Originally published on the CGS blog on May 29, 2008.
I had a Ferris Bueller moment this morning when I read Kevin Sullivan and Josh White’s story in today’s Washington Post . Their page 1 story was about the fact that 111 nations, including our closest ally Great Britain, have agreed on an international accord to ban cluster bombs. The United States, according to the reporters, did not join the ban, because it calls the bombs “an integral, legitimate part of its arsenal.”
The U.S. joins the ranks of other trusted powers such as Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel, in refusing to sign on to the treaty. This is the latest example of lack of U.S. global cooperation to make our world better and safer for future generations.
The Post reporters note:
The weapons consist of canisters packed with small bombs, or “bomblets,” that spread over a large area when a canister is dropped from a plane or fired from the ground. While the bomblets are designed to explode on impact, they frequently do not. Civilians, particularly children, are often maimed or killed when they pick up unexploded bombs, sometimes years later.
In staying away from Dublin, U.S officials argued that the talks were not the right forum in which to address the issue and that cluster bombs remain an important part of the country’s weaponry. “While the United States shares the humanitarian concerns of those in Dublin,” said Navy Cmdr. Bob Mehal, a Pentagon spokesman, “cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility, and their elimination from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of our soldiers and those of our coalition partners at risk.”
“We decided not to go to Oslo,” Stephen D. Mull, acting assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, told reporters last week, “because we don’t want to give weight to a process that we think is ultimately flawed, because we don’t think that any international effort is going to succeed unless you get the major producers and the users of these weapons at the table.”
Hmmm….Ah, “ultimately flawed…unless you get the major producers and users of these weapons at the table”?
Wouldn’t that mean the U.S., sir?
