Search engine

A member of

UWN logo

Newsfeed

News

CADU's New Campaign: Don't DU It

The UK's last DU round CHARM3 expire soon but the MoD wants to continue using them. CADU's new campaign is building the case against CHARM3...

The UK’s last remaining DU round is called CHARM3. The weapon comes in two parts, a uranium ‘dart’ and the propellant charge. It is the propellant charge of this round that is due to expire in 2013. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is currently developing a Life Extension Programme (LEP) to extend the life of CHARM3, either through re-licensing and renewing the charge, or replacing the round.

CHARM 3 is not interoperable with the tanks of the UK’s NATO partners and the UK has no manufacturing capacity to replace the weapons. It is also likely that a global ban will be implemented within the lifespan of any replacement. By making a move away from DU-based kinetic energy weapons now, the UK has an opportunity to take an international lead on this issue. 

Don't DU it

The Don’t DU It campaign aims to push the MoD into not extending the life of CHARM3, thus ditching DU weapons altogther.

THE CASE AGAINST CHARM3
Below are five points that strengthen the case against extending the life of CHARM3.

1. DU weapons put people and the environment at risk
The MoD has recognised that DU weapons are not ‘safe’, but remains adamant that the use of DU does not put civilians, military personnel, or the environment at risk. Given that large scale epidemiological studies have not been done in affected areas and that we do not have reliable data on the chronic exposure to DU dust in civilian populations, it cannot be asserted that DU poses no risk. In fact, there is ample scientific evidence to show that there is a potential risk.

Morally, and according to IHL, this potential risk should lead to a precautionary approach to the use of DU weapons, that would preclude their use. However the MoD continues with a programme to extend the life of its last remaining DU rounds.

2. DU weapons put an unreasonable burden on states recovering from conflict
States recovering from conflict lack the institutional capacity and stability needed to deal with DU contamination. In Iraq, where 404,000 kg of DU was used by Coalition Forces in 1992 and 2003, continuing instability has made detailed study of the humanitarian impact of DU very difficult. In 2005, the UK, via DfID, helped fund a capacity building programme for Iraqi scientists to train them to identify contaminated sites. However, the cost and difficulties inherent in decontamination work has resulted in fewer than five of the hundreds of sites where DU is thought to be present being cleared.  A study in the Balkans by ICBUW has shown that DU also impacts upon the social and economic wellbeing of populations. The use, and fear of DU’s use, brings negative psychological impacts.

The technical and financial burden of decontamination results in an increased likelihood of unnecessary civilian exposure, while the users of the weapons are keen to avoid liability for clean-up costs. If state users were to be held liable for the true cost of decontamination – as they do on domestic firing ranges, DU munitions would rapidly become less attractive.

3. DU weapon use by the UK is hypocritical
The UK is hypocritical in its approach to the firing of DU weapons. Most munitions are fired during training but the MoD only allows DU to be fired in controlled testing scenarios and during conflict. This suggests that firing a DU round within the UK would be difficult to justify according to UK environmental standards. Yet overseas the UK sees no problem in firing weapons that release chemically toxic and radioactive dust into the environment.

DU is classified as intermediate level waste in the UK and the UK’s radioactive waste discharge policy is based on both the precautionary and polluter pays principles. Both principles are largely ignored in our military policy. Instead the government argues that responsibility for decontamination lies with the affected state. This approach is both hypocritical and irresponsible.

4. DU weapons leave a toxic legacy that is unacceptable in contemporary warfare
DU weapons were first developed during the Cold War era, when the fear of Soviet tank invasions was a major justification for developing more effective kinetic energy rounds. This concern is as irrelevant today as it was then. The justification for military action in contemporary warfare is that of peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. In this context using a weapon that has the potential to put civilians, military personnel and the environment at risk is particularly unacceptable. DU weapons are politically and morally unacceptable, and CHARM3’s life should not be extended.

5. International pressure against DU is growing
The use of DU weapons has been condemned by four resolutions in the European Parliament, including a landslide resolution in 2008, which called for a moratorium on DU’s use and efforts toward a global ban. This resolution was supported by 94% of MEPs. DU weapons have been the subject of domestic bans in Costa Rica and Belgium. DU weapons have also been the focus of three resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly. In particular the November 2010 UN General Assembly resolution called for transparency around information on DU use. Greater transparency on DU use would support further research that could help ascertain exposure levels, thus enabling an understanding of the risks of DU. However the UK voted against the resolution, which was supported by 148 states, despite an Early Day Motion signed by 93 MPs urging them to do so. Yet the MoD continues to incorrectly claim that DU poses no risk, in order to justify its continued use of the weapon.   

THE PRESSURE IS BUILDING
Over the last few months the pressure against DU has been building.

EDM 2318 on the CHARM3 renewal decision has been tabled, and at the time of writing it has gained the support of 61 MPs. We are pushing for support from 100 MPs, so do get in touch with your MP and urge them to sign the EDM.

Alongside this we have caught the MoD out with the issue of the DU legal review. We will be pushing for the legal review to be published so that we can scrutinise its findings. So there will be plenty of fronts to keep pushing in 2012.

Through continuing to act on the issue of DU, showing up DU weapons for the unacceptable  weapons that they are, and by keeping the pressure up , we may well be able to force the UK into no longer using any DU weapons!

Your support at this exciting time is crucial. TAKE ACTION and do keep in touch with us here at the office.

CADU