THE USE OF CLUSTER BOMBS IN SRI LANKA

FACT OR FICTION
The recent revelation about the alleged discovery of sub-munitions in the Wanni East has re-opened the debate about the use of Cluster Bombs in the Sri Lankan Conflict. The story initial broke as follows on April 28, 2012 (Title: UN finds Cluster Bombs in Sri Lanka):
The Associated Press obtained a copy Thursday of an email written by a U.N. land mine expert that said unexploded cluster bomblets were discovered in the Puthukudiyiruppu area of northern Sri Lanka, where a boy was killed last month and his sister injured as they tried to pry apart an explosive device they had found to sell for scrap metal. The email was written by Allan Poston, the technical adviser for the U.N. Development Programs mine action group in Sri Lanka. After reviewing additional photographs from the investigation teams, I have determined that there are cluster sub-munitions in the area where the children were collecting scrap metal and in the house where the accident occurred. This is the first time that there has been confirmed unexploded sub-munitions found in Sri Lanka, the email said.

RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Which was followed up with the following story on April 29 (Title: Witness: Man hit by Cluster Bomb in Sri Lanka War):
The medical worker said local U.N. staffers had told him in early February that they had found shrapnel from cluster munitions around a hospital in Puthukudiyiruppu. The facility was later moved to a makeshift hospital in the village of Putumattalan, where patients began speaking of being wounded by cluster munitions, which make an unmistakable sound, a loud explosion followed by a burst of tiny blasts, the worker said. But medical officials could not find evidence of the munitions because the wounds were so badly infected, the worker said. Then, in late March or early April, a man came in with a wound in his lower leg. After the medical staff cleaned the wound, they discovered a small unexploded bomblet from cluster munitions wedged into it, the worker said. The staff amputated the mans leg below the knee, then took it, along with the bomb still inside and threw it into an empty field because there was no safe way to dispose of it, the worker said. A photograph provided to the AP showed a lateral gash in a mans leg just below the knee with a greenish metal cylinder embedded in the tissue. Technical experts shown the photo said they were unable to tell whether or not it was a bomblet.

RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press The only definite means of confirming the existence and subsequent use of these weapons in Sri Lanka will be to produce legitimate, authenticated images of unexploded sub-munitions or Bomb casings from an exploded or unexploded Cluster Bomb. As of yet, no such imagery has surfaced from Sri Lanka. This statement provides the backdrop for the following technical analysis piece.

Since the release of the Cluster Bomb story by the Associated Press, the days following this event saw the mushrooming of a series of articles, many appearing online, exploring/debating this phenomenon. One article in particular, appearing on the Groundviews website, titled: Cluster bombs in Sri Lanka: From denial to discovery, attempted to corroborate the Ravi Nessman/Associated Press story using pictorial evidence from the online website, TamilNet.
There have been a number of reports in web media in particular on the use of cluster bombs. Coincidentally, in a report published on 21 March 2012 on Tamilnet.com, which is blocked in Sri Lanka, it is reported that a container allegedly deployed by the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) to carry cluster bomblets has been recovered recently by the deminers of the humanitarian de-mining agency Halo Trust near a house at Thiruvaiuyaaru, 3 km east of Kilinochchi town. A PDF copy of the story, which also contains an image of the cluster bomb container, can be seen here.1 In January 2009, the same website carried images of cluster bombs allegedly dropped by the Sri Lankan Airforce in Mullaitivu. A PDF copy of the story, along with images, can be seen here.2

SANJANA HATTOTUWA, Groundviews This analysis piece will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that none of the images shown on the TamilNet website, or any of the ancillary pieces of evidence used by the website as alleged proof showing the use of Cluster Bombs by the SLAF, are in fact Cluster Bombs or effects caused by Cluster munitions. Furthermore, the use of such imagery by the Groundviews team as evidence to implicate the Sri Lankan Armed Forces for using Cluster Bombs represents a serious transgression on the part of an organisation that claims to represent media impartiality in Sri Lanka. The issue pertains to the misleading use of pictorial evidence to misrepresent the truth about the use of Cluster Bombs by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.

Timeline of TamilNet Cluster Bomb claims

On the 30th of November 2008, 3 days before 92 countries signed a treaty banning the use of Cluster Munitions in Oslo; the Pro-LTTE online news site, TamilNet.com, released the following article:

See: http://groundviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/TamilNet-21.03.12-De-miners-locate-remains-of-cluster-bomb-inKilinochchi.pdf See: http://groundviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/TamilNet-18.01.09-SLAF-deploys-cluster-bombs-in-Mullaiththeevu.pdf

The article was accompanied with the following pictures (below), alleging to be the remains of the empty casing from a Cluster Bomb, and was cited as being definite evidence that the SLAF routinely employ Cluster Bombs in its bombing raids.

Then again on the 24th of December 2008, the same news site published the following article with the attached picture as further evidence of the SLAFs use of Cluster Bombs:

On the 18th of January 2009, TamilNet released the following article with the attached pictures of an unexploded bomb proclaiming it to be another Cluster Bomb that had been dropped by the SLAF:

Finally, on the 21st of March 2012, TamilNet released the following article with attached imagery claiming it was the casing from a Cluster Bomb dropped by the SLAF in 2009, discovered by a HALO Deming team in the Wanni East in 2012:

Cluster Bombs
Cluster munitions are small and numerous, packaged in delivery systems which can drop thousands of sub-munitions on an area in a very short amount of time. Since they are dropped from the air or fired from rockets and artillery projectiles, they are very difficult to track, map, or find. With dud rates ranging from an estimated 2% to 30%, they create large, unmapped minefields in areas where people live or will return to live. Many of the sub-munitions are buried underground, gradually coming to the surface over time, or as a result of agricultural activity.

Cluster Bomb designs from around the world share certain design characteristics that are inherently common to all such class of munitions. 1. The use of split casing:

2. The use of a central dispensing core:

Whether a Cluster Bomb has successfully worked or failed to work, if they have been used in an operational theatre, there should be evidence of one or both distinctive design features split cases or dispensing cores in the field. In the subsequent parts of the current analysis, the most widely available Cluster Bomb types will be described with particular emphasis given to Russian Cluster Bombs, since Western designed Cluster Bombs were never exported to Sri Lanka during the period 2005 2009 owing to embargos on the sale of these specific types of munitions.

Western Cluster Bombs

Virtually all Western Cluster Bomb designs share the following design characteristics: Split Casing Munitions Dispensing Core Deployable Fins Tapered aft body section Clear markings designating mark and model It should be noted that two other Non-Western Countries are worth mentioning in this category, Pakistan and China. Both countries have an indigenous weapons industry, and both countries make Cluster Bombs. Pakistani Cluster Bombs are based on the American CB- series of Cluster Bombs, with the Chinese munitions bearing a close resemblance to both the American CB- and Russian RBK- series of Cluster Bombs. The image below is an example of a Pakistani Cluster Bomb.

Russian Cluster Bombs ()

Russia manufactures 4 types of Tactical Munition Dispensers The RBK-100, -180, -250, -500 (100, -180, -250, -500). RBK or in Russian stands for Razovaya Bombovaya Kasseta, Singleuse Bomb Cassette. The biggest casing in this range is the RBK-500 (-500). These dispensers, combined with their sub-munition payload are given the now universal designation Cluster Bomb. The outer casing of the RBK Cluster Bomb is unique in its design, and has several distinguishable characteristics that set it apart from other unguided munitions manufactured by Russia. In particular, its nose/fuse cone configuration and the tail unit are unique. Its design is very specific to the release of cluster munitions and therefore cannot be used for any other type of explosive ordnance. Given below are examples of the RBK-500 canister:

All Russian guided and unguided air dropped munitions are marked to describe the type of bomb and its associated explosive payload. For Russian Cluster Bombs, the following table describes the different designations:

All Russian Cluster Bombs have the letters painted on the canister to identify it. In RBK cluster bombs, a nose-mounted electromechanical time fuse is used to fire an ejection charge in the nose cone. As a result of its firing mechanism which occurs in flight, the RBK canister does not come with a retarding parachute as found on other types of unguided Russian bombs.

After the sub-munitions have been ejected from a cluster bomb, their dispersal is random, with the size of the impact pattern increasing with the bomb opening altitude. The forward motion of the bomb creates a cigar-shaped impact pattern of sub-munitions on the ground, near which the empty bomb container may be found. Occasionally, the cluster bomb will fail to open. When this happens, the sub-munitions are generally unarmed and well protected, so they will not normally detonate. However, access can be difficult if the sub-munitions are inside damaged or partially buried cluster bombs and the sub-munitions themselves may be damaged and in an unpredictable condition. Operational statistics from the field show that the dud rates on most Russian sub-munitions range from around 10% to 30%. As a result, there are two characteristic features that should always be present in any area where a Russian Cluster bomb has been used: 1. Unexploded Sub-Munitions. 2. Dispenser Casing with markings identifying type and payload.

The alleged evidence pertaining to the use of Cluster Bombs

Apart from the recovery of empty casings belonging to an air dropped unguided munition, there has been no evidence presented to indicate the presence of any un-exploded sub-munitions in areas allegedly attacked using Cluster Bombs. Given the statistical dud rates of Cluster Bomb sub-munitions, the very reason this class of weapon is considered extremely dangerous, the lack of any sub-munitions in the affected areas is a notable anomaly. Nevertheless, the recovered casings were exhibited as belonging to Russian designed Cluster Bombs.

Recovered Casings from 2008 2009

Russian Cluster Bombs ()

To an impartial observer comparing the features highlighted: 1. The nose cone 2. Tail Fin configuration 3. Identifying markings Upon careful scrutiny will quickly surmise that the two sets of figures are not of the same class of weapon.

What are these Weapons?

Russian HE Fragmentation Bomb ()

The bomb casings exhibited as belonging to Russian Cluster Bombs do in fact belong to different category of Russian munition. This range of bombs are called Low Drag Blast Fragmentation weapons. OFAB or in Russian stands for Oskolochno-Fugasnaya, Fragmentation/HE. The markings on one of the bomb casings shown on TamilNet.com reads as -500, which stands for OFAB-500ShR in English. This weapon comes with a parachute which is attached to the rear section of the bomb as shown in the above image.

Comparing the two sets of images clearly show that the weapon recovered is a Russian OFAB series Low Drag Blast Fragmentation munition, and not a Russian Cluster Bomb.

Russian Air-Fuel Explosive Bomb ()

This range of bombs are called Air-Fuel Explosive weapons. ODAB or in Russian stands for Obemno-deto-niyushchaya, Area Detonation. This weapon comes with a parachute which is attached to the rear section of the bomb as shown in the above image.

Comparing the two sets of images clearly show that the weapon recovered is a Russian ODAB series Air-Fuel Explosive munition, and not a Russian Cluster Bomb.

None of these weapons, the OFAB or ODAB series of unguided munitions, are banned under International Law.

Recovered Casing from 2012

The casing found in 2012 does not bear any resemblance to any documented Cluster Bomb available in the Western hemisphere (North American, Europe and Israel included) or from any know Russian, Chinese or Pakistani weapons manufacturer for that matter. Even more revealing is the conspicuous absence of several design features inherent to Cluster Bombs, not found on this empty casing. The design of the aft portion of the Bomb and fin configuration, coupled with the absence of split casing design features, immediately cast doubts about the identification of this Bomb as a Cluster Bomb. If this Bomb was indeed a Cluster Bomb, and it had successfully worked, the casing would not have been intact as one uniform shell as shown in the TamilNet pictures. If however the weapon had failed to work, and had landed intact, upon impact with the ground the Bomb superstructure would have failed across sections that are designed to carry the least load, along the split panels. Furthermore, in this scenario there would have been evidence of unexploded sub-munitions. Examples of both points can be found in the image below:

The fact that none of these distinct features are present on this image of the Bomb, nor is there any inclusion of imagery of unexploded sub-munitions to bolster the claim made in the article, makes this the latest example of yet another occasion TamilNet has been found to be misrepresenting pictorial evidence.

Conclusion
The current analysis has shown that the pictorial evidence used by TamilNet, and subsequently re-used by Groundviews, to substantiate an allegation that the SLAF used Cluster Bombs on civilian areas, is found to be untrue and a deliberate distortion of the facts. TamilNets use of such imagery to misrepresent the truth provides a useful opportunity to question another TamilNet allegation from 2009, a story that still appears to find its way into numerous western publications The alleged use of White Phosphorous by the Sri Lankan Army on civilian population centres in Northern Sri Lanka. It should be noted that the former American Ambassador Robert Bake had this to say in a Classified Cable dated April 10, 2009:
Ambassador forwarded reports from Tamil groups that the GSL has used chemical weapons in fighting to Foreign Secretary Kohona urging the GSL to respond publicly. In a private reply, Kohona categorically denied that the GSL had ever acquired chemical weapons and reported that the government has requested an investigation from the Office for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons into charges of chemical weapons use by the LTTE. (Note: any investigation would cover both sides.) Additionally, both ICRC and the Indian Ambassador reported that their medical teams treating wounded have come across no evidence of CW or phosphorous use.

Amb. ROBERT BLAKE, Cable: 09COLOMBO412 As stated earlier, the only definite means of confirming the existence and subsequent use of Cluster Bombs in Sri Lanka will be to produce legitimate, authenticated images of unexploded sub-munitions or Bomb casings from an exploded or unexploded Cluster Bomb. As of yet, no such imagery has surfaced from Sri Lanka. Until such pictorial evidence comes to light from the latest evolution of this story, the alleged use of Cluster Bombs by the Sri Lanka Armed Forces will continue to be just that, an uncorroborated allegation, one of many put forward by a vindictive Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora looking to implicate members of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and civilian representatives in Government in the commission of War Crimes. May 1, 2012