Posted on 11/13/2007 9:45:58 AM PST by SmithL
GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- Delegates to a U.N. weapons conference agreed Tuesday to negotiate a new accord regulating the use of cluster bombs — but stopped short of pursuing a legally binding treaty
The use of cluster bombs — which typically scatter hundreds of small bomblets over a wide area — has come under growing criticism from Canada, the European Union and others.
However, the United States, Russia and China insist the weapon has a legitimate military purpose and have resisted a legally binding treaty on cluster bombs, which are not explicitly regulated by the U.N. Convention on Conventional Weapons, the CCW.
On Tuesday, diplomats from 102 nations agreed to "negotiate a proposal to address urgently the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions while striking a balance between military and humanitarian considerations."
European delegates said the outcome fell short of their expectations but expressed hope for an eventual international ban the most dangerous cluster bombs.
"We see this as a wholly inadequate outcome," said Stephen Goose, executive director of New York-based Human Rights Watch.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I agree. Only drop cluster bombs in places that house murdering scumbag terrorists.
While they are feeling noble, can they outlaw exploding terrorists ?
Anytime the UN takes a stand against something, I respond with “So what are you doing in Darfur?”
Cluster bombs, like mines, have a specific tactical purpose on the battlefield. CBs also replace more ham-handed and destructive alternatives, e.g. carpet bombing.
Notice how the UN wants to ban weapons that give the US an advantage?
Why? Do cluster bombs contribute to climate change? ;-)
The problem with Iraq and Afganistan as opposed to the bombings of lets say Dresden, Hamburg of Tokyo during WWII is the unbelievable carnage of WWII of such a wide area was enough to make those bombed loose their taste for war and wish to sue for peace
Here are a few of the nations making up the rules about cluster bombs:
Albania, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Estonia, Gabon, Lao People's Dem.Rep., Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Moldova (Republic of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro (Republic of), Nauru, Niger, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
Are Burkina Faso and Liechtenstein affected by conventions controlling convential weapons? How many Liechtensteiners will die in the next 20 years if its mighty Air Force eschews the use of cluster bombs?
All of these UN Treaties would make a lot more sense if they were drafted by nations directly affected by them. Burkina Faso promising to not use cluster bombs, and using that promise to try and shame the United States into not using cluster bombs, is like me promising to not waste fuel by flying around in a private jet, and trying to use my promise to shame someone who actually has private jet into not parking it.
Doesn’t Bob Denard control the Seychelles. Or did he cease and
desist after the Frog govt threw some greenmail his way?
MV
Many cluster munitions are smart munitions and precision systems.
It’s easy for some worthless Spaniard or German to proclaim the in-humanity of certain systems such as mines and bad mouth the US when it’s not their troops along the DMZ in Korea. Number of innocent children killed by those mines? Zero. Number of mines along DMZ? Millions. Any objections by the government of S Korea or the US against those mines? No, we want them there.
Cluster munitions such as CBU-97, or anti-power grid systems like CBU-94 have a definitive purpose and are hardly indiscriminate killers with massive collateral damage. The bureaucrats that push these topics often are driven by personal political agenda’s internal to their nation and operate in a vacuum of reality. Look at Princess Diana and her crusade against land mines as the premier example. Did her crusade have any connection to reality? No. The only countries bound by her crusade were ones who were not engaging in the activities she used to justify her cause. Do you think Iraq or Iran were going to stop or clear their minefields? Of course not. Furthermore, look at the only mines the US uses today: GATOR, ADAM, RAM, MOPMS, GEMS, Claymore, WAM/Hornet….. all are self destructive or command detonated, the rules for employment are highly restrictive, and these systems are tailored against specific threats, i.e. a WAM mine will only go off under very specific conditions. So where does that leave Princess Diana? In a fairyland tale; on a crusade against a perceived evil she helps create, like Don Quixote. And of course while she’s on this crusade “for the children” of course, her name is in the papers, on the radio, TV and she gets lots of free airtime. The news becomes her free PR machine while she sells herself and her bad idea, can we say Carbon Offsets and Gore? Why do I beat on this Princess? Because what she did is exactly what drives 90% of these initiatives and most likely the actions within the UN by many of the EU weenies.
This is interesting, seeing that the UN can’t even agree upon and truly define what terrorism is.
The next president should say: “The United Nations has agreed that it needs serious reform to rid itself of corruption. They have not begun to institute these reforms. We are withdrawing from the U.N. until the U.N. is reformed from corruption.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.