Making a Difference? The Cluster Munition Ban

On 1st August 2010, a global treaty banning the use of cluster munitions came into force. States having signed and ratified the convention are also banned from stockpiling the weapons and are obliged to compensate victims.

Cluster munitions were developed for a huge Cold War confrontation that thankfully never happened and thus are outdated. The weapons are indiscriminate and pose a threat, not only to civilians, but also to our own troops. A single bomb is designed to cover large area and can be launched by artillery or aircraft. As it nears its target, the shell releases a number of smaller bomblets – each of which can be devastating. Those that fail to detonate often remain active for years and some estimates from charity organisations claim that 98% of victims are civilians, one third of which are children.

In principle, the Convention on Cluster Munitions looks promising; to date it has been adopted by 108 states and praise has come from such dignitaries as Pope Benedict XVI and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. However, questions must be asked about the effectiveness of the convention. Although 108 countries have singed, at the time of writing, only 38 of these states have ratified the convention. Some of the biggest stockpilers - including the USA, Russia and China - have not signed up to the convention and this means positive effects are going to be limited.

Pressure from the EU, the UN and allies must be exerted on these three huge military powers in an attempt to pull them into the fold.

Ecrivain Man

Lack of Flood Relief Encouraging Pakistani Radicals

During the evening of 21st May 2003 I was on the roof of a 4 story building in Algiers when an earthquake of 6.8 hit - the worst the country had experienced in twenty years.  The following morning, two of us from the company I was working with visited the epicentre of Boumerdes and its surrounding regions.  The carnage we witnessed was appalling and a decision was made that the following day we would personally accompany the aid that the company was donating to the areas most affected.  Within Boumerdes the authorities were disorganised although it could be said that they were in control  (there was widespread criticism of how the government handled the whole situation and indeed President Bouteflika had to flee the town during a visit).  However, when we moved out to less populated areas the mood changed and we were unable to remain in any one place for longer than a few minutes.  The reason?  Because elements of Algeria's Islamic militant groups were taking advantage of the carnage caused by the earthquake.  Suddenly, they were on the streets of small towns and villages not only controlling the aid stations and the distribution but also imposing their form of hardline Islamism; girls and women not wearing the hijab were refused aid and men objecting to this were beaten. 

Therefore, I am not surprised to have learned over the past week or so that militant groups are now distributing aid in the affected areas of Pakistan's floods.  Various reports have emerged of extremists cashing in on the government's weak response to the disaster. An example came to light recently; Jamaat-ud-Dawa -a banned Islamic charity which was accused by the UN of fronting the militants allegedly responsible for the planning and execution of the Mumbai attacks in 2008 - have been helping in areas where the hard-stretched authorities are unable to.  And any aid they distribute comes with propaganda literature and stern religious and political rhetoric.  Elsewhere stories have emerged of orphans being taken away to study in Madrases and militant charities taking advantage of the chaos of an unorganised and corrupt government.

Today in the Sunday Times, Jemima Khan writes an article on plight of Pakistanis   from the grassroots level and her report makes grim reading.  Up to two million homeless, no functioning infrastructure, no clean water, cholera outbreaks and reports of up to 70% of the World Bank aid has disappeared or been badly spent.  All of this helps to fertilise radical Islam. 

A lot has been made recently on Pakistan's exporting of terrorism including in one of my earlier posts. However, we in the west must also accept some of the criticism. For extreme radicalism to grow, they must have an unhappy proportion of a population of whom to appeal to.  By the west not responding with more aid and logistical assistance to distribute this aid, we are fueling the fire desired by the Taliban and al-Qaeda

Ecrivain Man

...well they started it!

For the United States of America, the tragic events of September 11 2001 caused wide spread shock and created a sense of self-righteous isolation. President Bush – at the time with approval ratings of 90% - declared a War on Terror. Bush warned the rest of the world ‘… you are with us or you are with the terrorists.’ – a statement far too black and white to have any sort of justification and an illustration that the Bush regime incorrectly saw the terrorist threat as singular. The general population believed (wrongly as it happened) that they had until that day, been immune from terrorist attacks and looked to strong leadership to protect them.

Another thing many Americans lost after the attack was their sense of perspective seen in parallel with their frightening rise in patriotism. Suddenly it was acceptable to go to war in countries many Americans had barely heard of, even for the most tenuous of links to 9/11. Congress was able to pass the Homeland Security Act . Hate crime rose against not just Muslims but also against those perceived to be Muslims (including Sikhs and people with Middle Eastern appearance).

In many quarters it seemed to be overlooked that among those thousands of deaths were casualties from dozens of other countries and many different religions including Islam.

It therefore came as no surprise to me to find that the majority of New Yorkers are against the building of a Mosque and Islamic Culture Centre close to Ground Zero.

November’s mid-term elections have religion, tolerance and race as central issues (Arizona’s immigration bill is an example). Former Republican vice-presidential nominee and 2012 presidential hopeful Sarah Palin – keen to benefit from the popular anti-Muslim sentiment - has made it known that she is opposed to this constuction. Former Republican White House spokesman and neocon - Newt Gingrich - has declared that ‘...there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia’. I am assuming that this narrow minded statement is a sign of his opposition. Does he mean that we should now enforce Saudi laws on American Muslims? Do we now stone to death a Muslim lady in Los Angeles for committing adultery? Do we cut off the hand of an Islamic thief from Littlerock? Not a helpful argument I would suggest - reacting to religious intolerance with religious intolerance is self-defeating.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to his credit, is sticking to the decision and has stated that men and women of the United States are fighting distant wars for the individual’s right to choose which religion to support and that it is not for governments to make this choice.

How, I ask, is constructing a religious building close to (and not as is ofter reported on) Groud Zero an insult to those 3000 people who perished? The irony is that this Islamic centre was planned to encourage interfaith dialogue.

Ecrivain Man

A True Viking

I spend a lot of time in Norway and I feel an affinity towards the country and its people. I would therefore like to briefly mention that 137 years ago today (August 3rd) , King Haakon VII, one of Norway’s most respected kings was born.

He is perhaps remembered above all else for the courageous decisions he made during World War II thus inspiring the men and women of Norway during that dark period.

On 9th April 1940, Norwegian forces faced a German naval detachment under orders to capture Oslo. The Norwegians stood firm against the invaders causing them to withdraw with heavy casualties. This gave the Royal family time to flee. A meeting between the king and a German diplomat later followed where Haakon refused to recognise Nazi sympathizer Vidkun Quisling as Prime Minister nor would he tell the Norwegian population to cease their opposition to the Nazis. This refusal and his threat to abdicate should the Norwegian government cooperate with the Germans was instrumental in uniting the Norwegian resistance throughout the 5 years of occupation. King Haakon and Queen Maud (a daughter of Britain's King Edward VII) fled to the UK where they spent the remainder of the war, making a jubilant return to Norway on 7th June 1945

Ecrivain Man

Trident’s Strident Step Back?

Because the £20 billion cost for the Trident nuclear deterrent will now come out of the MoD’s budget and not, as previously thought, from the Treasury, I suspect that pre-election promises of implementing Trident may come under yet more pressure within the coalition ranks. Let’s not forget that even before the question of which department has to pay for it cropped up, the LibDems were against having a new nuclear deterrent.

The fact that Dr Liam Fox and his team are already under enormous pressure to make savings within the Ministry of Defence without effectively having to find an additional £20 billion, makes the anticipation of the findings of the ongoing Security and Defence Review in the MoD and Whitehall more fascinating yet. Of course, the key questions which must be asked in the review are; what are the key threats to the United Kingdom both now and in the future and which courses of action will best keep us safe?

So what can we do without? Would an upgraded nuclear deterrent be at the expense of new naval vessels, fighter aircraft and soldiers on the ground? This is very possible. The planned building of new aircraft carriers would most likely be halted, there is already talk of grounding Tornadoes and of course there are ongoing questions surrounding the Eurofighter project. I’m sure equally savage cuts would hit the army. Yet this type of equipment is exactly what we need right now (although I accept the Eurofighter was designed to combat Russian MiGs). The warfare we face today requires conventional, mobile, well equipped armed forces with an ability to adapt to changing situations. It has taken a war in Iraq and an ongoing war in Afghanistan to achieve this but the UK's armed forces are just about there. This conventional modus operandi should be reflected in the latest round of defence spending.

In addition, I feel that Security and Defence Reviews should be conducted more often to reflect the dynamic face of international conflict (the last review was in the late 1990s) as well as trying to predict through long term intelligence assessments the type of threats we will face in the future. A nuclear missile launched from a Trident submarine is not required in Helmand Province or on the streets of Basra. On the other hand, should, ten years from now, we once again find ourselves in a Cold War, then the argument changes.

Ecrivain Man