The Dublin Conference has resulted in more than 100 countries reaching an agreement to ban the use, production, stockpile, and sale of Cluster Bombs. China, Russia, and The United States (among others) oppose the ban and will, no doubt, simply ignore it.
If you were looking for a fine example of ridiculousness today, look no further than the words of Stephen Mull, the US State Department’s acting assistant secretary for political-military affairs.
Yesterday, Mull made the following comment with regards to those nations currently participating at a conference in Dublin where representatives from more than 100 nations are working to craft a treaty to ban the use, production, stockpile, and sale of Cluster Bombs…
“This would have very grave implications. With one stroke, any country that signs the convention as it is now and ratifies it, in effect would make it impossible for the United States or any of our other allies who rely on these weapons to participate in these humanitarian exercises.”
So, for example, were Brazil to sign the treaty and a massive natural disaster were to devastate part of that country, Mull is basically saying that the United States would not offer humanitarian assistance because of Brazil’s stance on the United States’ refusal to stop producing, using, selling, and stockpiling Cluster Bomb munitions.
Even more – Canada is also represented at the conference and is one of the key nations, along with France and Germany, expected to play a role in swaying the UK’s position on the treaty.
So what if a part of this nation were devastated by a natural disaster? What if my hometown were to be rocked by the long awaited earthquake that we’ve been expecting for basically my entire lifetime? Canada is America’s foremost trading partner, not to mention the fact that after Katrina hit, members of my hometown’s emergency response team were there and helping people before their American counterparts even showed up. So much so, in fact, that various neighbourhoods were awash in Canadian flags as a show of gratitude.
What then, Mr. Mull? Are we on our own because we dared to stand with others and say that the use, production, stockpile, and sale of one of the most despicable conventional weapons in the world should be banned?
Given FEMA’s reposnse to Katrina, and the Bush Administration’s mishandling of the disaster, what of the outpouring of support from other countries, even those the United States government considers enemies, such as Cuba and Venezuela? Do you not think that by taking such a ridiculous position that further isolating the United States from those that, in times of disaster, are willing to forego ideological differences to lend their support is a good idea?
Arrogance knows no bounds, it seems. And all over a bloody bomb.
Cluster Bombs have been employed by various nations for decades. When dropped, the initial casing releases ‘bomblets’ that then spread across a target area. There are numerous classifications for various purposes ranging from incendiary to anti-tank to anti-personnel, and numerous others aimed at affecting specific targets such as runways and electrical infrastructures. The problem with Cluster Bombs is that not all of the bomblets explode on impact and can lay dormant for decades waiting to be triggered by innocents that happen upon them. In the 70’s the United States dropped two million tons of ordinances on Laos. Of that, it is estimated that some 260 sub-munitions did not explode and, to this day, claim the lives of innocent Laotians. In Vietnam, it is estimated that 300 civilians are killed every year by unexploded bomblets. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 Cluster Bombs were also used by the Israeli Air Force. It is estimated that a quarter of the bomblets failed to explode and have since resulted in over 200 civilian casualties.
I mention this because tomorrow in Dublin a conference begins at which participants will attempt to negotiate a treaty that will ban the production, use, stockpile, and sale of cluster bombs. Unfortunately, some of the world’s foremost powers (the United States, China, and Russia) have refused to attend and, not surprisingly, oppose the treaty. Business is, after all, business.
Unfortunately, that’s a difficult perspective to try and explain to a 13-year-old that’s had their legs blown off, but that’s the world we live in.
When it comes to the unfolding drama regarding Iran, look no further than the Israelis for proof positive that hypocrisy is alive and well. Yesterday, Israeli’s newly appointed ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, uttered the following…
“At the current rate of progress, Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009,” he said.
“This is a global threat and it requires a global response.
“It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate, then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation.”
“There needs to be full verification of what is happening in Iran,” Mr Prosor said. “In Israel, there is a belief that the Iranians are continuing with their nuclear weapons program.”
While I’m sure that I’ll catch flack for this entry, I must admit to being tired of hearing the Israelis go on about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program when they themselves have refused to acknowledge that their own program even exists, have never allowed the IAEA to inspect it, have not signed the NPT, and jailed the one person that had the fortitude to come forward and tell the world that Israel does, in fact, possess a nuclear arsenal.
As of 2002, Israel is believed to possess between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons. Among them are neutron bombs, nuclear mines, submarine borne missiles, and other variants. Despite the fact that, in 1975, highly classified US government documents, now declassified, show that the United States was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons, the US has never called for an international inquiry into their existence or production, nor pushed for the UN to be granted access to Israeli facilities to determine the scope of their program.
In Ness Ziona, at the Israel Institute for Biological Research, the Israelis have also undertaken research and development into vaccines to counteract the effects of chemical and biological weapons. And while it is currently believed that they are not producing chemical and biological weapons of their own, such research could be used to constitute an offensive chemical and biological arms program. Given that last statement, why is that of little to no concern to anyone? Because we, in the West, simply accept the fact that Israel wouldn’t initiate an offensive chemical and biological weapons program? And if so, why is it that the West is so unsuspicious of Israeli programs?
In all seriousness, here we are talking about a nation in the Middle East that, in truth, has been given free reign by the West for no other reason than it represents the West’s foremost military proxy in the region. Even Israel’s creation was the result of a heavily Western backed initiative via the United Nations, largely spearheaded by the Truman administration. It has, since that time, been one of the largest recipients of US military aid in the world, a trend that continues to this day. In fact, to counteract a recent ten year, $20 billion dollar, arms agreement with various Arab states, the United States pledged to provide Israel alone with $30 billion dollars in military aid over the same period of time.
I’ll not disagree that the Iranian government’s position on Israel’s right to exist is tired and counterproductive, because it is. Then again, since the Islamic revolution, no overt military action has been taken against Israel by Iran itself (in truth, Iran, then Persia, has not invaded another country since the 19th century). True, Iran has been complicit in funding groups such as Hezbollah, but how is that any different that the Israelis being funded by the United States and exploiting that relationship to institute policies that have basically ghettoized a people and been responsible for human rights violations and war crimes?
If you’re under the assumption that that isn’t the case, that Israel has enacted such policies solely for purposes of security, then why did Avi Dichter, Israel’s Public Security minister, recently turn down an invitation to travel to the UK in fear that he could be arrested on war crimes charges in connection with the attack in Gaza on Saleh Shehadah which killed at least 13 civilians in July of 2002?
I’m not going to claim that it doesn’t go both ways, but there is a vast difference between radical Palestinian groups armed with RPG’s and Kalashnikovs, not to mention children hurling rocks, and the IDF, which has at its disposal some of the most advanced weaponry in the world, including a state of the art air force. True, suicide attacks are one of the tools employed by radical groups, though it must be said – if they possessed attack helicopters, armor, and fighter planes, they would most likely resort to employing the sorts of weapons that we commonly condone as ‘honourable’. Let’s face it – there is, as far as Western perceptions are concerned, no honour in blowing oneself up and taking others with you. But it is honourable to use state of the art attack helicopters to do the same thing – correct?
Now, with regards to Iranian support for Hezbollah, I will again not argue that Iran hasn’t been complicit. But as I’ve said, how is that any different than US support for Israel? In truth, Iran’s military support for Hezbollah is vastly minimal by comparison. Of course, the counter argument is that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that the government of Israel is not. Then again, the last time I checked, Hezbollah was not responsible for the million bomblets from Cluster Bombs that still litter Southern Lebanon, the majority of which were dropped in the last days of that conflict, and that still continue to maim and kill Lebanese civilians on a daily basis.
The fact remains that while Israeli’s foremost military enabler scrutinizes Iran’s intentions and programs, Israel escapes scrutiny. There is nary a word about Israel’s nuclear program, or the fact that the Israelis refuse to allow it to be inspected by the very same body that has been pushed to scrutinize Iran’s nuclear program. No National Intelligence Estimate regarding Israel’s nuclear program has been undertaken, and if it has it hasn’t been publicized for the sole reason that it would expose the hypocrisy of not only the Israelis, but the United States as well. In fact, the influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States would probably ensure that it was killed before it even saw the light of day.
Is the Iranian government guilty of human rights violations? Absolutely. Is Israel? Absolutely. Of course, it can be argued that Iran’s violations are considerably worse, and one would expect that. Then again, the same sorts of violations occur in other counties with which the US has close relations and they are rarely, if ever, scrutinized – Saudi Arabia being a primary example.
When it comes to this issue, we live in a society that lacks objectivity, and to claim as much is to offer ones self up for target practice for daring to say so. Deep and indoctrinated lines have been drawn regarding this issue, and to attempt to look at it objectively, or to hold all those involved to the same standards, is something that is, rather ironically, not acceptable.
No matter what you happen to believe, peace is a universal proposition. It is not one that comes with caveats penned by those that possess greater military capabilities. We have been programmed to believe that the latter is standard practice and, not surprisingly, peace continues to elude us.
There is no side worth being on that does not transparently promote justice, equality, and security without agenda. Those besides are nothing more than avenues paved for the weak willed to travel. Ironically, the fantasy author JK Rowling might have put it best when she wrote – the time will soon come to choose between what is right and what is easy. When it comes to how we view global events, that maxim is of incredible import. For behind those behind the curtains there are ordinary people that outnumber them by the billions, all of them connected by the simplest of bonds - the universal desire to live lives without fear and to escape those entrenchments that have pitted them against one another for far too long.
While the emphasis on the violence in Iraq, and the deaths caused by it, is routinely focused on sectarian violence, there is another aspect to the war in Iraq that has been entirely overlooked – the use of air power and off-shore munitions.
In a report by Nick Turse on TomDispatch.com, some of the realities of the ongoing US air campaign are revealed. One of Turse’s primary focuses is on the use of cluster bombs…
“Did the U.S. military use cluster bombs in Iraq in 2006 and then lie about it? Does the U.S. military keep the numbers of rockets and cannon rounds fired from its planes and helicopters secret because more Iraqi civilians have died due to their use than any other type of weaponry?
These are just two of the many unanswered questions related to the largely uncovered air war the U.S. military has been waging in Iraq.
What we do know is this: Since the major combat phase of the war ended in April 2003, the U.S. military has dropped at least 59,787 pounds of air-delivered cluster bombs in Iraq — the very type of weapon that Marc Garlasco, the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch (HRW) calls, “the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use.” We also know that, according to expert opinion, rockets and cannon fire from U.S. aircraft may account for most U.S. and coalition-attributed Iraqi civilian deaths and that the Pentagon has restocked hundreds of millions of dollars worth of these weapons in recent years.
Unfortunately, thanks to an utter lack of coverage by the mainstream media, what we don’t know about the air war in Iraq so far outweighs what we do know that anything but the most minimal picture of the nature of destruction from the air in that country simply can’t be painted. Instead, think of the story of U.S. air power in Iraq as a series of tiny splashes of lurid color on a largely blank canvas.
Even among the least covered aspects of the air war in Iraq, the question of cluster-bomb (CBU) use remains especially shadowy. This is hardly surprising. After all, at a time when many nations are moving toward banning the use of cluster munitions — at a February 2007 conference in Oslo, Norway, 46 of 48 governments represented supported a declaration for a new international treaty and ban on the weapons by 2008 — the U.S. stands with China, Israel, Pakistan, and Russia in opposing new limits of any kind.
Little wonder. The U.S. military has a staggering arsenal of these weapons. According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, the Army holds 88% of the Pentagon’s CBU inventory — at least 638.3 million of the cluster bomblets that are stored inside each cluster munition; the Air Force and Navy, according to Department of Defense figures, have 22.2 million and 14.7 million of the bomblets, respectively. And even these numbers are considered undercounts by experts.
A cluster bomb bursts above the ground, releasing hundreds of smaller, deadly submunitions or “bomblets” that increase the weapon’s kill radius causing, as Garlasco puts it, “indiscriminate effects.” It’s a weapon, he notes, that “cannot distinguish between a civilian and a soldier when employed because of its wide coverage area. If you’re dropping the weapon and you blow your target up you’re also hitting everything within a football field. So to use it in proximity to civilians is inviting a violation of the laws of armed conflict.”
Worse yet, U.S. cluster munitions have a high failure rate. A sizeable number of dud bomblets fall to the ground and become de facto landmines which, Garlasco points out, are “already banned by most nations on this planet.” Garlasco adds: “I don’t see how any use of the current U.S. cluster bomb arsenal in proximity to civilian objects can be defended in any way as being legal or legitimate.”