Seven questions about cluster weapons

Armaments are difficult to debate in Finland, because national defence is virtually a sacred subject

print this

By Tanja Aitamurto
     
      Pictures of victims of cluster munitions, campaigns, demonstrations, political discussion: in many European countries there is an intense debate going on about cluster weapons, and above all about their dangers to civilians. Finland is also taking part in this debate - but not very intensely.
      There are reasons for this. The subject is a difficult one: Finland wants to both limit and to use cluster munitions.
      Finland was present at discussions which began a week ago in Peru, aimed at securing an international treaty restricting the use of cluster munitions. The treaty would ban cluster weapons which harm civilians, and would define how the victims of the weapons should be helped. However, Finland would allow some of its own cluster weapons - for instance those which self-destruct if they do not explode when they hit a target. Finland has already acquired such weapons, and plans to buy more cluster weapons of different types. One aim is to partially replace the infantry land mines that are to be eliminated in the next decade.
      The most difficult aspect of the negotiations is to define what kinds of weapons cause unreasonable harm to civilians.
     
1. What are cluster weapons, and why are there moves underway to limit them?
      Cluster weapons are a generic name that has been given to weapons that contain many separate bomblets. The bomblets are inside a shell, and they spread there in clusters and explode when hitting a target. Usually one shell can have dozens or hundreds of small explosives. Cluster munitions include cluster bombs that are dropped from planes. Finland has artillery shells that are classified as cluster weapons.
      Cluster weapons that are left in the terrain without exploding injure and kill people even when a war is over. Estimates of the numbers of victims in different countries vary. The Handicap International organisation estimates that 5,400 civilians have been killed and 7,200 have been injured by such weapons since the 1960s in 24 countries, such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Laos.
      According to NGO estimates, two people a day were being injured by cluster weapons in Lebanon months after Israel stopped bombing the area last summer.
      According to the organisations, too many cluster weapons are left unexploded, and therefore remain live and dangerous in the terrain. This is why they have to be cleared from terrain years after hostilities have ceased. For instance, in South Lebanon, the bomblets are being cleared away at this moment, and most agricultural land in the area is believed to be unusable because of the weapons. Another problem is that the bomblets spread over an area up to a square kilometre in size, and cannot be precisely aimed at a target. For this reason they pose a danger to civilians during wartime.
      The desire to restrict cluster weapons started from non-governmental organisations in the same way that the Ottawa Treaty that banned infantry land mines. Negotiations on mine limits proceeded quickly at that time, and concluded - somewhat unexpectedly - in a total ban on anti-personnel mines. NGOs are not calling for an outright ban on all cluster weapons, but they want sufficiently effective limitations on the weapons.
     
2. Why have cluster weapons been described as necessary for Finnish defence?
      According to the Ministry of Defence, they are cost-effective weapons. The bomblets spread over a wide area, and they can be distributed with artillery shells and rocket launchers, for instance.
      Pauli Järvenpää, a senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, says that there are no weapons that would be as effective at a comparable cost. Cluster weapons are also needed because of the special characteristics of Finnish defence. These include the potential military threat posed by Russia, the obligation to defend all of Finnish territory, and the low level of defence spending as a proportion of GDP.
     
3. Can other weapons substitute for cluster munitions in Finnish defence?
      Some say that they can, if there is a will. For instance, Austria is giving up its cluster weapons, and is looking for options to replace them with. Hungary, Norway, and Belgium have also placed a ban on the use of their cluster weapons.
      Crisis management expert Elisabeth Rehn, who served as Minister of Defence in the 1990s, says that there are alternatives, and more will come, because weapons technology is constantly developing them. "Finland's defence does not hinge on weapons alone. If there is a will, the money will be there", she says.
      Laura Lodenius, executive director of the Peace Union of Finland, which is demanding limits on cluster munitions, says that claims that replacing cluster weapons is expensive can be a way to fish for more money for the Defence Forces. The same argument was used in the land mine debate. The Defence Forces finally got EUR 200 million for the replacement of infantry land mines.
      Former Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja says that the same thing that happened with the land mines could happen to cluster weapons. After years of debate, there could be an admission that the weapons actually are replaceable.
      "The difficulty of replacing them was a convenience argument, that people did not want to let go of", Tuomioja says.
     
4. Why is Finland negotiating on a treaty on limiting cluster weapons if they are crucial for Finnish defence?
      In order to protect our interests, says Foreign Minister Ilkka Kanerva. "Outsiders must not be allowed to influence Finland's national defence decisions."
      Kanerva says that Finland must absolutely take part in negotiations, so that agreements do not emerge that affect Finland, and which Finland has not been able to influence. Finland learned this in the Ottawa land mine treaty talks, which Finland stayed out of. Finland must also bear its responsibility for the humanitarian problems that are caused by the weapons", Kanerva points out.
     
5. If the treaty bans all cluster weapons, or the kind that Finland already has, the thinking is that Finland would remain outside the treaty. What would be the result of such a move?
      Finland's credibility as a defender of human rights and world peace might suffer if the military interests of the country itself were to be more important for Finland than responsibility for the suffering caused by the cluster weapons.
      Finland heard such accusations when it had not yet decided to join the Ottawa Treaty. Erkki Tuomioja and Elisabeth Rehn say that Finland's standing in disarmament and human rights questions was questioned - and sometimes still is questioned, although not quite as often - by EU countries, because Finland was not involved in the mine treaty.
      "Finland needs to be involved in the cluster weapon treaty, because Finland wants to be a humane and caring state. Otherwise we will end up in a spiral of excuses, which is what happened with the mines", Rehn says.
      Finland and Poland are the only EU countries to be outside the mine treaty. Finland plans to join the treaty in 2012.
      Large manufacturers and users of cluster weapons, such as Russia and the United States, are not involved in the limitation of cluster munitions. They have also not banned infantry land mines.
      Nevertheless, international treaties do have weight. They are important specifically for small countries, says researcher Hugo Brady at the CER research institute in London. "Even a small country can become a moral superpower if it actively takes part in international human rights processes", he believes.
      The question is one of political credibility. Brady says that small countries can gather international recognition and can profile themselves as peacemakers, for instance. Norway has been very successful at this, and Austria is trying to build a reputation as an opponent of cluster weapons. "A country's moral reputation is important especially in the eyes of the young."
      Steve Goose, head of the weapons programme of Human Rights Watch, says that it would not be surprising if Finland were to remain outside the cluster weapon treaty, because Finland is not a party to the land mine treaty. "Finland's reputation as a defender of human rights has therefore already been tainted", he says.
     
6. Are Finland's cluster weapons sufficiently reliable?
      Finland's Defence Forces think that they are, but in the view of Norway, for instance, they are not. The artillery cluster weapons acquired by Finland are banned for use in Norway because the shells do not work reliably enough in the view of the Norwegian Defence Forces - that is, they do not self-destruct if they fail to explode.
      According to studies conducted by NGOs in Lebanon, as many as ten per cent of the bomblets remained unexploded. In the view of the Finnish Defence Forces, the weapon is seen to be sufficiently reliable on the basis of narrow tests, and the promises of the manufacturer. Extensive tests have not been conducted in Finland. Norway is still studying the reliability of the weapon.
      It is not possible to directly compare the tests conducted by different countries, and the test conditions do not correspond to the conditions under which the weapons would be used. There is also disagreement as to whether or not all unexploded ordnance are dangerous, or if only some of them are.
      In the view of international organisations, it is a cause for concern that Finland claims that its cluster weapons work reliably, and that it uses this argument to allow itself to use cluster weapons that self-destruct. "Finland is thus downplaying the problems that are caused by the cluster weapons", says coordinator Thomas Nash of the Cluster Munition Coalition network.
     
7. Why is debate on cluster weapons not as intense in Finland as in many other European countries?
      The speed at which the ban on cluster weapons moved forward surprised Finnish NGOs and politicians. The organisations are also cautious. They learned from the land mine debate that it is difficult to discuss weapons in Finland: as a topic; national defence is virtually sacrosanct.
      Many of the large aid organisations operating in Finland avoid talking about disarmament. Peace Union executive director Laura Lodenius says that the reason for this is that the organisations are afraid that the discussion might do harm to other issues that they promote.
      All seems to be quiet in Parliament as well. Politicians dare not, or do not want to question defence policy decisions, because critics are easily labelled threats to the security of their country.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 3.6.2007


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Finnish cluster weapon purchases raise criticism among NGOs meeting in Peru (24.5.2007)

TANJA AITAMURTO / Helsingin Sanomat