Once again, the absence of American leadership (U.S. shuns cluster bomb treaty)

[journalist3072]

So, the Administration that claims to be working to advance peace in the world, did not even bother to send any type of U.S. representation, or otherwise ensure it's voice would be heard, during a conference held to push for a global ban on cluster bombs. Amazing, isn't it? The State Department says the United States has chosen instead to sign onto a treaty with the U.N. Convention on Conventional Weapons, and has sent it to the Senate for ratification. But they don't tell us what THAT treaty says regarding cluster bombs.

--------------------------------------

46 nations push for cluster bomb treaty

By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer
Fri Feb 23, 3:02 PM ET

OSLO, Norway - Forty-six countries agreed Friday to push for a global treaty banning cluster bombs, a move activists hope will force the superpowers that oppose the effort — the U.S., China and Russia — to abandon the weapons.

Organizers said the declaration was needed despite the absence of key nations at a conference in the Norwegian capital to avoid a potential humanitarian disaster posed by unexploded cluster munitions.

-snip-

Of the 49 countries attending the Oslo conference, only three — Japan, Poland and Romania — rejected the declaration calling for a treaty by next year. Some key arms makers — including the U.S., Russia,Israel and China — snubbed the conference.

-snip-

Countries opposed to the Oslo conference say cluster bombs are being discussed under the U.N. Convention on Conventional Weapons.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the convention has produced a treaty the U.S. has signed and forwarded to the Senate for ratification. He did not provide details on what the treaty says about cluster bombs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_re_eu/norway_cluster_bombs

[magellan]

1. I think I heard about this on DN! this week

...and that the US says it complies with international standards of use for cluster bombs. I've not heard about this specific treaty. But if I remember correctly, these munitions are restricted to use against combatants only.

Of course when you're attacking combatants in populated areas as the US and others insist on doing (while claiming to be better than terrorists), you've got a loophole you could drive a B52 bomber through. And I'm sure the treaty protects that "right".

We really have become the enemy.