Peace Union Campaigner insists Finland must take responsibility in cluster munitions talks

by Tanja Aitamurto
Helsingin Sanomat
6 November, 2007

Black-clad volunteers on the streets of Vienna, MPs' speeches in London, and announcements in large international broadsheet newspapers.

Yesterday [Monday 5th November] saw extensive campaigning around the world on behalf of a ban on cluster munitions. The drive was visible in 30 countries, but Finland was hardly one of them.

And why not, Laura Lodenius, Executive Director of the Peace Union of Finland? Is the Finnish peace movement asleep at the wheel?

"Not really. Around the world it has primarily been humanitarian organisations that have campaigned against cluster weapons, rather than the peace movement. In Finland the organisations on the humanitarian side, such as the Finnish Red Cross, have not taken a stand on the issue. Then again, a small peace operation such as ours does not have the resources for big campaigns", explains Lodenius.

Lodenius also calls for backbone from the government in the upcoming talks aimed at a ban on cluster munitions, at which more than 80 countries are represented.

The Finnish government has taken the line that it will participate in the process but will not support a complete ban on such weapons. International discussions will go ahead in December.

Before then, Lodenius believes Finland should define its aims, and above all what sort of cluster munitions Finland would like to use. She would accept the kind that do not leave any unexploded ordnance (UXO) of cluster bomblets left in the landscape.

The problem with cluster weapons is generally seen to be their poor reliability in the field: unexploded shells and submunitions kill and injure civilians after the guns of war have fallen silent.

 Laura Lodenius says a ban treaty could end up outlawing the kind of cluster weaponry that Finland has and/or the kind that Finland intends to acquire. Cluster munitions have been given an important, nigh-on crucial role in the defence of the country, according to the Finnish Defence Forces.

Lodenius figures that Finland's passive stance in the discussions derives in part from disagreements: the Foreign Ministry is very reluctant to get involved in another "landmine catastrophe", while the Defence Ministry wants to stay outside of any treaty banning such weapons.

She urges the government to use its political clout, and to see to it that the Defence Forces are not given too much say in the talks. The argument she puts forward is that in a democratic society the military should not give the orders but accept the decisions that are set out by the foreign policy leadership. "And this sort of treaty is not created merely to annoy the soldiers, but to protect people", she points out.

Lodenius estimates that if the passive approach of the Helsinki government continues, Finland could end up in a similar position to that it faced during the Ottawa Convention discussions. Finland did not believe at the time that a mine ban treaty could end up calling for a complete ban on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines, and consequently made little or no effort to influence the final resolution. A complete ban came, and Finland decided to join in, although the country is still among the roughly 40 that have still to ratify the treaty.

"It seems as though nothing has been learned from the landmines process. Finland was then caught by surprise at the strength of the global opinions against landmines. The tenor of the opinions assumes that civilised nations do not use inhuman weapons. And moral questions can no longer just be shrugged off in defence policy."

In her view, Finland would do well to prepare for a ban on cluster munitions by examining posible alternatives.

"And against what kind of attack are cluster bombs really needed? If war breaks out, we are not going to see masses of ground troops sweeping in here."

Lodenius argues that cyber warfare and aerial bombing are much more likely contingencies, and beyond the scope of cluster munitions, but that the military are unwilling to acknowledge this.