No loopholes - Ban the bomb
The government's legislation uses legal loopholes to betray the essence of the treaty by allowing Australian soldiers to actively assist other countries in the use of cluster bombs - can you call your senator and ask them them to support amendments?
Be calm and polite - the easiest way to loose an argument is to loose your temper
Introduce yourself and share your story - why do you care about this issue?
Make a clear ask - can you please support amendments to cluster munitions bill so that it actually helps ban the bomb?
Check out the FAQ below for more on what to say!
Tips for the phone call
Can you tell me about the treaty to ban cluster munitions?
The treaty to ban cluster munitions bans the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions and places obligations on countries to clear affected areas, assist victims and destroy stockpiles of the weapon.
Like the Land Mine Ban Treaty before it, this new treaty is likely to have a powerful effect in stigmatising cluster bombs, so that even those countries that do not join the treaty will not be able to use them without being subject to international condemnation.
What is the difference between signing and ratifying a treaty?
When a state signs an international treaty it signals that in principle they support the treaty. However the treaty will only become legally binding when a state ratifies it – it is a two step process so that states have the opportunity to get domestic support for the issue or to introduce relevant legislation so that they're internal laws are consistent with their international obligation.
Who has used cluster munitions?
At least 15 countries have used cluster munitions: Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Israel, Morocco, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia (USSR), Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, UK, US, and FR Yugoslavia. A small number of non-state armed groups have used the weapon (such as Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006).
For a breakdown of when each of the above countries used cluster bombs go to http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/map-of-user-countries-and-nsags.pdf
Why don't we want the legislation to pass?
The Cluster Munitions Prohibitions Bill put forward by the government is problematic due to sections 72.41 and 72.42 of the legislation.
Section 72.41 – defence for acts by Australians in military cooperation with countries not party to convention on cluster munitions refers to how Australian troops interact with countries who are not signatories of the treaty. This section of the bill allows Australian forces to actively and directly assist countries who are not signatories of the treaty to use cluster bombs. This is directly opposed to the spirit of the international treaty to end the use of cluster bombs.
Section 72.42 defence for acts by military personnel of countries not party to the convention on cluster munitions of the treaty allows for the transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions through Australian ports and on Australian soil. This is again inconsistent with the spirit of the treaty and in fact facilitates the continued use of cluster munitions as opposed to their end.
Furthermore Australian Lawyers for Human Rights notes the "unprecedented" nature of Australia's explicit provisions enabling the convention to be circumvented: "No other party to the Convention provides expressly for other parties to act contrary to its objects. It is unprecedented… That Australia is on thin legal ice is unlikely to escape the notice of the international community."
Why is not ratifying the treaty preferable to this legislation?
Half the countries that have signed the international treaty to ban cluster bombs have yet to ratify it. By introducing international legislation the is counter to the spirit of the International treaty Australia will be setting a precedent that is likely to be followed by other countries who look to the Australian example when they introduce domestic legislation to ratify the treaty.
The United States isn't a signatory to the treaty – how does this impact on our relationship with them?
Section 21 of the treaty on Cluster Muntions protects troops of signatory countries from prosecution for actions by other nations who haven't signed the International treaty to ban cluster bombs.
This allows countries who are signatories of the convention to serve alongside countries who are not as long as they are actively discouraging the use of cluster bombs and not being party to their use. Therefore even though the United States is not a signatory to the treaty – our troops would still be able to serve along side them unless the United States military was using cluster munitions.
For more information on the campaign and on the international treaty to ban cluster bombs go to: https://sites.google.com/site/cmcaustraliapublic/
The treaty to ban cluster munitions bans the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions and places obligations on countries to clear affected areas, assist victims and destroy stockpiles of the weapon.
Like the Land Mine Ban Treaty before it, this new treaty is likely to have a powerful effect in stigmatising cluster bombs, so that even those countries that do not join the treaty will not be able to use them without being subject to international condemnation.
What is the difference between signing and ratifying a treaty?
When a state signs an international treaty it signals that in principle they support the treaty. However the treaty will only become legally binding when a state ratifies it – it is a two step process so that states have the opportunity to get domestic support for the issue or to introduce relevant legislation so that they're internal laws are consistent with their international obligation.
Who has used cluster munitions?
At least 15 countries have used cluster munitions: Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Israel, Morocco, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia (USSR), Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, UK, US, and FR Yugoslavia. A small number of non-state armed groups have used the weapon (such as Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006).
For a breakdown of when each of the above countries used cluster bombs go to http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/map-of-user-countries-and-nsags.pdf
Why don't we want the legislation to pass?
The Cluster Munitions Prohibitions Bill put forward by the government is problematic due to sections 72.41 and 72.42 of the legislation.
Section 72.41 – defence for acts by Australians in military cooperation with countries not party to convention on cluster munitions refers to how Australian troops interact with countries who are not signatories of the treaty. This section of the bill allows Australian forces to actively and directly assist countries who are not signatories of the treaty to use cluster bombs. This is directly opposed to the spirit of the international treaty to end the use of cluster bombs.
Section 72.42 defence for acts by military personnel of countries not party to the convention on cluster munitions of the treaty allows for the transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions through Australian ports and on Australian soil. This is again inconsistent with the spirit of the treaty and in fact facilitates the continued use of cluster munitions as opposed to their end.
Furthermore Australian Lawyers for Human Rights notes the "unprecedented" nature of Australia's explicit provisions enabling the convention to be circumvented: "No other party to the Convention provides expressly for other parties to act contrary to its objects. It is unprecedented… That Australia is on thin legal ice is unlikely to escape the notice of the international community."
Why is not ratifying the treaty preferable to this legislation?
Half the countries that have signed the international treaty to ban cluster bombs have yet to ratify it. By introducing international legislation the is counter to the spirit of the International treaty Australia will be setting a precedent that is likely to be followed by other countries who look to the Australian example when they introduce domestic legislation to ratify the treaty.
The United States isn't a signatory to the treaty – how does this impact on our relationship with them?
Section 21 of the treaty on Cluster Muntions protects troops of signatory countries from prosecution for actions by other nations who haven't signed the International treaty to ban cluster bombs.
This allows countries who are signatories of the convention to serve alongside countries who are not as long as they are actively discouraging the use of cluster bombs and not being party to their use. Therefore even though the United States is not a signatory to the treaty – our troops would still be able to serve along side them unless the United States military was using cluster munitions.
For more information on the campaign and on the international treaty to ban cluster bombs go to: https://sites.google.com/site/cmcaustraliapublic/
CAN YOU TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO TAKE ACTION TOO?
We only have a matter of hours to influence this vote - can you help spread the word far and wide and make sure we can make the biggest impact possible?
Copy the link to IM, Skype or post it!
In taking action, I agree to GetUp's Privacy Policy.
CALL YOUR SENATOR
On Wednesday, Senators will be voting on domestic legislation that allows Australian troops to actively and directly assist other countries to use cluster bombs. Can you call your senators and ask them to support amendments that will help us ban these bombs once and for all?
Not sure what to say? Check out the handy points on the left.
Call your senators:
Trish Crossin (ALP) - (02) 6277 3777
Nigel Scullion (LIB) - (02) 6277 3867
In taking action, I agree to GetUp's Privacy Policy.