More than 100 nations will finish signing a treaty Thursday to ban cluster bombs, a particularly deadly form of aerial weapon that disperses dozens of tiny bomblets over an area.
The United States will not be among those signing, but in a strong move of independence, Afghanistan will sign the ban.
We’re following perspectives from France 24, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltic Times and the BBC.
We start with France 24 in Oslo.
After two years of negotiations, countries began signing a treaty Wednesday to ban the production, stockpile and use of cluster bombs.
France 24 explains exactly what these weapons are.
Small cluster bombs are packed into small artillery shells, bombs or missiles that scatter over vast areas. Some fail to explode immediately. Handicap International says 98 percent of victims are civilians. One in four of them are children, such as this boy in Iraq. (France24)The New York Times looks at perspectives from the U.S. and Afghanistan.
While 18 of NATO’s 26 members have signed the treaty, the United States has not.
So American troops could use cluster bombs in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as Afghani president Hamid Karzai decided Wednesday to sign the treaty.
Karzai cited pressure from human rights organizations.
One official told the New York Times that the Afghan President made his decision to support the treaty even though the United States “urged Mr. Karzai not to sign it.” (The New York Times)According to the Times, American officials say the ban would put U.S. troops in harm’s way, but the paper reports the American military has not used cluster bombs since 2003.
Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune looks at the overall treaty.
It quotes one international security expert, who says that without the support of the United States or military powers like China, Israel or Russia, this treaty will bring little change.
"It's a waste of time. If you look at who's signing and who's not signing, it's the countries that fight who aren't signing." (Chicago Tribune)The Baltic Times looks at the financial cost.
Some countries supporting the ban have decided the cost of dismantling and destroying the bombs is too high.
Because of this, two countries lacking a strong military presence – Estonia or Finland – have also decided not to sign.
Estonian officials told the Baltic Times:
“A full ban on cluster munitions in Estonia would mean destruction of the stockpiles and their replacement with some other weapon or a considerably more expensive weapons system, which Estonia would not be able to afford.” (The Baltic Times)The BBC reports the British government supports the ban and will still need to devote significant resources to the destruction of cluster bombs.
“Now the British military alone has more than 31 million of these bomblets that need destroying, since the government said it’s going to sign the treaty. That could take until 2013 to complete.” (BBC)As for the United States, President Bush is not signing the treaty, but officials for President-elect Barack Obama tell the Chicago Tribune he may re-consider the nation’s policy on cluster bombs after taking office.
Without the support of the United States and other military powers, do you think the ban on cluster bombs will have any affect on the number of civilian war casualties?
And has Afghanistan begun to truly assert itself as an independent nation with their move to sign the ban?
We invite you to share your thoughts with us and to check out our sources.
