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.