I think you’re missing the larger point here. It’s not about what treaty is signed but what is being done. Imagine taking a walk at night seeking shelter and stepping on one. Do you think this mine has intelligence and can differentiate about civilian or not?
Last I checked it doesn’t matter what weapon you use if you target civilians.
From the Geneva convention info page in UN.
“(…) many of the rules contained in these treaties have been considered as part of customary law and, as such, are binding on all States (and other parties to the conflict), whether or not States have ratified the treaties themselves. In addition, many rules of customary international law apply in both international and non-international armed conflict (…)”
So your munition treaty is really superseded by Geneva convention on treatment of civilians.
Convention has no teeth and enforcement. USA already given the finger to a lot of these International conventions that not apply to them. Think about it, if your country has only courts (judicial system), do you think there will be law and order minus any law enforcers? Remember Iraq and Afghan? Heck even Libya destroyed by NATO? None of these are sanctioned by UN? After Powell making a fool of himself in UN with his WMD, USA still didn't get the nod. Small and weak countries will recognize these conventions because they will get the benefit without much commitment. Big countries like USA, China and Russia will be constraint by these self-handcuff conventions and "bully" by smaller countries. Yes "bully". Think UN security councils of majority small countries can dictate the big boys what to do if there are no veto. In a perfect world, sure, majority should rule over minority even if it is tyranny (that is how true democracy work). In real world, it doesnt. Big guns and might do that. You can search Mao's infamous quote about that which basically explain entire existence of China lone wolf policy.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This isn't that.
I'd be first to condemn - if true - but given the current state of propaganda masquerading as journalism that we see on every side of many high-stakes issues, I will lean toward skepticism until indisputable evidence is presented. The question to ask is "who benefits from this report?"
The original report was issued by the army to Ukrainian civilians as a warning. Who benefits from that? That is pretty clear. No need for playing Sherlock Holmes here.
The newspaper later republished this with attribution. I don’t think there’s need to attributing malice for a country that was invaded. Unless you think that the Ukraine is doing propaganda and the invasion here
War being what it is, it's kind of pointless to expect the belligerent to respect any kind of treaty they've signed that can restrict their tactical options on the battlefield.
Saudi Arabia did the same kind of things[1] in Yemen a few years ago, with US support.
Two years ago Bret Devereaux did a blog post on the topic of chemical weapons, and why we (mostly) don't use it anymore (and that it's not because of treaties, merely because they don't work that well against modern armies): https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Poisonous gas was banned in 1925; most of the victims were soldiers. Yet we can't get rid of residual landmines?
The majority of humanity is fed-up with tyrants. Anyone capable of planting/spreading landmines that will cause indiscriminate civilian death can also be hung by the neck until dead. The belligerent will respect that option if its certain enough. If the penalties are severe enough, most countries could handle that leadership problem. Ask Nicolae Ceaușescu.
This is an unpopular and uncomfortable fact that's likely to get buried, and I'm aware it's a whataboutism. However, NATO dropped both cluster bombs, and depleted Uranium, on my densely populated home city in Serbia in 1999. Both of those are (and were at the time) banned by international conventions, to which the US is a signatory.
Glimpses through the fog of an ongoing war evoke outrage, powerlessness and fear; cold, verified facts and numbers of the past (recent enough that we have good records, yet long enough ago for sober analysis and fact-checking) is soul-crushing.
Started educating myself on local history before arriving in Serbia. Today I am learning that expressing outrage at my government’s current actions might sometimes imply disrespect to people around me, who quite recently suffered from the enemy of that government. (Your comment helped me understand that.)
22 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 52.8 ms ] threadFor those unfamiliar with the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmywwiZth5E
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munition...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munition...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
Last I checked it doesn’t matter what weapon you use if you target civilians.
From the Geneva convention info page in UN.
“(…) many of the rules contained in these treaties have been considered as part of customary law and, as such, are binding on all States (and other parties to the conflict), whether or not States have ratified the treaties themselves. In addition, many rules of customary international law apply in both international and non-international armed conflict (…)”
So your munition treaty is really superseded by Geneva convention on treatment of civilians.
The newspaper later republished this with attribution. I don’t think there’s need to attributing malice for a country that was invaded. Unless you think that the Ukraine is doing propaganda and the invasion here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-43
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1
Saudi Arabia did the same kind of things[1] in Yemen a few years ago, with US support.
Two years ago Bret Devereaux did a blog post on the topic of chemical weapons, and why we (mostly) don't use it anymore (and that it's not because of treaties, merely because they don't work that well against modern armies): https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/09/19...
The majority of humanity is fed-up with tyrants. Anyone capable of planting/spreading landmines that will cause indiscriminate civilian death can also be hung by the neck until dead. The belligerent will respect that option if its certain enough. If the penalties are severe enough, most countries could handle that leadership problem. Ask Nicolae Ceaușescu.
Started educating myself on local history before arriving in Serbia. Today I am learning that expressing outrage at my government’s current actions might sometimes imply disrespect to people around me, who quite recently suffered from the enemy of that government. (Your comment helped me understand that.)