The United States, Russia and China are sending a terrible message to the rest of the world by refusing to take part in the historic signing of a treaty that bans the production and use of cluster bombs. In a world that is plagued by war, military occupation and terrorism, the involvement of the great military powers in signing and ratifying the agreement would have signaled – if even symbolically - the willingness of these countries to spare civilians’ unjustifiable deaths and the lasting scars of war.
Nonetheless, the incessant activism of many conscientious individuals and organizations came to fruition on December 3-4 when ninety-three countries signed a treaty in Oslo, Norway that bans the weapon, which has killed and maimed many thousands of civilians.
The accord was negotiated in May, and should go into effect in six months, once it is ratified by 30 countries. There is little doubt that the treaty will be ratified; in fact, many are eager to be a member of the elite group of 30. Unfortunately, albeit unsurprisingly, the US, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan – a group that includes the biggest makers and users of the weapon - neither attended the Ireland negotiations, nor did they show any interest in signing the agreement.
The US argues that cluster bombs are a legitimate weapon, essential to repel the advancing columns of enemy troops. If such a claim carried an iota of legitimacy, then the weapon’s use should have ended with the end of conventional wars in the mid twentieth century. However, cluster bombs are still heavily utilized in wars fought in or around civilian areas.
Most countries that have signed the accords are not involved in any active military conflict and are not in any way benefiting from the lucrative cluster munition industry. The hope, however is that once a majority of countries, including the Holy See, sign the agreement, the use of the lethal weapon will be greatly stigmatized.
The treaty was the outcome of intensive campaigning by the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), a group of non-governmental organizations. CMC is determined to carry on with its campaigning to bring more signatories to the fold.
But without the involvement of the major producers and active users of the weapon, the Oslo ceremony will remain largely symbolic. However, there is nothing symbolic about the pain and bitter losses experienced by the cluster bombs’ many victims. According to the group Handicap International, one-third of cluster-bomb victims are children. Equally alarming, 98 percent of the weapon’s overall victims are civilians. The group estimates that about 100,000 people have been maimed or killed by cluster bombs around the world since 1965.
It certainly is unconscionable that countries who have the chutzpa to impose themselves as the guardians of human rights are the same who rebuff such initiatives and insist on their right to utilize such a killing tool. Unlike conventional weapons, cluster bomblets survive for many years, luring little children with their attractive looks. Children have often mistaken them for candy or toys.
Steve Goose, the arms director of Human Rights Watch described the countries that refused to sign as standing "on the wrong side of history. Some of them are clinging to what is now a widely discredited weapon."
But there is more to that refusal than clinging onto an outdated military philosophy. The cluster munition industry is thriving. The weapon was used in massive quantities by the US army in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel in Lebanon and both parties in the S. Ossetia conflict. The British also used it in Iraq, making handsome deals with the weapons’ Israeli manufacturer.
13 year-old Ayat Suliman now lives in Sweden. In an AFP report, she complained, referring to her peers: "Nobody understands me. They all think I'm ugly." It was on May 5, 2003 that Ayat’s brother came running with what he thought was a dazzling toy. "I remember that it was very colorful and very nice," said Ayat. The explosion that rocked the little girl’s house in Iraq claimed the lives of her four brothers and cousin, aged 3 to 15. Most of Ayat’s body was burned as a result, and she is still unable to walk independently.
Ahmad Mokaled of the Lebanese town of Nabatieh at the border with Israel was about to celebrate his fifth birthday when he too found a shiny object. Ahmad’s last words, according to his father, who was busily setting up his son’s birthday picnic in a park, were: ‘Dad, Help me.’ He died, but after “four long hours of suffering.”
The tragic stories of Ahmad and Ayat are repeated throughout the world, almost everyday, with some countries paying a much more disproportionate price than others, notably, again, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.
But neither terrible statistics nor the heart- wrenching personal stories of the many victims seem enough to compel manufactures and active users of the weapon to quit. Countries with sizable military power tend to avoid any entanglement in international law or treaties that limit their flexing or application of their military muscle. The US and Israeli attitudes towards international law carry similar traits, both act as entities above the law, tirelessly infusing ‘national security’ as an excuse for their rebuffing of such international initiatives. It’s also no surprise that the US, Israel, but also Russia refuse to ratify the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, signed by 158 countries – as of 2007 – which prohibits the production, transfer or use of landmines.
Of course, neither the Ottawa nor the Oslo treaties are the exception to the rule as far as Washington’s attitude towards positive international initiatives are concerned. The US under the Bush administration developed a mind-set of animosity towards the rest of the international community, reaching the point of dubbing the UN irrelevant.
Needless to say, CMC, world governments and citizens throughout the world are hoping that the new American administration of Barack Obama will truly bring an end and reverse Bush’s ruinous legacy. Realists say it will take years for an effective change of policy to take place. In the meantime, the millions of unexploded cluster bomblets and landmines scattered the world over, wait for no one. They will continue to claim lives and maim thousands, just like Ahmad of Lebanon, and Ayat of Iraq.
I totally support this thread.
Cluster Bomb should be BANNED.
WE MUST BAN ALL THE WEAPONS.
Haha..they say ban ban ban...only ban on paper.
They still keep stock of these weapons...you people have no idea how convienent and effective these weapons are.
They can be used to seed minefields in seconds, lay waste to an airfield or kill lots of soldiers in one shot. A few high tech ones can even fry circuits over a wide regions...xD
So there, this is the hypocrisy of the treaty. It is worthless
Thats why I say, dont only condemn the killers that are portrayed as psychotic fanatics, but include the ones that cry "freedom and democracy" while killing more people than the former.
It's not hard to see why the hypocrisy persists.....just take a look around you.
Anyway, hypocrisy feeds on hypocrisy. And insecurity gnaws over time.
That news comes as no surprise.
Where?
Real life or on this forum?
Referring to why the deal won't be signed anytime soon.
"Nonetheless, the incessant activism of many conscientious individuals and organizations came to fruition on December 3-4 when ninety-three countries signed a treaty in Oslo, Norway that bans the weapon, which has killed and maimed many thousands of civilians."
It was only the US, Russia, China and other cluster bomb-using countries that didnt sign it.
this treaty is of no use if both USA and russia and china dont sign on it.
not to mention there are millions of them in north korea.
Our dear Singapore Government hasn't sign it yet...citing it's for defence.
Oh yes, the Ministry of Defence.
How defensive is the US Department of Defence?
They had fewer wars when they were honest and just called it the War Department back then.
Originally posted by freedomclub:Oh yes, the Ministry of Defence.
How defensive is the US Department of Defence?
They had fewer wars when they were honest and just called it the War Department back then.
lol.. the hypocrisy. I gotta agree with u on this one.
Originally posted by freedomclub:Oh yes, the Ministry of Defence.
How defensive is the US Department of Defence?
They had fewer wars when they were honest and just called it the War Department back then.
Attack is the best form of defence?
This isn't a sport.
Well... you could say that for some people war is a sport, but that doesn't apply to most of the countries in the world.
the complete ban on cluster bombs is something that will never happen la....
it's an effective weapon for large targets, although their use will be reduced by the use of precision guided bombs
Originally posted by DigitalArt90:the complete ban on cluster bombs is something that will never happen la....
it's an effective weapon for large targets, although their use will be reduced by the use of precision guided bombs
Its not effective for large targets, but rather multiple targets spread out over a large area.
A typical cluster bomb and its submunitions can have a footprint 1000ft in diameter when delivered at low-medium altitudes or with "toss" deliveries. No country who has to potentially deal with large numbers of enemy armor or vehicles would sign such a treaty.
Even with guided missiles, though high precision and accuracy, they are not cost effective. Cluster bombs are cheaper when dealing with a large number of vehicles in an area.
War is a terrible thing. I wish all weapons could be banned, especially those with such "lingering" effect. Unfortunately, wars are also unavoidable, thus making weapons unavoidable. Its just plain catch 22.
They can be effective against large targets, though. Just change them into high explosive charges will do...xD
Or whatever effect you want
Most of you are missing the salient point:
"13 year-old Ayat Suliman now lives in Sweden. In an AFP report, she complained, referring to her peers: "Nobody understands me. They all think I'm ugly." It was on May 5, 2003 that Ayat’s brother came running with what he thought was a dazzling toy. "I remember that it was very colorful and very nice," said Ayat. The explosion that rocked the little girl’s house in Iraq claimed the lives of her four brothers and cousin, aged 3 to 15. Most of Ayat’s body was burned as a result, and she is still unable to walk independently.
Ahmad Mokaled of the Lebanese town of Nabatieh at the border with Israel was about to celebrate his fifth birthday when he too found a shiny object. Ahmad’s last words, according to his father, who was busily setting up his son’s birthday picnic in a park, were: ‘Dad, Help me.’ He died, but after “four long hours of suffering.”
The tragic stories of Ahmad and Ayat are repeated throughout the world, almost everyday, with some countries paying a much more disproportionate price than others, notably, again, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. "
Originally posted by freedomclub:Most of you are missing the salient point:
"13 year-old Ayat Suliman now lives in Sweden. In an AFP report, she complained, referring to her peers: "Nobody understands me. They all think I'm ugly." It was on May 5, 2003 that Ayat’s brother came running with what he thought was a dazzling toy. "I remember that it was very colorful and very nice," said Ayat. The explosion that rocked the little girl’s house in Iraq claimed the lives of her four brothers and cousin, aged 3 to 15. Most of Ayat’s body was burned as a result, and she is still unable to walk independently.
Ahmad Mokaled of the Lebanese town of Nabatieh at the border with Israel was about to celebrate his fifth birthday when he too found a shiny object. Ahmad’s last words, according to his father, who was busily setting up his son’s birthday picnic in a park, were: ‘Dad, Help me.’ He died, but after “four long hours of suffering.”
The tragic stories of Ahmad and Ayat are repeated throughout the world, almost everyday, with some countries paying a much more disproportionate price than others, notably, again, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. "
The insurgents don't worry about these loss of lives. The more the merrier.
They are using civilians as shields. A propaganda to condemn the the Allies. This is very common.
At one time, I was puzzled that Americans and NATO always striked villages when there were wedding parties taking place.
The insurgents fired from within the villages. The Allies were lured into the trap and called for air support.
The insurgents knew of the wedding parties but the allies did not know.
There are many more cases where civilian casualties were inflicted in similar manners if one bother to dig out the archived reports.
Israelis' actions are justified to recoup the loss of her own civilians to rockets fired into residential areas.
Oh... so its ok if civilians die as "collateral damage"? I wonder how you would feel if your family fell prey to the same fate. You'll probably become a "terrorist insurgent".
Originally posted by freedomclub:Oh... so its ok if civilians die as "collateral damage"? I wonder how you would feel if your family fell prey to the same fate. You'll probably become a "terrorist insurgent".
I do not support using my fellow citizens as human shields in a firefight, therefore I'll never be a terrorist or an insurgent like those Muslim jihadis.
If I'm called up to serve and fight, the army will issue uniforms and I have to wear them.
And if you're called in a foreign invasion, you wont think twice about using weapons that guarantee civilian deaths like cluster bombs.
You can say that "Muslim jihadis" are inhumane when they bomb up US convoys or plant IEDs. But the US is the same kind of scum when it drops cluster bombs that kill thousands of civilians in the hope that it can kill insurgents whom it can never identify. Its just like during the Vietnam War where a dead Vietnamese is a dead Viet Cong.
Its not like US human intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan is so perfect that they can guarantee who is and isn't an "insurgent", whether a person is really so-called "Al Qaeda" or simply a patriotic Iraqi opposing the occupation. Oh...I forgot, both are 'terrorists".
freedom club is right. When you look at both of them, neither is the better one. Each condemns the other while in actual fact both are the same. LOL....
It all depends who suffers the most casualties...If the terrorists take more casaulties, they are the loser.
Therefore, three cheers to cluster bombs!!!!
Cluster bombs will be the winner!!!!
Originally posted by freedomclub:And if you're called in a foreign invasion, you wont think twice about using weapons that guarantee civilian deaths like cluster bombs.
You can say that "Muslim jihadis" are inhumane when they bomb up US convoys or plant IEDs. But the US is the same kind of scum when it drops cluster bombs that kill thousands of civilians in the hope that it can kill insurgents whom it can never identify. Its just like during the Vietnam War where a dead Vietnamese is a dead Viet Cong.
Its not like US human intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan is so perfect that they can guarantee who is and isn't an "insurgent", whether a person is really so-called "Al Qaeda" or simply a patriotic Iraqi opposing the occupation. Oh...I forgot, both are 'terrorists".
I think you're missing the point on Cluster Bombs. Any bomb the US drops on civilians would be bad. Period.
The Issue with cluster bombs is when their submunitions, spread over a wide area, fail to arm and detonate. When some Iraqi/Afghani kid goes around digging for stuff to sell, they sometimes find these submunitions buried in the sand and after some fiddling, they explode.
It is the same problem with mines that are deliberately buried.
So its not an issue about US dropping bombs on civilians. Its about the residual effect of the bombs, and in this case, the bomblets.
About the insurgents fighters luring Americans to fire upon weddings (celebratory gunfire in Afghanistan and Iraq are common), that much I've heard to be true. However it does not white wash some of the rather war-tired and jaded troops there, many whom have seen their comrades or subordinates sent home in bodybags. Some would unreservedly open fire on civilian populations when insurgents attempt to hide within them. Even when their tour of duty ends, most of them return to the US with extreme violent behavior... the psychological impact of this war has been tremendous on the US troops themselves.
There has to be some kinda truce or ceasefire. It doesn't seem like either side is winning quickly enough for the violence to end. Hopefully, Obama will be able to communicate to these extremists, and really get people to sit down n talk things through.
But don't bet on peace on earth just yet. There are a bunch of really evil people on both sides that would seek to expand this war.
I agree, even so-called precision weapons screw up and blow civilians to pieces.
Supporting the troops and supporting the war shouldn't be synonymous. In the first place, the reason why the American military is in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't to protect America or to spread "freedom and democracy", but to control oil-rich and strategic countries. When troops die to protect corporate hegemony which does not contribute to US national security, supporting the troops means that any president, who isn't a puppet, would immediately cease American imperialism, withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan and the 700 other foreign bases that the US has around the globe. Unfortunately, president-elect "change" just happens to be another puppet president and so, this imperialistic agenda will continue.