The iconic souvenir for those who visit Russia is the matryoshka. It is a brightly painted, traditionally dressed wooden doll that opens to reveal ever smaller Russian dolls hidden inside.Cluster munitions, which the United States are planning to supply to Ukraine, are a bit like the matryoshka doll of military explosives, except that they bring only misery to those on the receiving end.They also pose a diplomatic dilemma and values test for countries such as Canada, which have been staunch allies of Ukraine but have been opposed the use of cluster munitions in war.In theory at least, cluster bombs work like this: big bombs, missiles and rockets expand their zone of impact by releasing smaller bombs, or bomblets. It sounds simple and the name, bomblets, even sounds kind of cute — until you witness the havoc they create.Consider this account, gathered by Human Rights Watch, of a May 2022 strike involving cluster munitions in the Ukrainian town of Hlynske, 200 kilometres east of Kyiv.“Suddenly I heard my father screaming, ‘I’ve been hit! I can’t move.’ … I ran back and saw that he had fallen on his knees but couldn’t move from the waist down, and there were many metal pieces in him, including one sticking out of his spine and another in his chest. He had these small metal pellets lodged in his hands and legs.”In that case, the man died. More often, victims of cluster munitions live a limited and greatly reduced life. They lose limbs but are left with physical and psychological trauma.In the majority of cases, victims are men, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Children make up a large number, too, because they are “particularly attracted to the shape, size and colour of submunitions” that, in a disturbing number of cases, land in a war zone but do not explode.As the arc of modern warfare rises toward greater precision, with GPS-guided missiles and remotely controlled drone strikes, there is a bloody wealth of evidence showing that cluster munitions kill and maim civilians in all-too-great numbers.Since 2010, there have been 123 states and parties that have signed on to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and agreed to ban their use, production, acquisition, stockpiling and sale.Canada implemented the convention in November 2014 with a law that makes it illegal to use, produce, transfer, import or export cluster munitions.But Russia and Ukraine have not signed on to the convention. And neither has the United States.Washington took some strides under former president George W. Bush to make the waging of war a bit safer for civilians. In 2008, the Pentagon issued a policy that required the removal of the vast majority of cluster munitions from stockpiles by 2018 and severely restricted the use of those cluster munitions that tended to land on the battlefield without exploding — heightening the chance that they would cause civilian casualties, perhaps years after the resolution of a conflict.It wasn’t a ban, but it was something like progress.But before that 2018 deadline came due, the U.S. reversed course, citing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, “important changes in the global security environment,” and budget cuts that prevented them from buying more modern and accurate stocks of what the Defense Department referred to as “legitimate weapons with clear military utility.”And now, the U.S. has decided that the military utility is greatest in Ukraine.This wouldn’t be the first instance of Ukrainian forces using cluster munitions on the battlefield. The example above, of the man found with shrapnel in his chest and in his spine, was from a report that publicized Ukraine’s use of the controversial weapon.But they have been used more frequently in the employ of Vladimir Putin’s forces. In the first year of the war, according to s U.S. Defense Department official, Russia rained down upon Ukraine “tens of millions” of bomblets.One of the most horrid instances came in April 2022, when a Tochka-U ballistic missile was fired from Russian-controlled territory in Ukraine at the train station in Kramatorsk, where civilians had gathered for evacuation at the urging of local authorities.A Human Rights Watch investigation, released in February of this year, determined that “a missile equipped with a cluster munition warhead dispersed 50 small bombs” and resulted in the deaths of 58 civilians, while injuring more than 100 others.Should the U.S. be contributing to this practice, sending cluster munitions to its ally and, in effect, sanctioning the use of a weapon that much of the world agrees should be banned?There is the “eye-for-an-eye” argument, that Ukraine needs to be able to fight Russian fire with equal or greater firepower in order to defend its territory and win the war.And, as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, there is a difference between Russia’s use and that of Ukraine.“The difference is that Russia is using cluster munitions to attack, to invade Ukraine. Ukraine is using cluster ammunition to protect itself against an aggressor.”American officials said they have promises from Ukraine that the weapons would not be fired in urban areas where civilians are located and that their use would be carefully tracked to help in future demining efforts, and that the cluster munitions are only there to serve as a “bridge” until the U.S. and other allies can increase artillery production and supplies.The Americans also say their cluster munitions have a low “dud rate,” meaning that fewer than 2.35 per cent of the bomblets hit the ground without exploding. In contrast, between 30 and 40 per cent of Russian cluster munitions land without immediately exploding.There is also, however, an argument to be made for the moral high ground. It’s easy to say this from thousands of kilometres away, in the peace and comfort of Canada, but winning at any or all costs, in some instances, risks a hollow victory. And when the war is one day finished and Ukrainians return to the territory that is now occupied or contested, the potentially unexploded ordinance from the cluster munitions risks creating a generation of civilian victims who will battle for their lives and for their health long after the guns have gone silent.It would seem that countries that are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which have chosen to take such a stand, should now be compelled to demonstrate the weight of their signatures.If a country doesn’t believe that cluster munitions should be used in war, how can its government stand idly by as the U.S. prepares to send these weapons to Ukraine?“We support Ukraine in every way we can — but not with illegal, banned weapons,” wrote Heather McPherson, the NDP’s foreign affairs critic. “Canada has an obligation under the (convention) to actively discourage use. This is the moment to do so.”In a statement, Global Affairs Canada said the country’s position was firm.“We do not support the use of cluster munitions and are committed to putting an end to the effects cluster munitions have on civilians — particularly children,” the statement read. “We take seriously our obligation under the convention to encourage its universal adoption.”Individually and even collectively, government leaders in Ottawa, London, Paris, Prague, Berlin or Madrid may be powerless to change Washington’s mind.But they are not entirely without weight in this matter.Twenty of the 27 European Union member states have banned cluster munitions. Ukraine would very much like to become member state No. 28.Twenty-three of 31 countries from the NATO military alliance have banned cluster munitions, too. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other NATO leaders are meeting in Vilnius next week. There is no item higher on the agenda than Ukraine’s request to join the alliance and profit from its collective security guarantee.Do nothing, stay silent, stand idly by, fail to sanction the use of a weapon banned under Canadian law, and Canada stands vulnerable to accusations that it is guilt by association.But those accusations are just words. They will not hold weight in a court of law because prescient politicians in this country foresaw just such a predicament.It was back on June 18, 2014, and, in the House of Commons, MPs were debating the soon-to-be cluster munition ban.Conservative MP David Anderson, then the parliamentary secretary to foreign affairs minister John Baird, explained that the law included an exception for members of the Canadian Armed Forces — the only people who might have any occasion to come into contact with a cluster munition.The exception allowed Canadian military personnel to direct, authorize, request and acquire cluster munitions when participating in joint military operations with the U.S. or other allied militaries who were not signatories to the convention.It ensured, in Anderson’s words, that “countries are not forced to choose between working with their allies in the interests of broader peace and security and their efforts to do all that they can to get rid of the scourge of cluster munitions.”“Without such provisions,” he said, “many countries that wanted to address the impact of cluster munitions by joining the treaty would likely not have done so.”Canada’s hands are clean, in other words. But its values and principles are stretched and impossibly strained by the real-world implications of the conflict in Ukraine.Allan Woods is a Montreal-based staff reporter for the Star. He covers global and national affairs. Follow him on Twitter: @WoodsAllan
The iconic souvenir for those who visit Russia is the matryoshka. It is a brightly painted, traditionally dressed wooden doll that opens to reveal ever smaller Russian dolls hidden inside.
Cluster munitions, which the United States are planning to supply to Ukraine, are a bit like the matryoshka doll of military explosives, except that they bring only misery to those on the receiving end.
They also pose a diplomatic dilemma and values test for countries such as Canada, which have been staunch allies of Ukraine but have been opposed the use of cluster munitions in war.
In theory at least, cluster bombs work like this: big bombs, missiles and rockets expand their zone of impact by releasing smaller bombs, or bomblets. It sounds simple and the name, bomblets, even sounds kind of cute — until you witness the havoc they create.
Consider this account, gathered by Human Rights Watch, of a May 2022 strike involving cluster munitions in the Ukrainian town of Hlynske, 200 kilometres east of Kyiv.
“Suddenly I heard my father screaming, ‘I’ve been hit! I can’t move.’ … I ran back and saw that he had fallen on his knees but couldn’t move from the waist down, and there were many metal pieces in him, including one sticking out of his spine and another in his chest. He had these small metal pellets lodged in his hands and legs.”
In that case, the man died. More often, victims of cluster munitions live a limited and greatly reduced life. They lose limbs but are left with physical and psychological trauma.
In the majority of cases, victims are men, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Children make up a large number, too, because they are “particularly attracted to the shape, size and colour of submunitions” that, in a disturbing number of cases, land in a war zone but do not explode.
As the arc of modern warfare rises toward greater precision, with GPS-guided missiles and remotely controlled drone strikes, there is a bloody wealth of evidence showing that cluster munitions kill and maim civilians in all-too-great numbers.
Since 2010, there have been 123 states and parties that have signed on to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and agreed to ban their use, production, acquisition, stockpiling and sale.
Canada implemented the convention in November 2014 with a law that makes it illegal to use, produce, transfer, import or export cluster munitions.
But Russia and Ukraine have not signed on to the convention. And neither has the United States.
Washington took some strides under former president George W. Bush to make the waging of war a bit safer for civilians. In 2008, the Pentagon issued a policy that required the removal of the vast majority of cluster munitions from stockpiles by 2018 and severely restricted the use of those cluster munitions that tended to land on the battlefield without exploding — heightening the chance that they would cause civilian casualties, perhaps years after the resolution of a conflict.
It wasn’t a ban, but it was something like progress.
But before that 2018 deadline came due, the U.S. reversed course, citing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, “important changes in the global security environment,” and budget cuts that prevented them from buying more modern and accurate stocks of what the Defense Department referred to as “legitimate weapons with clear military utility.”
And now, the U.S. has decided that the military utility is greatest in Ukraine.
This wouldn’t be the first instance of Ukrainian forces using cluster munitions on the battlefield. The example above, of the man found with shrapnel in his chest and in his spine, was from a report that publicized Ukraine’s use of the controversial weapon.
But they have been used more frequently in the employ of Vladimir Putin’s forces. In the first year of the war, according to s U.S. Defense Department official, Russia rained down upon Ukraine “tens of millions” of bomblets.
One of the most horrid instances came in April 2022, when a Tochka-U ballistic missile was fired from Russian-controlled territory in Ukraine at the train station in Kramatorsk, where civilians had gathered for evacuation at the urging of local authorities.
A Human Rights Watch investigation, released in February of this year, determined that “a missile equipped with a cluster munition warhead dispersed 50 small bombs” and resulted in the deaths of 58 civilians, while injuring more than 100 others.
Should the U.S. be contributing to this practice, sending cluster munitions to its ally and, in effect, sanctioning the use of a weapon that much of the world agrees should be banned?
There is the “eye-for-an-eye” argument, that Ukraine needs to be able to fight Russian fire with equal or greater firepower in order to defend its territory and win the war.
And, as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, there is a difference between Russia’s use and that of Ukraine.
“The difference is that Russia is using cluster munitions to attack, to invade Ukraine. Ukraine is using cluster ammunition to protect itself against an aggressor.”
American officials said they have promises from Ukraine that the weapons would not be fired in urban areas where civilians are located and that their use would be carefully tracked to help in future demining efforts, and that the cluster munitions are only there to serve as a “bridge” until the U.S. and other allies can increase artillery production and supplies.
The Americans also say their cluster munitions have a low “dud rate,” meaning that fewer than 2.35 per cent of the bomblets hit the ground without exploding. In contrast, between 30 and 40 per cent of Russian cluster munitions land without immediately exploding.
There is also, however, an argument to be made for the moral high ground. It’s easy to say this from thousands of kilometres away, in the peace and comfort of Canada, but winning at any or all costs, in some instances, risks a hollow victory. And when the war is one day finished and Ukrainians return to the territory that is now occupied or contested, the potentially unexploded ordinance from the cluster munitions risks creating a generation of civilian victims who will battle for their lives and for their health long after the guns have gone silent.
It would seem that countries that are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which have chosen to take such a stand, should now be compelled to demonstrate the weight of their signatures.
If a country doesn’t believe that cluster munitions should be used in war, how can its government stand idly by as the U.S. prepares to send these weapons to Ukraine?
“We support Ukraine in every way we can — but not with illegal, banned weapons,” wrote Heather McPherson, the NDP’s foreign affairs critic. “Canada has an obligation under the (convention) to actively discourage use. This is the moment to do so.”
In a statement, Global Affairs Canada said the country’s position was firm.
“We do not support the use of cluster munitions and are committed to putting an end to the effects cluster munitions have on civilians — particularly children,” the statement read. “We take seriously our obligation under the convention to encourage its universal adoption.”
Individually and even collectively, government leaders in Ottawa, London, Paris, Prague, Berlin or Madrid may be powerless to change Washington’s mind.
But they are not entirely without weight in this matter.
Twenty of the 27 European Union member states have banned cluster munitions. Ukraine would very much like to become member state No. 28.
Twenty-three of 31 countries from the NATO military alliance have banned cluster munitions, too. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other NATO leaders are meeting in Vilnius next week. There is no item higher on the agenda than Ukraine’s request to join the alliance and profit from its collective security guarantee.
Do nothing, stay silent, stand idly by, fail to sanction the use of a weapon banned under Canadian law, and Canada stands vulnerable to accusations that it is guilt by association.
But those accusations are just words. They will not hold weight in a court of law because prescient politicians in this country foresaw just such a predicament.
It was back on June 18, 2014, and, in the House of Commons, MPs were debating the soon-to-be cluster munition ban.
Conservative MP David Anderson, then the parliamentary secretary to foreign affairs minister John Baird, explained that the law included an exception for members of the Canadian Armed Forces — the only people who might have any occasion to come into contact with a cluster munition.
The exception allowed Canadian military personnel to direct, authorize, request and acquire cluster munitions when participating in joint military operations with the U.S. or other allied militaries who were not signatories to the convention.
It ensured, in Anderson’s words, that “countries are not forced to choose between working with their allies in the interests of broader peace and security and their efforts to do all that they can to get rid of the scourge of cluster munitions.”
“Without such provisions,” he said, “many countries that wanted to address the impact of cluster munitions by joining the treaty would likely not have done so.”
Canada’s hands are clean, in other words. But its values and principles are stretched and impossibly strained by the real-world implications of the conflict in Ukraine.
Allan Woods is a Montreal-based staff reporter for the Star. He covers global and national affairs. Follow him on Twitter: @WoodsAllan
Leave a Reply