Last week, over 100 countries met in Dublin, Ireland, to sign an agreement banning the use of cluster bombs, weapons invented by the Soviet Union during World War II. Cluster bombs are large single bombs that release a number of "bomblets" over a vast area and are usually intended for anti-personnel use.
Up to 10 percent of these bomblets may not explode and can remain dormant for years. Because cluster bombs are typically used in civilian areas, any unexploded duds serve as a serious threat to innocent civilians long after their initial use. Furthermore, the bomblets are about the size of a soda can and are often brightly colored, making them attractive to young children who mistake them for toys.
A study by Handicap International found that 98 percent of cluster-bomb-related casualties were civilians. In other words, actually killing a combatant with cluster bombs is an extreme statistical rarity.
When these findings are extrapolated to all areas where cluster munitions have been used, the total number of casualities could be as high as 100,000 worldwide. This does not include the many people who do not die as a result of the bombs but instead are left limbless, severely burned, blind or deaf.
For the 128 signatory countries and to anyone with half a heart or brain, these factors provide clear enough evidence to permanently ban the production and use of cluster bombs in all future military operations.
Britain, one of the largest purveyors of cluster munitions, not only agreed to the ban on cluster bombs, but even went so far as to ban the use of U.K. soil for storage of the weapons.
However, when one peruses the list of signatory countries, there are a handful of economically and politically influential nations that are conspicuously absent: Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and the United States.
President Bush defended his decision to not agree to the ban by saying eliminating cluster bombs would endanger U.S. soldiers.
Apparently, innocent civilians and small children pose a grave threat to our brave men and women in uniform, and the best way to protect our troops from danger is with 75-year-old Russian technology.
What exactly do we use that $700 billion a year in military budget for, anyway?
Perhaps if our president did indeed have either half a heart or brain he would realize the lack of decency and logic in his decision.
Instead, once again the U.S. has positioned itself on the world stage not as a moral leader and a champion of human rights, but as a violent perpetrator of suffering.
For Russia, Pakistan and China, countries whose leaders have historically disregarded human rights and make no apologies about it, the decision not to sign this enlightened and humane treaty makes perfect sense.
But for the U.S. and Israel to continuously rant about the depravity of "terrorists" while simultaneously reserving the right to use weapons which they know maim and kill almost exclusively civilians and children, brings a whole new depth to the word "hypocrisy."
Sadly, we have now lost all moral credibility in the eyes of the world community. We do not have the right to label any person, organization or state a "terrorist" until we actually walk the walk and start holding ourselves up to the same standards we so disingenuously demand of the rest of the world.
