scored steel designed to break into
approximately 300 preformed thirty-grain fragments upon detonation of the internal
explosive. The fragments then travel at extremely high velocities in all directions. This
is the primary antipersonnel effect of the weapon. An explosively shaped charge (a
formed molten copper jet slug) is the primary antiarmor effect. If the bomblet has been
properly oriented, the downward- firing charge travels at 2,570 feet per second, able to
penetrate most armored vehicles. The zirconium ring provides for fuel and other fires by
spreading small incendiary fragments. The shaped charge has the ability to penetrate five
inches of armor on contact. The tiny steel case fragments are also powerful enough to
damage light armor and trucks at fifty feet, and to cause human injury at 500 feet. The
incendiary ring can start fires in any combustible environment.
Use of CBU-87s and other Cluster Bombs in Kosovo
U.S., British and Dutch aircraft dropped more than 1,765 cluster bombs
containing more than 295,000 cluster bomblets during the NATO air campaign in
Yugoslavia from March to June 1999. During Operation Allied Force, the U.S. dropped
about 1,100 CBU-87s (each containing 202 submunitions), the United Kingdom dropped
about 500 RBL-755 cluster bombs (each containing 147 submunitions), and the
Netherlands dropped 165 CBU-87s.
The U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center (MACC) reported that NATO
provided the locations of 333 cluster bomb strike areas. On the basis of the clearance rate
by March 2001 of unexploded cluster bomblets, the MACC estimated that around seven
percent of the CBU-87’s bomblets and eleven percent of the BL-755’s failed to explode
on impact. According to the MACC, more than 20,000 bomblets remained after the war,
and the bomblets “are in a highly sensitive state, and can explode as a result of being
moved or picked up. This volatile condition means that NATO-dropped CBU are a
major part of the mine/UXO problem in Kosovo.” In its June-September 2000 quarterly
report, MACC wrote, “During the previous quarter, it had been recognized that CBU
were a major contributing factor to incidents involving civilians. In particular, CBU
incidents generally involved groups of younger people, often with very tragic results.”
The MACC has also noted, “The CBU problem is exacerbated by the fact that
many bomblets have penetrated the ground and some have been found up to 50
centimeters below the surface. This means that CBU strike areas must be subjected to
sub-surface clearance using detection equipment before the area can be declared free of
UXO.”
Human Rights Watch criticized NATO for use of cluster bombs in Kosovo,
particularly in or near populated areas. Human Rights Watch believes there were nine to
fourteen cluster bomb attacks resulting in civilian casualties during the conflict, causing
an estimated ninety to150 civilian deaths, or 18 to 30 percent of all civilian deaths, even
though cluster bombs represented just 6 percent of weapons expended in the air war. A
NATO air strike involving cluster bombs on an airfield in Nis on May 7 went off target,
hitting a hospital complex and adjoining civilian areas. On April 24, five boys were
reported to have been killed and two injured when what was evidently a cluster bomb
submunition exploded near the village of Daganovic.
The civilian toll due to cluster bombs was even greater following the end of the
conflict. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, from June 1999
through May 2000, there were at least 151 casualties due to cluster bomblets, including
fifty dead and 101 injured. The ICRC notes that the actual number of CBU casualties is
likely higher because there were 108 incidents in which the cause of injury was unknown.
The MACC has reported that in the year 2000, there were twenty- four CBU casualties,
and that as of late October 2001, successful clearance operations resulted in just one
cluster bomb incident since August 2000.
Use of Cluster Bombs in the Gulf War
More than 1,600 Kuwaiti and Iraqi civilians have been killed, and another 2,500
injured, by the estimated 1.2 million explosive cluster bomb duds left following the 1991
Persian Gulf War, which saw the most extensive use of cluster bombs in history. Some
62,000 air-delivered cluster bombs, 100,000 DPICM artillery shells, and 10,000 MLRS
rockets were used, containing a total of 24 to 30 million submunitions.
The United States has continued to use cluster bombs in Iraq. While great press
attention was paid to President George W. Bush’s decision to bomb Iraqi targets on
February 16, 2001, there was scant recognition that some U.S. jets used cluster bombs,
those formally known as the Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW). JSOW was first used in
combat in Iraq on January 25, 1999. The 1,000 pound, fourteen- foot-long weapon carries
145 anti-armor and antipersonnel incendiary bomblets that disperse over an area that is
approximately 100 feet long and 200 feet wide.
Department of Defense Justifications
The Pentagon primarily justifies use of cluster bombs based on the perceived
effectiveness of the weapon. In fact, the utility, reliability, and effectiveness of different
types of cluster bombs and submunitions varies tremendously. But the Pentagon has also
offered up rebuttals to some of the other criticisms that have been made regarding cluster
bombs.
Initial Failure Rates – The Department of Defense will sometimes claim that the
initial failure rate of most cluster munitions is not much different from other munitions,
such as gravity bombs, mortar rounds, or artillery shells. Human Rights Watch is
unaware of a serious or comprehensive study of this matter. Regardless, however, the
initial failure rate of cluster munitions, whether equal to or greater than other munitions,
is a special problem because of the large number of submunitions used, and their
particular volatility. When each bomb contains hundreds of bomblets, and hundreds of
thousands of bomblets are used in a campaign (as in Kosovo) or even millions of
bomblets (as in the Gulf War), even a small initial failure rate can quickly translate into a
major humanitarian problem.
Moreover, the current initial failure rate for even advanced U.S. cluster munitions,
like the CBU-87, is clearly far too high to be acceptable. Estimates of the initial failure
rate range from 2 percent to 30 percent or more, depending on conditions. The best data
on this has been gathered in Kosovo, where, as noted above, U.N. clearance experts
estimate a 7 percent initial failure rate for the CBU-87 bomblets.
While not saying so directly, the U.S. military has acknowledged that the initial
failure rate on cluster bombs is too high. On January 10, 2001, then-U.S. Secretary of
Defense William Cohen issued a memorandum stating:
It is the policy of the DoD [Department of Defense] to reduce
overall UXO [unexploded ordnance] through a process of improvement in
submunition system reliability – the desire is to field future submunitions
with a 99% or higher functioning rate. Submunition functioning rates may
be lower under operational conditions due to environmental factors such
as terrain and weather….
The Services may retain “legacy” submunitions until employed or
superseded by replacement systems in accordance with the above policy.
The designation “legacy” would apply to submunition weapon acquisition
programs reaching Milestone III prior to the First Quarter of Fiscal Year
2005.
The Services shall evaluate “legacy” submunition weapons
undergoing reprocurement, product improvement, or block upgrades to
determine whether modifications should be made to bring them into
compliance with the above policy.
The Services shall design and procure all future submunition
weapons in compliance with the above policy. A “future” submunition
weapon is one that will reach Milestone III in FY 2005 and beyond.
[Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Memorandum for the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, Subject: DoD Policy on Submunition Reliability (U), January 10, 2001]
The volatility of cluster bomb duds also makes them more dangerous than many
other types of unexploded ordnance. Again, Human Rights Watch is not aware of
specific studies comparing UXO volatility, but the testimony of clearance personnel, such
as that cited above regarding Kosovo, gives an indication of the special dangers posed by
cluster bomblets.
CBUs vs. Other Weapons – Department of Defense and other U.S. officials will
sometimes claim that cluster bombs pose less danger to civilians than alternative weapons
that might be used, noting for example tha t the explosive power of unitary munitions
(such as bombs and artillery shells) could cause far more collateral damage. However,
this argument ignores the documented inability to ensure cluster bomblets stay within the
confines of the intended target area, and does not take into account the ever-greater
precision (and smaller warheads) of unitary munitions, which results in less and less
civilian impact.
Cluster Bombs and Landmines
While cluster bomblet duds undeniably function like antipersonnel mines, they
are not covered under the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling,
Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Landmines and on their Destruction, also
known as the Mine Ban Treaty, which entered into force on March 1, 1999. There are
122 States Parties and an additional 20 signatories. The United Kingdom is a State Party;
the United States has not signed.
The treaty defines antipersonnel mine as a munition “designed to be exploded by
the presence, proximity or contact of a person….” That is, the mine must be designed to
be victim-activated. Cluster bombs are not designed to be victim-activated; they become
so when they fail to function as designed. In this way, cluster bombs are not different
than other types of unexploded ordnance (failed mortar rounds, artillery shells, grenades,
etc.), none of which are covered by the Mine Ban Treaty.
The indiscriminate dangers posed to civilians by explosive cluster bomb duds,
however, are essentially no different than antipersonnel mines. They will in most cases
explode upon contact, whether being picked up or kicked or otherwise touched. One
difference is that antipersonnel mines are generally designed more to maim than to kill,
with a relatively small amount of explosive, while cluster bomblets (at least in the case of
CBU-87s) are more likely to kill their victims. As noted above, experience in Kosovo
has also shown that cluster bombs can pose special problems and dangers for the
clearance professionals as well.
Explosive Remnants of War and the Convention on Conventional Weapons
One avenue for attempting to deal with the humanitarian problems associated
with use of cluster bombs is the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively
Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects, also known as the Convention on
Conventional Weapons (CCW). The CCW has four Protocols (and one amended
protocol) that contain restrictions on the use of landmines, blinding lasers, incendiary
weapons, and weapons causing injury by non-detectable fragments. The U.S. is a party to
the CCW and all of its protocols.
The second review conference of the CCW will be held in Geneva in December
2001, and a series of preparatory meetings have been held during the past year.
Governments have had extensive discussions on what is being called the “Explosive
Remnants of War” issue, growing out of an initiative by the International Committee of
the Red Cross. The initiative began largely in response to the increased sensitivity of the
international community to the use of cluster bombs. It is aimed at reducing the number
of explosive remnants of war (whether caused by cluster bombs or other weapons) and
establishing responsibility for clearing the detritus of war. Different governments are
embracing the issue with widely varying degrees of enthusiasm, but it appears that a
likely outcome of the December review conference will be the establishment of a
working group with a mandate to do further work on the issue.
Recommendations
The United States and all other combatants should immediately halt the use of
cluster bombs in Afghanistan. At a minimum, cluster bombs should not be used in
or near populated areas.
The U.S. and others should in a timely manner provide relevant information
regarding types and locations of ordnance used to appropriate clearance
organizations, as requested by United Nations officials.
There should be a global moratorium on use of cluster bombs until effective
measures can be put in place to lessen their impact on civilian populations.
Governments should examine possible technical solutions, as well as options related to
use and targeting; they should research and analyze past use of cluster bombs, including
military usefulness, civilian impact, safety and overall effects; and, they should conduct a
legal review of cluster bombs and their consistency with international humanitarian law.
Governments should urgently address the cluster bomb problem as part of the
review process of the Convention on Conventional Weapons. At the December 2001
CCW Review Conference, an expert group should be formed to look at the Explosive
Remnants of War issue, with a focus on problems caused by cluster bombs and
submunitions. The group’s mandate should be broad, and allow for consideration not just
of technical factors, but also those related to use and targeting. The group should aim to
conclude its work in no more than one year. This work should pave the way for
immediate negotiations aimed at a new protocol to the CCW to be concluded in a similar
period of time.
Human Rights Watch believes that any long-term approach to ameliorating the
negative humanitarian impact of cluster bombs must include the following:
•Reduction of the initial failure rate of cluster bombs to a tolerable level from a
humanitarian perspective. That level should be determined by humanitarian and
military experts, but should certainly be less than 1 percent.
•A prohibition on use in or near populated or urban areas.
•A requirement for accurate recording and mapping of cluster bomb use to assist in
post-conflict clearance and awareness efforts.
•Post-use requirements such as marking, warnings to civilians, clearance, and
timely sharing of relevant information with appropriate clearance and awareness
organizations.
In examining possible solutions to the cluster bomb problem, there needs to be:
•A realistic assessment of the initial failure rate of existing cluster bombs, and a
determination of whether cluster bombs have a higher initial failure rate than other
weapons that become unexploded ordnance, and whether unexploded cluster bomblets
are more volatile or dangerous than other UXO.
•An examination of options to improve the reliability and safety of cluster bombs, and
of the factors that affect cluster bomb reliability and safety (including fuzes and
secondary fuzes, number of bomblets, area coverage, dispersal pattern, method and
circumstances of delivery, special features like incendiary rings, characteristics of the
target area, age and design).
•An assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of putting self-destruct, selfneutralizing
and/or self-deactivating mechanisms on all cluster bombs, both new
production and existing stocks.
•An assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of various other potential
restrictions on use aimed at avoiding collateral damage, including target limitations
and high-altitude delivery.
Based on various sources available online by unknown
Recent Comments