“The message from the failed efforts today is clear – cluster bombs are indiscriminate, kill long after they are dropped and are illegal,” said Amy Little of the Cluster Munition Coalition. “Countries like China, India, Israel, Russia and the US who say they are seriously concerned about the humanitarian impact, should go home and immediately begin destroying their stockpiles.”

For more details on the campaign against cluster munitions and what it means for international politics, read this article I co-wrote with Thomas Nash in Global Policy. For Nash’s thoughts on this latest victory for the campaign, click here.

Please sign the global petition organized by Avaaz calling on governments “to do all in your power to stop cluster bombs being used.” Over 75,000 people have signed so far — please add your name to the list.

To learn more about how cluster munitions have “killed and injured thousands of civilians during the last 40 years and continue to do so today”, visit the Cluster Munition Campaign.

For more details on the campaign against cluster munitions and what it means for international politics, read this article I co-wrote with Thomas Nash in Global Policy.

“Amnesty International is gravely concerned by evidence that cluster munitions appear to have been used in Yemen, when most states around the world have committed to comprehensively ban these weapons,” said Mike Lewis, Amnesty International’s arms control researcher.

The use of cluster munitions by the US is highly disappointing. Obama voted in favor of restrictions on cluster munitions as a senator and in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech argued that:

“Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct…. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.”

Anti-cluster munition campaigners in the US are currently trying to get on-the-record comment from the White House or Defense Department as to the truth of these allegations.

Neither the USA nor Yemen are among the over 100 countries that have signed the Cluster Munition Convention, which entered into force this month. The Convention bans the use, transfer or sale of cluster munitions, which are widely seen as inherently indiscriminate weapons that disproportionately affect civilians in current and former war zones.

I published an editorial this weekend celebrating this momentous occasion in The Examiner (Independence, MO, USA). Read it here.

Here is an abstract of our article:

Medium-sized wealthy states – middle powers – and global civil society networks are increasingly joining forces to influence the global policy agenda on issues of international law, justice, humanitarianism and development. These middle power–NGO coalitions use the comparative advantages of both state and nonstate actors in synergistic partnerships. States represent the coalitions’ interests in international negotiations and conferences, provide donor funding and offer diplomatic support. For their part, NGOs gather on-the-ground research, provide technical expertise, lobby governments, mobilise public opinion and generate media publicity. This article uses the case of the campaign to ban cluster munitions, culminating in the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, to examine the organisation, efforts and impact of such middle power–NGO coalitions.

To read the whole article, click here.

In the decade since the signing of the Ottawa Treaty, which banned the production and use of anti-personnel mines, governments have spent over $3 billion on clearing up and mitigating the security threat of mines, cluster munitions and other unexploded ordnance in the world’s current and former war zones. However, this flow of cash into regions dominated by violent social structures raises numerous political issues. Through detailed archival and field research, this book explores the politics behind the allocation and implementation of foreign aid by the US and Norway for demining in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan. It is an essential resource for practitioners and policymakers working in the field of landmine clearance and for students and researchers of development studies and post-war reconstruction.

The book has already gained critical acclaim from some high-profile academics:

‘This important book shows how foreign aid can help build human security in the aftermath of war – or, unfortunately, make the situation worse. It also demonstrates how partnerships between ‘middle powers’, like Norway, and global civil society can play a key role in building collective security through developing international law. This is an ideal text for policymakers involved in post-conflict reconstruction, as well as students of international relations.’ –Mary Kaldor CBE, Professor of Global Governance, London School of Economics

‘Matthew Bolton sheds crucial light on how foreign aid in general and demining programs in particular make compromises with power structures. He shows that links between demining agencies and the defense industry or military factions can skew attention away from vulnerable civilians most affected by mines. It should be required reading for professionals in the mine action sector.’ –Kristian Berg Harpviken, Director, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO)

‘This is a high-quality piece of work, well written, with interesting analysis rooted in on-the-ground fieldwork. The reservations about the involvement of private security companies in demining are extremely important, as is the discussion of the dangers of short-term contracts and ‘cut-throat’ competition in reconstruction tendering.’ –David Keen, Professor of Complex Emergencies, London School of Economics

If you are a mine action professional, the publisher IB Tauris has arranged a special 30% discount (not including shipping). To take advantage of this deal, fill out this form with the discount code 3LA and send it to IB Tauris.

For my earlier opinion editorials in The Guardian, click here for an examination of Obama’s landmine policy, and here for a call on him to join the cluster munitions ban.

Click here to read it.

To read a previous article of mine in The Guardian, calling on Obama to sign the cluster munitions ban, click here.

Calling the US a “conspicuous holdout to both treaties”, they wrote that they “see no compelling reasons for the U.S. not to sign these treaties now” in an opinion column for the Baltimore Sun.  They said former President Bush’s arguments against signing the treaties were “unconvincing” and that Obama should chart a new course.

They recognized that Obama has “many urgent issues on his plate and does not need a contentious fight with the skeptics.”  Steinburg and Inderfurth thus recommended setting up a “commission to consider U.S. adherence to these two treaties….”

“It will take some changes in military doctrine and practice, but the benefits will be manifold,” they said. “Chief among them is the powerful signal it will send to the world of the new president’s commitment to re-engage with the international community to address global problems. Equally important, it will help permit future generations to walk the earth without fear.”

To read their article, click here.