On Friday, 111 nations, including major NATO allies, adopted a treaty that sets an eight-year deadline to eliminate stockpiles of cluster arms -- pernicious weapons that scatter thousands of small bombs across a wide area, where they pose a long-term deadly threat to innocents. The Bush administration not only failed to sign the treaty but vigorously opposed it.... The campaign to ban cluster munitions, pressed by human rights activists, never attained quite the high profile of the one to ban land mines, a treaty that Washington also refused to sign. But the two weapons have this in common: Both wreak more damage on civilians than soldiers and present a threat long after war ends. Cluster munitions, fired from aircraft or artillery, spray small "bomblets" over an expanse the size of two or three football fields. Many do not explode on impact but can be easily triggered by unsuspecting civilians. The most appalling of these devices can look like a desired object -- a can of food or a toy.
Of course, the only possible question here is "Why?" Why must America, a country that by all rights should be the moral leader when it comes to disarmament, so mightily oppose a treaty designed to rid the world of cluster munitions? Why must America be seen as opposing a treaty designed to protect innocent civilians and children from suffering the consequences of war in some cases long after a war has ceased?
There can be no good excuse or reason for perpetuating the production and use of weapons which can remain insidious- and deadly- for many years. While no reasonable person would propose that the American government unilaterally operate with the equivalent of one hand tied behind its back, we're talking about a treaty which has been signed on to by 111 nations. No one is demanding that the American military unilaterally disarm, but is it unreasonable to expect that the most powerful military on the face of the earth can find a way to conduct it's war in a manner that doesn't create a long-term legacy of maiming children?
No one has more invested in cluster munitions than the United States, which Human Rights Watch says has been the largest producer, stockpiler and user, using them in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.... United States officials insist the Pentagon must have such munitions. That is what the Clinton administration said when it opposed the land-mine treaty in 1997. It is a weak argument: cluster bombs are weapons for conventional wars with conventional battlefields. America is less likely to fight big conventional wars than counterinsurgency conflicts in population centers, no place for munitions that kill indiscriminately.
No, America isn't the only major power to reject the treaty; China and Russia have also demonstrated some serious intransigence on this issue. I find it difficult to believe that American diplomatic pressure, combined with that of the 111 signatories, couldn't bring China and Russia to ground. Trust me, I spent enough time in the US Army to understand that we will never lack for way to kill people. Why cluster munitions are viewed as a vital part of the American arsenal simply defies rational explanation. There simply is no longer any morally acceptable rationale for the continued stockpiling and usage of a weapon that can and will continue to maim children and civilians for years after the cessation of armed hostilities.
Warfare is by its very nature and brutal and repugnant business. What reasonable people the world over cannot understand is why America, China, and Russia insist on stockpiling weapons designed to make warfare even more brutal and repugnant....not to mention dangerous to children.
We can, and should, be demanding that our government stop the stockpiling of cluster munitions. We can, and should, also demand that the use of these weapons no longer be a part of American military doctrine. The American military has given up the use of land mines, and in fact spent $1.2 billion last year defusing land mines and cleaning up minefields. Why should we not be able to expend the same effort in ridding modern warfare and war zones of the insidious long-term effects posed by cluster munitions?
Yes, armies need a wide range of weapons at their disposal in order to successfully defend those they're charged with protecting. Nonetheless, if the American military can wean themselves off land mines, surely they can do the same with cluster munitions. Time was when this nation set the bar that the rest of world tried to reach. Now, 111 nations are watching America...and no doubt wondering what sort of moral reprobates could reasonably support the stockpiling and use of cluster munitions.
Nice legacy, eh??
