Here is Matthew Yglesias take on this.
Basically, the US opposes this treaty because cluster bombs are still a big part of our defense strategy and doesn't care about the future consequences these bombs may have. In all fairness, the US has been trying to use more accurate bombs, but there is still a small chance that it won't explode immediatly. And, these bombs are extremely difficult to clean up. Unfortunately, kids and farmers often mistake them for aluminum cans, and they can lose limbs or their lives. I just think that there has to be a better and more accurate alternative to cluster bombs.
7 comments:
It's surprising that the US, China and Russian did not sign the treaty although hundreds of groups support it like the Red Cross and the United Nations. The part where you said the US opposes this treaty because it doesn't care about the future consequences these bombs may have reminds of the US not signing the Kyoto Protocol - The US didn't sign it because it cares more about the economy than what's gonna happen to our environment in the future. I'm not saying that the US doesnt care about future generations. Hopefully under Barack Obama, there will be improvements on how we prioritize and handle things such as this one.
I think the US doesn't want to sign the treaty because the government doesn't want there to be any limits to what the military wants to use to defend the country.
I think the us doesnt want to sign because they we dont like anyone telling us what we should and should and can and cant do. I wonder if Obama will sign it when he gets into office? (and the Kyoto Accords?!?!)
When it comes to signing important international documents, the US doesn't have the best track record (Treaty of Versaille/Kyoto). However, whatever our personal opinions are, we have to look at the treaty in the eyes of the US government. The US is one of the strongest countries in the world, and it doesn't want to limit its power in any way; the cluster munition treaty would do exactly that by decreasing America's military might. The US would have to spend billions of dollars to manufacture a new type of weapon under this treaty (which it doesn't have because of this economic crisis)and Americans would have to face higher taxes. Is America ready for this? I don't think so. Maybe that's why the US didn't sign the treaty...it was looking out for its livelihood because it was hit so hard by the crisis.
Then again, there's a humanitarian aspect to this treaty, and by not signing it, the US looks like it doesn't care about the world once again. I personally don't think this is the case; it's way more political than that. If the whole treaty was just an ethical matter (which it isn't), then I'm sure the US would have signed it.
Also, I'm not too sure even Obama will sign the treaty once in office. He's all for revitalizing the economy, and this treaty would definately make revitalizing harder.
To counter Anastasia's view, I don't think banning cluster munitions would hamper our national security. We have a military that still spends more money than all other militaries put together. It is by far the most powerful in the world, and once we are extricated from Iraq and Afghanistan, could defeat any other military on earth (including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc.). We have great technology, excellently trained troops, and bases around the world giving us unequaled reach. It is therefore not a strategic issue or a military one. It is a moral one. Cluster mines, while militarily effective, causes many civilian casualties and are unethical as they cause much damage even decades after a given war is over. They should be banned because it is the right thing to do. As a plus, America's support will help to reestablish America's moral standing.
Really? We really need cluster bombs too? America already is the owner of 10,000 nuclear weapons. We 8 different types of nuclear warheads,and 5,736 active stockpile warheads. That is already a lot to choose from. But I can see the other side of the argument as well. I am not an expert on cluster bombs but they may have some use. I would want to know how often does the U.S. use these bombs and how effective they really are. If they aren't used that much then I believe the U.S. should have signed this treaty because we need to be progressive and make the world a little safer. If anyone has answers to some of my questions, that would be great.
this isn't only a political issue the US has to deal with. It is a technological one. the reason they haven't come up with a 'safer' more efficient bomb is because they just haven't figured out a good way to do it.
This really can't all be politics. Maybe they should make the smaller munitions some extremely bright color that signals 'BAD DO NOT TOUCH.'
Post a Comment