This article, written by Sandra Erwin, discusses the effects antiwar groups are having on cluster munitions. Erwin states that antiwar groups greatest weapon are international banks. These groups picket and protest against these banks until they agree to stop funding manufacturers that produce cluster munitions. Steven Groves, a senior member at The Heritage Foundation, says that antiwar groups have such a broad definition of cluster munitions that they are going after legitamate weapons of war that have a dud rate of 1% or less. He also says that militaries buy cluster munitions because they are so effective, if a supplier goes away, they will find another one. China would gladly supply them and they would not have the selfdestruct features that the U.S. has. Groves goes on to state, "Pressure tactics will not work in Beijing." Erwin writes that Groves believes that antiwar "shame" tactics will eventually be used on other weapons as well. The Pentagon has also come out and stated that a blanket ban of cluster munitions is unacceptable because of negative consequences for the military and civilians alike. Overall, Erwin points out that a ban on cluster muntions will have negative consequenses for militaries and civilians, will lead to more bans, and in the end, will have caused more harm than good.
Response
I did not previously know that antiwar groups were so effective in getting international banks to stop doing business with manufacturers that produce cluster munitions. According to Erwin, a report by the antiwar group IKV Pax Christi says they have swayed a number of them including Credit Suisse, BNP, HSBC, Societe Generale, and UBS. Also, at the end of this article Erwin provides a quote by Steven Groves, "Antiwar activists want to ban war by banning all weapons of war." If this statement is true, this goal is completely ridiculous. As long as humans have conflicting ideas, or hunger for power there will be war. Lets suppose for a second that all explosives, firearms, etc. were banned and all the countries of the world obeyed that ban. Then they would just revert back to medieval times with swords and bow and arrows. If those were banned, they would use sticks, rocks, and slings. If those were banned then they would use their bare hands. One cannot eliminate war by banning weapons used in war. The only way to eliminate war is to eliminate human conflicts and their hunger for power.
CRAAP Evaluation
This article was published April 2012 and it relates to my topic so I can use it for a source. It appears to be written to an audience who has been following the cluster munitions debate for some time, but after all the research I have done I qualify as someone in that audience range so it was not too advanced for me. It was written by Sandra I. Erwin and published by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA). I accessed it from the ProQuest data base. Erwin is the editor for NDIA and judging by various other articles she has written, she has been following the military for some time, specifically the arial aspect. She has covered everything from developments in the field to the latest controversies, so I would say she is an authority on the cluster munitions debate. There is an email address provided as well as a link within the website to contact her. Most of the information provided comes directly from interviews, speeches, and documents so it should be very accurate and it is easily testable to see if it is credible information. I can verify some of the information provided but most of it is new to me and there were no grammatical errors that I could find. The main purpose of the article seemed to be informative but I suspect there was a persuasive element hidden between the lines. NDIA's mission statement is to advocate for cutting-edge technology and superior weapons, equipment, training, and support for the War-fighter and First Responder, to promote a vigorous, responsive, government, and provide a legal and ethical forum for exchange of information between industry and government on National Security issues. Most of the information is fact but some of the quotes are opinionated or are observations that the individual has made. The article seemed to have an idealogical bias. Erwin obviously does not promote the cluster munitions ban but she does seem to realize that there are civilians casualties caused by these bombs and steps need to be taken to reduce those casualties.
Summary
This article discusses how effective the 2008 ban on cluster munitions, signed by 30 countries, has been since its ratification. The article goes on to say that the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan did not partake in the signing of the ban. This could severely hinder the practical impact this ban otherwise would have had. The treaty requires signatories to destroy their cluster munitions with in eight years, clear contaminated areas within ten, and provide help to the affected areas. Pope Benedict XVI is in full support of this ban and expressing his satisfaction with its "effectiveness." The article goes on to say how much of these bombs have been used, their dud rate, and how many civilian are injured by these bombs.
Response
According to this article Britain, France, Japan, and Germany have all ratified the Cluster Munitions Convention. This took me by surprise beceause I would not have thought these countries would have ratified something that would diminish their military might, especially Great Britain. Great Britain once had the greatest empire since the Romans, and they have a long history of having one of the greatest militaries in the world. It surprises me that they would diminish that now. The article also states that even though the U.S. did not sign the cluster munitions ban, they still plan to outlaw cluster munitions by 2018. Assuming this is true, this could greatly affect the American weapons industry. If a seller loses a buyer, he will find another buyer. If he is not allowed to make a product any more he will go somewhere he is allowed to make it. This could result in more of Americas big name companies, like Lockheed & Martin, moving overseas and further damaging Americas already weakened economy.
CRAAP Evaluation
This article was published August 1, 2010 and was updated March 23, 2011, so it is current enough for me to use. It relates to my topic and appears to be written to an audience that is familiar with the cluster munitions ban topic. It was written very well and at a comprehensive lecel that I could understand. There was no author provided, but it was published by Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. There is no contact information provided other than a street address. The information they provided was backed up by quotes from various sources, including Pope Benedict XVI, Steve Goose from the Human Rights Watch, and Thomas Nash from the Cluster Munitions Coalition. I can verify most of the information provided with other sources I have come across and there were no grammatical errors that I could find. The article seemed to favor the ban on cluster munitions by saying how great it was, how effective it is, and what groups supporting this ban hoped to achieve in the future. At first glance this article appears to be informative, but futher reading reveals a persuasive undertone. Most of the information is fact, but the quotes were mostly opinion or hopes and dreams of the future. The article does not say that they support the ban but there is a idealogical bias for this ban woven throughout the article. It does not give any negative effects the cluster ban will have on the economies of the countries that have ratified it or the disadvantage it put these countries in during an armed conflict.
