|
The cluster bomb treaty would be unilateral...except for the other 110 countries that also agreed to abandon cluster bombs in Dublin.
And why are cluster munitions a necessary defense? Mull again had an answer: "These [cluster munitions] are weapons that have a certain military utility and are of use. The United States relies on them as an important part of our own defense strategy."
When the media inexplicably pushed back, asking what, exactly, this military utility was, Mull ruled out some possibilities: "How many wars like that is the United States going to be in, in the foreseeable future. My personal guess is probably not a lot. I don't think we have that kind of threat from Canada or Mexico, by the way, for example."
No doubt the Canadian and Mexican governments are reassured to hear that the United States does not plan to go to war with them anytime soon.
Finally, Mull concluded his circumnavigation around the question of the military utility of cluster munitions by conceding: "The United States hasn't used them [cluster munitions] in the conflicts we're involved in since 2003, during the intervention in Iraq.... But the issue is, is that the United States is a global power. We have global responsibilities and global alliance relationships. And I don't think we could rule out that other conflicts that our allies might be involved with in the future, which we would be required to respond to. For example, let's say an invasion of South Korea or some other -- let's say a war that breaks out and -- or let's say Syria invades Lebanon, God forbid, that that happens, I mean, it's not entirely impossible that there could be a conflict like that in which we would be responsible for helping for the defense of our ally in which the weapons would be needed."
Mull might want to consult with the Lebanese government before using cluster bombs in Lebanon to defend against a Syrian invasion. They do have some experience with the weapons. Just two years ago, Lebanon became one of the most heavily cluster-bombed countries in the world when Israel launched around four million submunitions into southern Lebanon. Unexploded remnants still litter the countryside, claiming the lives and limbs of hundreds while making the cultivation of large swathes of land perilous. Given this reality, one cannot imagine a scenario in which using cluster munitions would serve to "protect" the Lebanese Ð rather, it would seem to do just the opposite.
Sadly, this press briefing was not a work of creative fiction but a serious attempt to outline U.S. military policy. With the world watching, the U.S. government trotted out an incoherent series of justifications designed to confuse the debate. It was bad enough that the United States was AWOL from the negotiations. It can't even provide a good excuse for its absence.
Article courtesy Foreign Policy in FocusDaniel Allen is a legislative program assistant on conventional weapons at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (www.fcnl.org).
Comments? Send a letter to the editor.Albion Monitor June
6, 2008 (http://www.albionmonitor.com) All Rights Reserved. Contact rights@monitor.net for permission to use in any format. |