The Reading Blog

As their name implies, cluster bombs are multiple bomblets enclosed in a canister that releases them once it explodes after hitting the ground. In addition to the horrendous toll they cause during wartime, unexploded cluster bombs have littered many sites of war (such as Vietnam, Laos, and Afghanistan) and killed or maimed countless numbers of innocent civilians months and years after the wars have ended. Recognizing the great humanitarian danger posed by these weapons, at the end of May 2008 over 110 nations signed an agreement to a treaty (that will be signed in December in Oslo) to ban current designs of cluster bombs (see the BBC news “Cluster Bomb Ban Treaty Approved” article). According to this agreement, all stockpiles of cluster bombs will be destroyed within 8 years. If you haven’t already heard, the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel did not sign the agreement.

In a new chapter to the story, the US has recently announced a new plan to address the cluster bomb issue. According to Matthew Weaver’s, “US Cluster Bomb Plans Meaningless, Say Campaigners” article published in The Guardian, July 8, 2008 issue:

US plans to respond to international pressure over the use of cluster bombs by phasing out the amount of unexploded bomblets they contain, were today branded as “meaningless” by campaigners. A three-page Pentagon memo pledges that after 2018, more than 99% of the explosives in cluster bombs must detonate on impact.The US defence department also agreed to reduce its inventory of devices that do not meet this standard from June next year. But it also defended cluster bombs, claiming they “provide distinct advantages against a range of targets and can result in less collateral damage” than other weapons and adds that total elimination would be “unacceptable”.

Campaigners claim the Pentagon’s plan is motivated by an attempt to sell stocks of bombs with a high proportion of unexploded munitions that kill and maim innocent civilians. They also claim it highlights US isolation on the issue. Rae McGrath, spokesman for Handicap International, said: “The statement is an indication that the US is under pressure to ‘be seen’ to respond to the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions – that is a good sign, and perhaps bodes well for the post election period. However the ‘response’ is quite meaningless in reality – a large percentage of the problems caused over 40 years have been caused by cluster weapons claimed to have low failure rates and it is now widely accepted that no effective methods of testing failure rates exist.

He added: “To wait another 10 years before banning cluster munitions has more to do with protecting existing stockpiles than with concern for the communities devastated by these weapons.”

Thomas Nash, international coordinator for the Cluster Munition Coalition, said that…”The only good thing is that they are not going to have many countries to sell the weapons to, because 111 countries signed up to banning them.”

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy who has led efforts to outlaw cluster munitions in the US, said the Pentagon’s plans were a step back. He accused the Bush administration of “another squandered opportunity for US leadership.”

Recent takes on the so called “shift” in US cluster bomb policy include reports by BBC news, Reuters, and CNN.com, and an editorial, “Cluster Bombs: A Shameful Stance, in the July 9, 2008 Seattle Post. For opinions on the cluster bomb banning issue, go to whereIstand.com. Hopefully, the next administration will have a more humanitarian view of this issue.