Shameless Self-Promotion

While this blog is closing up shop as the semester draws to an end, I will continue to occasionally blog about Cluster Munitions and similar issues over at my personal blog.

Wordle

Governments as Norm-Builders in the Case of Cluster Munitions

When discussing countries involved in norm setting for the cluster munitions ban, Norway is the first to come to mind, having established the Oslo process in February 2007. Along with Norway, an additional 45 nations participated in the Oslo Conference, and signed onto the declaration.

Norway wasn't the only nation leading the Oslo process effort. Aotearoa Cluster Munition Coalition cites five other nations as part of a core group: Austria, Peru, Ireland, Mexico, and New Zealand. These nations would each hold a conference on the path to the adoption of text for the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Prior to this process, Norway had announced a moratorium on the use of cluster munitions, and Belgium had banned the use and sale of cluster munitions in 2006. Austria would become the third nation to announce a national ban on cluster munitions in December 2007.

The United States stands in opposition to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, preferring a less stringent approach via the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

The UN and Cluster Munitions

This image is a subsection of an updated network map of the network surrounding the effort to ban cluster munitions. This section of the map is showing the involvement of the UN and other international organizations. Based simply on the cluster map, programmes involved are: the UN Environmental Program, UN Development Program, UNICEF, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, the UN Refugee Agency, the UN Development Fund for Women, and the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.

This list is long and comprehensive, but this list and map tells us little about the involvement and role of each agency. To further explore that, we turn to the UN participation page on the Cluster Munitions Convention website.

The Electronic Mine Information Network gives us timeline of UN involvement.

2003: The Interagency Standing Committee calls for a freeze in the US of cluster munitions
2005: UNMAS, UNDP, and UNICEF propose definitions for cluster munitions and issue calls for the limiting of cluster munition use. Kofi Annan calls upon the CCW states to consider cluster munitions.
2006: Kofi Annan calls for immediate regulation of and curbs in use of cluster munitions. Lebanon is used as an example of the humanitarian cost of cluster munitions by the Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs.
2007: The UN Mine Action Team makes several statements on cluster munitions and various humanitarian, legal, and technical issues at various conferences on cluster munitions. The Secretary-General releases a statement envisioning a ban on cluster munitions by 2008.
2008: The UN addresses the Dublin Conference, where the Convention on Cluster Munitions is adopted. The UNMAT takes part in interoperability discussions.

The UN Institute for Disarmament Research conducts research studies on various weapons programs and disarmament efforts. To date they've conducted three studies on cluster munitions and the effort to ban them. The earliest report, on the humanitarian and development impact of cluster munitions, was conducted in 2005, well after the effort to ban these weapons were underway.

The UN Development Programme discusses cluster munitions, and provides examples of the impact they have on development.

The UN has been involved in efforts to ban cluster munitions since early in the campaign. Early calls for consideration of cluster munitions fall within the context of addressing Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states. When these efforts stalled, the UN became involved in the Oslo process. The UN was in fact, a leader in calling for the Oslo Process. In an address to the the Third Review Conference on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Kofi Annan called for action to establish legal norms to eliminate cluster munitions. Early the next year, the UNDP congratulates Norway for responding to this call and establishing the Oslo Process.

Cluster Munitions and the Media

Author's Note: I wrote and posted this late, after I had had a chance to discuss results and methodology with the rest of the class and should be viewed with that in mind.

In order to determine what the effect the media had, if any, on efforts to ban cluster munitions I conducted a LexisNexis Academic search using the following terms:

Cluster Munitions Ban OR Cluster Bombs Ban OR Ban Cluster Munitions OR Ban Cluster Bombs OR Cluster Munition Ban OR Cluster Bomb Ban OR Ban Cluster Munition OR Ban Cluster Bomb

For my first search, I searched six English language "Papers of Record" between January 1, 1970 and October 11, 2008. These papers were The International Herald Tribune (France), The Times (United Kingdom), The Globe and Mail (Canada), The Irish Times (Ireland), The New Zealand Herald (New Zealand), and The New York Times (United States). I chose these papers because I was looking for a sample of English language papers from countries leading the international effort to ban cluster munitions, countries who were major manufacturers and users of cluster munitions, and Canada, which was involved heavily in the campaign to ban land mines.

This resulted in 37 articles, including 1 duplicate. I determined if the article was a letter to the editor, and opinion/editorial, or a news article. Of the articles, twenty-three were news items, seven were opinion/editorial articles, and six were letters to the editor.



Changing the search parameters to include all major newspapers contained in LexisNexis between January 1, 1970 and October 11, 2008 using the same terms reveals 165 total articles written between 1996 and 2008. Notable is the spike in articles in 2003, coinciding with the foundation of the Cluster Munitions Coalition, which then drops off until the Oslo Conference of 2007, which began the effort that lead to the current Convention on Cluster Munitions.



75% of all the articles written were written within a month before or after a major international conference on cluster munitions. Of the papers of record, all but six, or 83% of articles were written within a month of a conference.



One can conclude that, except during international conferences, the movement to ban cluster munitions was not significantly engaged with the media. Within the papers of record, the majority of the articles regarding cluster munitions were reporting on the conferences, with only one third of the articles being opinion pieces or editorials.

Additionally, changing the LexisNexis search terms to Ban "Landmines AND Cluster Bombs" results in an additional 50 news paper articles regarding cluster muntions. (1970-2000)

NGO Involvement in the Cluster Munitions Ban

In 2003, the Stop Cluster Munitions coalition was formed with the support of a number of gatekeeper NGOs, including Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Five years later, after a successful campaign, cluster bombs are on the verge of being banned.

Prior to 2003, one finds that individual NGOs were calling for this weapons ban as early as the mid 90s. Using LexisNexis Academic as a guide, we can construct a rough timeline of NGO involvement in this issue.

The earliest mention of an NGO involvement that I've discovered thus far is in a February 1995 letter to the editor in the New York Times. In it the author states:

From April to October 1994, I assisted the Mennonite Central Committee and the British Mines Advisory Group in beginning a bomb removal project in Laos. The 580,000 bombing missions the United States flew during its 1964-73 secret air war left thousands of cluster bombs behind that failed to explode as designed. No general clearance of ordnance was conducted after the war, so these bombs continue to maim and kill 20 to 30 years after they were dropped.¹

The author then goes on to call for a ban on cluster munitions to be included in a land mine ban. While the NGOs mentioned are not calling for a ban, they are involved and aware of the issue. Later that year, Mines Advisory Group would be calling for a ban on cluster munitions, evidenced in a June 1995 quote in The Guardian:

Reuter: A British-made cluster bomb used against Iraqi forces in the Gulf war should be banned because of the danger posed by its mine-like bomblets, Rae McGrath, director of the mines advisory group, said in Phnom Penh yesterday.²

What happens next isn't clear. There are articles from the late 1990s discussing cluster munitions and the impact they've had on civilians in the years after the Vietnam and Kosovo conflicts³, but no references to specific NGOs.

In 2001, the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund was calling for a ban on cluster bombs⁴. In 2002, Human Rights Watch was urging the US Administration to suspend the use of cluster munitions in future conflicts⁵. In 2003, the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund and Landmine Action launched a petition calling for a ban on cluster munitions. At this point they were already part of what was described as a "coalition of anti-landmine charities.⁶"

In 2003, the Stop Cluster Munitions Coalition took point on the cluster munitions issue. They began a campaign urging governments to ban cluster munitions. Similar to the path taken on the drive to ban land mines, after being frustrated in efforts to have them banned under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a multilateral effort known as the Oslo process. With the success of that process in achieving the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the group is now taking the campaign to governments, urging them to sign the Convention in December 2008 and highlighting continued use of cluster munitions in the world.


¹"Clinton Land Mine Policy Falls Short; Include Cluster Bombs." New York TImes. Date: 15 February 1995 Section A; Page 20; Column 5; Editorial Desk. LexisNexis. 29 September 2008
²"Call to Ban Bomb." The Guardian. Date: 3 June 1995. The Guardian Foreign Page; Pg 14. LexisNexis. 29 September 2008
³Fleishman, Jeffrey. "In Peacetime Kosovo, Bomb Casualties Continue" The Philadelphia Inquirer
⁴"Diana charity calls for end to cluster bombs." Courier Mail. Date: 26 October 2001. World, Pg. 10 LexisNexis. 29 September 2008
⁵Donnelly, John "US Urged to Ban Cluster Bombs Rights Group Cites Danger to Civilians" The Boston Globe. Date: 18 December 2002. National/Foreign, Pg A27. LexisNexis. 29 September 2008
⁶"Threat of war: Anti-mine group calls for ban on cluster bombs." The Guardian. Date: 28 February 2003. The Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 7. LexisNexis. 29 September 2008

Celebrities, Bombs, and Mines

When I hear the words "celebrity activism" the first things that come to mind are Bono, Live Aid, and Angelina Jolie and the various issues surrounding these people and events. One could spend years studying why celebrities are fond of certain issues and not of others. Whatever the results of that study, right now it can be said that cluster bombs are not a particularly hot celebrity issue.

A search of LexisNexis Academic, Google, and JSTOR all reveal limited attention to the topic by celebrities. The topic seems to receive the most attention in the UK, with a mentionSir Paul McCartney leading a contingent of celebrities, including KT Tunstall, Emma Thompson, and a host of names whom I presume don't jump off the screen to anyone who isn't a frequent viewer of BBC programing, in signing a petition by UK based charity "No More Landmines." McCartney also auctioned off an amp to raise money for the charity*.

Adopt-A-Minefield is another organization associated with the issue of land mines and clearing land mines. In a Journal of Mine Action article discussing de-mining efforts in Afghanistan, it is made clear that de-mining also includes the removal of undetonated cluster bomblets. Further along in the same article, reference is made to Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones raising awareness of and funds for the organization.

Interestingly, Princess Diana's legacy has been used in reference to the issue of cluster bombs**, particularly to raise awareness of the issue in Britain. Lady Diana brought attention to the effects of and the efforts to ban land mines in the 1990s, and for many, cluster bombs are very weapons in the same vein as land mines, and the effort to ban them has been spearheaded by many of the same organizations which lead the effort to ban land mines.

It is possible that most of the celebrity involvement with the cluster munition issue is in fact through organizations which are involved in land mine removal or were involved in the campaign to ban landmines.

Did celebrities have an impact on the campaign to ban cluster munitions? Directly, it wouldn't seem so. However, celebrity involvement in the campaign to ban land mines may have impacted that campaign. If this impact was positive, it is arguable that celebrity activism on the land mine issue, laid some of the ground work for issue adoption and advocacy in cluster munition campaign.

*"IN BRIEF: Charity amp." Daily Post (Liverpool). 30 June 2008: News Pg. 2 Online. Lexis-Nexis Major U.S. and World Publications. 22 Sept. 2008
**"ANALYSIS: Hard fought landmine victory faces new threat." Birmingham Post. 19 Sept. 2007: News Pg. 11 Online. Lexis-Nexis Major U.S. and World Publications. 22 Sept. 2008

Cluster Munitions and the Global Agenda

Having so many similarities to landmines, and with international civil society just recently successful in their efforts to ban landmines (culminating in the 1999 Ottawa Treaty,) it's no surprise that when the Cluster Munition Coalition was formed in The Hague in late 2003 that the volunteer steering committee was able to attract several big name NGOs. If the issue of cluster munitions wasn't on the global agenda at that point, the inclusion of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Human Rights Watch, and Handicap International, and a number of other NGOs related to disabilities and landmine action on the steering committee made it a very hard issue to ignore.

In the years since, the cluster munitions issue had a very successful stay on the Global Agenda, coming to a peak in 2008 with the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty banning the use and stockpiling of cluster munitions.

The continuum showing how a problem moves to political change and gets picked up as part of the global agenda like this:

Social/Political Conditions > Problem Definition > Issue Definition > Issue Adoption > Advocacy/Campaign > New Global Norms > Political Change.

Arguably with the advent of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the issue should fall firmly between the New Global Norms category and the Political Change category, however, the treaty lacks some backing from key players. The United States, China, Russia, and Israel have not signed onto the text of the treaty. Russia and Israel have both used cluster munitions in recent wars, and the United States is declining to support the ban in favor of advocating for a less restrictive protocol to be added to the Convention on Certain Weapons. So where does this leave the issue? It could be the case that, similar to landmines, the US will not sign onto the treaty, but will voluntarily follow the conventions laid forth in the treaty. This would leave the issue at global norm building stage. However, if the US succeeds, since the Convention on Certain Weapons is binding to all nations it may succeed in creating yet another global norm on the issue. Since the US is such a major player, the fact that they're still at the advocacy stage affects the place of the issue on the continuum.

The cluster munitions issue has the advantage of being adopted by members of the landmine transnational advocacy network, and it shows in the cluster map. However, the map will also show us that cluster mines are a salient issue in their own right, with gatekeeper NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and nations such as Ireland and New Zealand featured as big links in their cluster map.



As we've discussed on the CIVIC blog, CIVIC still has a ways to go before reaching the same level of salience as Cluster Munitions. Creating a new global norm banning the use of cluster munitions has been the latest step in a long process of network building and advocacy. CIVIC is still attempting to enter the issue adoption phase, and may need to revisit their problem and issue definitions to successfully do so. This places them much early on continuum and shows that they still have much work to do.

Edit: Replaced the cluster map with a version that doesn't have Dr. Carpenter's e-mail address on it.

Cluster Munitions: What and Why?

Cluster munitions are air or artillery launched weapons consisting of a hollow casing containing hundreds of smaller (baseballs or soda-cans are often offered for comparison) submunitions. These submunitions can contain a variety of ordnance types for deployment against different target types.

In use since the end of World War II, and first popular during the Vietnam War, these weapons are popular among military circles for affecting a wide area and their usefulness against large unarmored targets. This philosophy is explained in a 2006 backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations:

Dropping one 1,000-pound bomb may not find enemies in a foxhole, says Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the Strategic Security Project at the Federation of American Scientists. “But if I drop a thousand one-pound bombs,” he says, “a certain fraction will find people in a foxhole. It’s many times more effective to take my explosive package and divide it up into smaller subdivisions.”

There are two main criticisms of cluster munitions from international civil society. During war, cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons. Because of their wide ranging effect and the effects of wind and weather on individual bomblets, they can not be used with a high degree of accuracy, and often hit civilian targets. The second criticism is due to the high failure rate of cluster munitions. The aforementioned CFR article mentions a failure rate of between one and ten percent, with these undetonated bomblets becoming in essence, landmines.

Efforts to ban or restrict the use of cluster munitions have picked up in the last several years, and built upon the success of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. A quick look through the Cluster Munition Coalition member list and steering committee reveals a large number of organizations associated with the effort to ban landmines and help civilian survivors of landmines.

Following bans by Belgium and Austria in 2006 and 2007, respectively, the international community has put into effect a process for banning landmines by treaty, modeled after the 1999 Ottawa Treaty banning the use, stockpile, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. This process began in Oslo in 2007:

A group of States, United Nations Organisations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Cluster Munitions Coalition and other humanitarian organisations met in Oslo on 22 - 23 February 2007 to discuss how to effectively address the humanitarian problems caused by cluster munitions.

Recognising the grave consequences caused by the use of cluster munitions and the need for immediate action, states commit themselves to:

1. Conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument that will:

prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and

establish a framework for cooperation and assistance that ensures adequate provision of care and rehabilitation to survivors and their communities, clearance of contaminated areas, risk education and destruction of stockpiles of prohibited cluster munitions.

This process culminated in the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a text adopted by 107 participatory nations banning the use and stockpiling of cluster munitions which "cause unacceptable harm to civilians." This treaty will be open for signature beginning in December of 2008, and enter into force six months after the thirtieth ratification.

Notably absent from the list of nations supporting the convention are the United States, China, Russia, and Israel. During the 2006 Lebanon War with Hezbollah, Israel deployed cluster munitions, the US has deployed them in Iraq and Afghanistan, and both sides allegedly deployed cluster munitions during the recent 2008 South Ossetia War between Russia and Georgia. According to a July 2008 State Department release, the United States is calling for a new protocol under the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons that would preserve the ability of nations to use cluster munitions stragetically, while reducing their humanitarian impact. A preview into what the US sees as an acceptable protocol can be found in a new Defense Department policy on cluster munitions, which calls for continued use of current munitions for the next decade, at which point U.S. forces will be required to use cluster munitions with a maximum failure rate of one percent. While the Convention on Cluster Munitions is wide reaching, absent a change of policy by the US and Russia, is not the be all and end all of the cluster munition issue.