Skip to content or view screen version

Independent Reports Cluster bombs on offer at DSEi arms fair despite sales ban

repost | 13.09.2005 23:45 | DSEi 2005 | Anti-militarism


Cluster bombs on offer at arms fair despite sales ban
By Saeed Shah
Published: 14 September 2005

Cluster bombs are being offered for sale at an arms fair in London, The Independent has discovered, despite assurances by the organisers, that the weapon would not be marketed at the event.

Denel, the South African company, confirmed yesterday at the show being held at the Excel Centre in Docklands, that it made and supplied the cluster weapons.

Cluster submunitions are colourful, about the size of a soft-drinks can, and they often attract the attention of children. Unicef, the United Nations children's organisation, has reported that more than 1,000 children were injured by unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs, after the official end of the Iraq war in 2003; 13,000 cluster bombs had been used by UK and US forces in Iraq that year.

Gyfford Fitchat, the executive manager for business development at Denel, said the company produced a 155 millimetre shell that disperses 42 bomblets in the air above the target. The artillery shell had a range of 25 miles, he said. "There are no restrictions on selling these, except that we need approval from our government. But I believe we would only export them to stable, mature sort of countries," Mr Fitchat said.

He saidthe weapon, which was not on display, was designed to work against tanks but he conceded it would also inflict injuries on any people in the target area. The bomblets rain down on an area of about 200 metres by 200 metres, he said.

The revelation will be a huge embarrassment for the Government, which helps organise the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) gathering that started yesterday. It will also be a blow to the British publisher Reed Elsevier, which puts on the biennial event, the world's biggest arms fair.

Cluster bombs are not illegal but their use has been condemned by humanitarian organisations, such as Human Rights Watch. The likelihood of casualties among civilians, due to their wide dispersal pattern and frequent inaccuracy, is high. Many of the bomblets fail to explode on reaching the ground, so they pose a continuing danger.

Mike Lewis, of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, said bomblets worked in the same way as landmines, which have been outlawed under the Ottawa Convention. "The fact that a company is willing to offer a weapon [at DSEi] that is so destructive and internationally reviled is a reflection of how little arms companies are conscious of the humanitarian implications of their products," he said.

Officially the trade fair does not allow cluster bombs to be promoted at the event. Paul Beaver, spokesman for the DSEi, declared: "They [cluster bombs] are not here, not for sale and not even a topic of conversation." On being told that at least one company was willing to sell the weapons at the fair, he said: "I'm surprised you have found that, but you have to remember they are not illegal. There are far worse weapons, you know."

The taxpayer picks up a substantial bill for the event - for the policing, for the British armed forces personnel and warships made available for demonstrations, and for foreign delegations put up at the taxpayers' expense. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said action would be taken against any exhibitor selling illegal weapons, but added cluster munitions did not fall into this category.

Reed Elsevier - the owner of the DSEi exhibition - is also one of the world's foremost science publishers. Ahead of the event, one of its most prestigious medical titles, The Lancet, denounced Reed's connection with the arms trade. The journal said in an editorial that cluster bombs - "the worst kind of weapon" - would be represented at the fair. "Our owners are engaged in a business that so clearly undermines not only principles of public-health practice, but also the policies of intergovernmental agencies," The Lancet said in an editorial.

According to the Campaign Against Arms Trade, more than a dozen makers of cluster bombs, including BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin are at DSEi. But only Denel was prepared to talk about the weapon at the event.

A cruel weapon

Many cluster bombs do not explode on impact. The small, brightly coloured bomblets lie like anti-personnel mines, tempting children. While considered an effective weapon by many Nato governments, the bombs are opposed by groups such as the Red Cross. They remain a daily danger in Laos and southern Vietnam, as well as Kosovo and Iraq. During the US's military campaign in Afghanistan, its forces faced a problem after humanitarian rations dropped from airplanes were found to have the same yellow coloured packaging as unexploded cluster bomblets.

repost

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

Big Paradox?

14.09.2005 21:52

If cluster bombs are not illegal, then what, pray, are illegal weapons? Surely the purpose of any weapon is to kill, and the manner in which they go about their execution is indescriminate. To a person uneducated in the realms of lethal weapons, they all seem rather the same. Please someone enlighten me as to the difference between legal and illegal devices of murder!!

Cat


Illegal weapons

16.09.2005 14:12

When countries go to war they have to follow certain rules of international humanitarian law.
These rules state that:
- you can't use weapons that cause unnecessary suffering (suffering that is not in proportion to the military use of the weapon)
- you can't use weapons that can't distinguish between civilians and soldiers
- you can't affect the neurality of states not involved in the conflict

So, it's ok (according to these principles of international law) to use a gun to shoot an enemy soldier. It's not ok to drop cluster bombs over a wide area, which will probably kill civilians and soldiers, and will hang around as unexploded remnants of way long after the war has finished.
There are also some weapons (landmines, biological, chemical) which are banned by specific treaties.
Of course, some people would rather see all war outlawed...

D


Enlightenment for Cat.

18.09.2005 10:45

Cat - your confusion comes from misunderstanding the difference between the devices per se and the act. In this case its not a qustion of whether the devices are legal or illegal, its whether the act of using them to kill is considered to be murder.

The question of legality or illegality of arms is not, sadly, based soley on whether you approve of them or their use. UK government trade controls are designed to ensure arms get into the hands of legitimate users and not abusers, these controls and the judgements that go with them are based on extensive research and analysis thereof, and not simply on reading Indymedia, the Indepenent or the Grauniad.

Whether a war is legitimised or not is a question for national government, not for some unelected toothless talking-shop such as the UN. The UN could have prevented many hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over its history, but it stands back and trots out the same old rhetoric about consensus and diplomacy whilst dictators laugh in their face (not even behind their backs)!

If you want to demonstrate in the name of peace, by all means put on your silly pink clown suit and bang your drum, but don't come out with all the illegal war and illegal arms nonsense - play in the shallow end, away from the sharks.

George B Shaw


Do not Saudi Arabia and Burma count as abusers?

28.09.2005 09:37



George as far as these so-called legit governments having checks and balances as you seem to allude to, "assuring that weapons get into the hands of legitimate users and not abusers", how do you account for the widespread procurement of weapons that are produced and manufactured by your so-called 'responsible governments 'by just about every despotic regime throughout the world? Most of these regimes don't manufacture their own military arms but somehow the worst of them never seem to be lacking in American, Russian, Israeli, Chinese, South African or European made military equipment and weaponry.

Some of the most brutal dictatorships around have weapons made in one or another of these countries. Burma (China, Germany, Israeli, Russia (Mig-29's) South Africa and Singapore (M-203 Grenade Launcher USA license rights sold to Singapore by U.S. manufactures and then sold by Singapore to Burma's military dictatorship ). The despotic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (The U.S.). Paramilitary right-wing death squads in Columbia, again the U.S. And there are many others of course, the list can go on and on, Nigera, The Congo, Indonesia, etc. etc.

During the 'Cold War' the U.S. and USSR spread their weapons around the world basically handing them to any nation or insurgent group that seemed favorable to their geopolitical wrangling. Neither the U.S. or USSR behaved responsibly in this regard. More often then not those very weapons were turned against the civilian or non-combatant citizens of those other countries by the very people whom the U.S. or USSR considered to be 'legitimate users'. Undoubtedly millions of non-combatants were violently killed and maimed by U.S. and USSR made weapons that were sold or given to their proxies in other nations. And in fact non-combatants continue to be murdered and oppressed today by both the millions of surviving "Cold War" era weapons and the new crop of weapons being handed out today in the interests of geopolitcs to your so-called 'legitimate users'.

It seems that in the eyes of these so-called 'responsible nations' the main qualification of being a "legitimate user" who is qualified to purchase military weapons is that the country or insurgent movement in question be favorable to the geopolitical interests of whatever country is providing the military arms. All other qualifications and considerations seem secondary, that is if other considerations even sincerely register in the first place?


PS, Oh and by the way I've never donned a clown suit. And just because it may not be up to us in the present doesn't mean it won't be at some time in the future. And you can't guarantee otherwise George, now can you?

T. Rios

T.Rios


"M-16 machine gun is one the United States’ most deadly exports"

28.09.2005 09:47

An excerpt from the article: Profiling the Small Arms Industry
by Frida Berrigan and Michelle Ciarrocca.

www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/smallarms.htm

"The M-16: Worst Case Scenario
The lightweight and cheap M-16 machine gun is one the United States’ most deadly export. M-16s sold to Indonesia were passed on to paramilitaries who brutalized the East Timorese after the September 1999 UN sponsored referendum on independence. A shipment of arms to Guatemala in the late 1980s included 16,000 M-16s, used by the army in a December 1990 massacre in Santiago Atitlan. The M-16 rifle is in the arsenals of more than 50 countries, including Cambodia, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia, Sri Lanka, and the Democratic Republic of Congo and has been produced in Singapore, South Korea, and the Philippines."

Rios


Of the 14 countries in Africa where there is conflict, Britain has sold arms to

18.10.2005 18:19

Johann Hari: Selling weapons - or selling out?
Of the 14 countries in Africa where there is conflict, Britain has sold arms to ten of them
Published: 18 October 2005

 http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article320338.ece

Emmanuel Jal first held an AK47 when he was seven years old, and he first killed a man when he was 10. When I met him in London this week - now in his mid-20s - he spoke with a quiet, brittle calm about his life as a child soldier. "After my mother died, I joined the Sudanese People's Liberation Army and fought for them. There are no happy memories of that time - everything was just violence, trauma, war," he explains with watery eyes. "Guns were everywhere. We were taught to kill instead of being taught to read and write."

But he stressed that this is not just another African horror story. This is a parable - and the lesson is for us. "Every single one of those guns was supplied by the outside world. Nobody in Sudan manufactured them."

Article Length: 1126 words (approx.)

Emmanuel Jal first held an AK47 when he was seven years old, and he first killed a man when he was 10. When I met him in London this week - now in his mid-20s - he spoke with a quiet, brittle calm about his life as a child soldier. "After my mother died, I joined the Sudanese People's Liberation Army and fought for them. There are no happy memories of that time - everything was just violence, trauma, war," he explains with watery eyes. "Guns were everywhere. We were taught to kill instead of being taught to read and write."

But he stressed that this is not just another African horror story. This is a parable - and the lesson is for us. "Every single one of those guns was supplied by the outside world. Nobody in Sudan manufactured them."

 http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article320338.ece

Article Length: 1126 words (approx.)
Independent Portfolio

Existing Independent Portfolio subscribers: Log in here, please.

Click here to find out more about subscribing to the Independent Portfolio.

Click here to buy this article for £1.

Payments are taken using BT click&buy. Click here to find out more about BT click&buy.



T. Rios