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.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS