When is a Ban Not a Ban?

Much to everyone's surprise, Britain is sort of supporting a kind of ban on cluster bombs, more or less. Cluster bombs consist of hundreds of small bombs packed into shells, which scatter them over large areas in what is sometimes known as a "precision strike". A fair number of the bombs fail to explode on impact and can sit around for years waiting to be discovered, in what is sometimes known as "humanitarian intervention". They are often brightly coloured and innocuous-looking, which makes them particularly attractive to children: an effective measure for preventing the latter being "groomed" for terrorism. Doubtless the Righteous State appreciated this when it dropped four million cluster bombs on Lebanon last summer, of which the UN estimates up to forty per cent (one million, six hundred thousand) may have survived to continue the good work.

The declaration, agreed by forty-six countries, though not by the US, Russia, China or the Righteous State, calls for the conclusion by next year of a legally binding treaty prohibiting "the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of those cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians". The Ministry of Lesser Breeds has been quick to deny that this amounts to supporting a blanket ban; and since any harm caused to civilians by British cluster bombs is by definition acceptable, it does not appear that this new commitment will convulse the bombing community unduly.