Talk:Convention on Cluster Munitions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date[edit]

(woooooot!!) Ok, with that out of the way :)

The Convention on Cluster Munitions is a treaty created on 30 May 2008 in Dublin, Ireland.

Should this really say May 30, 2008. It is in the news page here on wiki, today May the 29th. Not only that, but none of the sources are from the future. — robbiemuffin page talk 00:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<spaceywaveyeffect>I am the Editor of Wikipedias Future. I have come from the future to inform you the adoption of international treaties!</spaceywaveyeffect> Yeah, I changed the tense, for the next few hours. - BanyanTree 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for correcting your mistake, wikipedia! It is no longer writing in the Present-in-the-future tense! ;) (Note at this point in time, now 4-5 hours into the day where the treaty is due to almost get passed, it is still not yet created.) — robbiemuffin page talk 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List[edit]

This article, especially since it's listed on the main page, needs list of signatories and notable non-signatories, as well as official reactions/statements from governments; this would be similar to many other treaties or actions/attacks. —OverMyHead 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no signatories yet and won't be until December. I've added a list of Wellington Declaration subscribers, since I can't find a list for the Dublin conference. I assume one will come out once the formal ceremony is held. I have to say that I'd prefer editors pick and choose important responses and explain them in prose, as has been started with the US-UK interaction, rather than the list of countries and pasted government boilerplate responses that one tends to see on Wikipedia. - BanyanTree 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need a list of non-subscribers, even if only "notable" nations (although, I would prefer it to be an exhaustive list). It might also be nice to provide information on why these nations have not subscribed. There are obvious non-subscribers (USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Taiwan, Colombia, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, etc.). However, there are also some not-so-obvious ones (Suriname, Guyana, etc.). It would be nice to know why. --Thorwald (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure would. - BanyanTree 04:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were 111 countries who agreed to it today. I can't find a full list online, though.--Pharos (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and so it begins. This article will no doubt become yet another hatchet job against the United States and any other nation that sees cluster munitions as a military necessity. There is no talk of a ban on nuclear weapons, indiscriminate area effect weapons with lasting impact, but cluster munitions, oh yes, we must discuss those. 98.218.141.145 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take heart, young curmudgeon, the US has until december to persuade some easily manipulated country into changing its mind in such a way as to nullifhy the passage. — robbiemuffin page talk 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list of countries that participated in the Dublin Conference:

Since the Wellington list was only added to this article because we couldn't find the Dublin list, how about we get rid of it now? We could include a brief section describing the Wellington Declaration and link to a website listing the signatories, but at this stage the Dublin list is much more important. (And of course in a few months we can get rid of the Dublin list too and just list the countries that have signed or ratified the convention.) Polemarchus (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. - BanyanTree 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the full list of the 120 countries that subscribed to the Wellington Declaration. I had intended to leave the external link so that interested readers could still access it, but stopclustermunitions.org no longer seems to have the full list.[1] Polemarchus (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background?[edit]

I think this article could use some background on the rationale behind this treaty: why do the proponents want cluster munitions banned? How solid is their reasoning? What are the objections raised by the dissenting nations, and how solid is the reasoning behind them? Such information would certainly help to make this article more informative. Flewellyn (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this. The article relates that they are especially dangerous to civilians, I'm guessing they have a very large area of effect. This should really be clarified and expanded on. Bridies (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took a stab at this. Others are welcome to expand the content. - BanyanTree 04:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clusterbombs are used for destroying tanks...not bombing cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.166.43 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster bombs are used for a variety of missions, not only destroying tanks but also anti-infantry, destroying aircraft, airfields and more. There is information on the background of the reason for the treaty in the history section but maybe it should be moved to its own section to make it easier to find.--SirOdinFranz (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cluster bombs have a very simple purpose: to blow stuff/people up over a wide area. Whether or not you have ethical concerns is for another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia[edit]

Georgia has admitted to the use of cluster munitions during the recent South Ossetian War, as reported: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/01/georgia.russia The cluster munition coalition has yet to update its list.Typhoon9410 (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexploded cluster bombs[edit]

This statement contains a hyperlink, but I couldn't figure out what the actual source for this data was. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons[edit]

I've removed the flag icons from the article, per MOS:ICON. These icons were purely decorative, they serve no educational purpose in an alphabetical country list. Polemarchus (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map is based on an old version of the article, which had a couple of mistakes: Slovakia was listed as a signatory instead of Slovenia, and Guinea-Bissau was left of the list. The full list is here, I'd fix it myself but I don't know how... Polemarchus (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the map to remove Slovakia (Guinea-Bissau is in correctly now as well). incidentally, I created the map using Inkscape which is free to download here AndrewRT(Talk) 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Polemarchus (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the map includes countries which are part of an undefined Wellington declaration. This should be removed until clarified. I don't know how to do it. Politicalguy1234 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wellington Declaration is described in the History section of this article, and its signatories are the best indication of countries that may but have not yet signed the convention. In other words, countries marked in grey are very unlikely to sign the convention. - BanyanTree 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greenland=Denmark; shouldent they be both purple? --Elloza (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Map is off-centered such that some countries are off of the globe shape i.e. New Zealand.

Use/produce/stock[edit]

The french article has a very useful section on countries that use, produce or posess stocks of these cluster munitions. Would it be worth including this information in this article - either as a list or in a map? If yes, how would this best be done? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the French just copied an old version of this article.[2] We used to have those three country lists here but I moved em to the main cluster bomb article, because I figured that's where most people would go looking for that kind of information. I guess I should have left some sort of summary here, directing readers to the full lists. My bad.
If you're offering to create a map or maps, I think that'd be the best way to include that information in this article. If anyone feels inclined, a map of the countries that have been affected by cluster bombs would also be awesome. If no-one else does it, I might give it a try when I find the time.
By the way, I've been meaning to clean up the cluster bomb article for a while now, those lists are an awful mess. Aside from the nasty flag icons (which are just pointless clutter in an alphabetical list of countries), the lists don't agree with the sources. If you're planning to work on any maps, I suggest you base them on this website, which is pretty reliable. Polemarchus (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback - and the hint about source. I did the existing map and would be glad to do more. The way I see it, the map(s) could show:
  1. Ratifications
  2. Signatures
  3. Participants in earlier stages (Wellington, Dublin)
  4. Producers
  5. Users
  6. Stockpilers
At the moment the map shows 1-3. If you want to include 4-6, how should they be combined? Two maps? More than two? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this. Not sure what's the best way to communicate all this information. 1-3 fit neatly onto a single map because there's no real overlap. It would be nice if we could show 4-6 on a single map but that would entail using either six different colours or some sort of stripes, and I think that sort of thing can get confusing very quickly. To be honest, I'd prefer to clutter the article with three separate maps showing 4, 5 and 6 than to try to fit all the information onto a single map that the reader ends up staring at for five minutes trying to work out which countries have used cluster bombs and which have produced but never used them. And printability also becomes and issue when you try to show too much information on a single map. But that's just my opinion. Polemarchus (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you coming back to me! I'll see what I can come up with. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major munitions producers[edit]

While the article says most major producers of cluster munitions have not signed/ratified the treaty it would be handy if it told us which, if any, countries who are major producers have signed the treaty, as these would be particularly significant and interesting cases. United Kingdom has signed the treaty according to this article, and I'd be surprised we wern't a major producer of the munitions, we certainly have previously used a lot of cluster munitions in conflicts, and the dubious industry of manufacturing and exporting weapons seems to be one of the few things we are still good at nowadays, although I guess we might not make cluster munitions ourselves, I really don't know. Would be nice if the article pointed which are the more significant nations to ratify this treaty. 92.10.48.26 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evident factual conflict[edit]

There is an evident factual conflict in this text.

The third paragraph of the introduction contains the following: 

  Permitted weapons must contain less than ten submunitions, and each must weigh more than 4 kilograms (8.8 lb)...

In the third paragraph of the Adoption of the convention section, we find the following sentence: 

  These must contain no more than nine submunitions, and no submunition may weigh more than 4 kilograms (8.8 lb).

The former is presumably the correct information. The author may have intended to write "... and no submunition may weigh less than 4 kilograms (8.8 lb)" in the latter.

Factchecker2011 (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! corrected... L.tak (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam[edit]

Hmm... Vietnam, the country in the world wich is probaly the most cluster munition polluted, has not ratified a ban.

Someone know why?

88.91.92.37 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Update: List of Nations which are non-Participants in Convention[edit]

According to page 2 of the pdf (http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-cmc-campaign-action-plan.pdf) by the Cluster Munition Coalition, as of this 2013 newsletter update, a total of 85 countires "remain outside the Convention" and the newsletter lists them as:

States that have not joined (85) Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Greece, Guyana, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, DPR Korea, RO Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar/Burma, Nepal, Niue, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor -Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

If I'm not missing anything, based on this list, the only G-8 countries are Russia and the US and the only western industrialized country, is the U.S. (on the list of countries who remain outside the convention) Harel (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Convention on Cluster Munitions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Convention on Cluster Munitions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update[edit]

As Niue recently deposited, if someone could update the map, that'd be grand. --JJ Liu (Dylan Smithson) (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus quotation from DoD policy[edit]

The article, backed up by secondary sources, currently says the following about the 2008 DoD policy on cluster munitions:

"Because future adversaries will likely use civilian shields for military targets – for example by locating a military target on the roof of an occupied building – use of unitary weapons could result in more civilian casualties and damage than cluster munitions," the policy claims. "Blanket elimination of cluster munitions is therefore unacceptable due not only to negative military consequences but also due to potential negative consequences for civilians."

Breaking a quotation with an attribution in the middle is a hallmark of journalistic style and is problematic in the context of an encyclopedia because it obscures what exactly is being quoted (see MOS:LQ). I have found the primary source for the DoD policy memo and, unfortunately, it does not in fact contain this quotation. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the US Government?[edit]

In light of media reports that the Ukraine might have used (US supplied) cluster weapons to attack towns inside Russia, might not this article make clear the view of the US Govt concerning the Convention on Cluster Munitions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.228 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US, Russia and Ukraine are not signatories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.71.121 (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions&oldid=1219649615"