The debate that was triggered after the decision of the United States to send cluster bombs all’Ukraine hides in itself nothing but the need to resolve a now age-old question: “The end justifies the means”? Because, despite trying to offer a justification that sounds plausible for the choice of White House to hand over to the army of Volodymyr Zelensky weapons with devastating impact on civilian populationthe question remains only one: what price are we willing to (make) pay to try to win this war?
Washington he has already given his answer. Neither the United States, nor the Russiaborn theUkraine have ever ratified the Oslo Convention of 2008 on the abolition of cluster bombs or cluster bombs. Around the world, 111 countries have said ‘enough’ to the use of these lethal weapons. Bombs launched from aircraft or artillery systems which, after an initial detonation, release hundreds of small munitions over a more or less wide area ready to explode on impact with the ground or with buildings, whether they are military or civilian. However, a percentage of them remain unexploded, turning the area into a minefield ready to kill or maim men, women and children for years to come. To use a macabre oxymoron, we could define them as democratic bombs: they do not distinguish between military or civilian, between trenches or squares, between bases or homes, between tanks or cars. They strike with incredible inaccuracy anything within their wide range.
How extreme the American decision is is demonstrated by the reactions of the European allies. There Spain she said she was firmly against, as well as the France and the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. Even the Great Britain, one of the pro-Kiev hawks, objected. The sadly weak Italiainstead, through the mouth of his defense minister Guido Crosettohe recalled that he had adhered to the Convention, but wanted to point out that Russia already uses those bombs.
“Russia already uses those bombs”. It is just that the foothold of Babylonian memory of those who justify Washington’s move: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. True, Russia is a country governed by a dictator that he has no qualms about bombing the innocent Ukrainian population by any means, even with cluster bomb. More: she has already done it in Syria alongside another bloodthirsty dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to keep an allied regime alive. We’ve all seen the images: gutted buildings and entire families overwhelmed by explosions. Aside from the fact that American cluster bombs were fired, for example, in Iraq (more than 13,000 in a month and a half and over a thousand civilians killed), the key question lies precisely in these parallels: do we want to put ourselves on the same level as Putin? Do we want to put ourselves on the same level as Assad?
We who have boasted the ridiculous (and false) title of exporters of democracy do we want to fight with the same weapons as the most ferocious dictatorships in the world? Is it necessary to descend to the level of the invader Putin to repel him? And if tomorrow he used chemical weapons? And if you used bacteriological weapons? What if he dropped a tactical nuclear device? Would we respond in the same coin? Situations like these confront countries like ours, which consider themselves a bulwark of respect for human rights, with an existential choice. We have to choose whether to remain at least one step above the worst regimes or plunge into the mud, at their level, in a descent that could become of no return.
Given the current situation among the allies, from Washington they wanted to clarify: “Kiev has guaranteed that it will not use cluster bombs in civilian areas”. Even if it were, those areas, once the conflict is over, will still remain infested with ordnance ready to explode. And it is good to remember that Zelensky has already disregarded Washington’s diktats in the past: it is enough to recall the various reprimands received after the attacks now carried out daily over the Russian border of the raids in the territory of the Federation to carry out targeted killings. The truth is, from the moment you give up a gun, you lose control over it, its use and who will wield it in the future.
The so-called ‘Western world‘ is increasingly told that it is the best place in the world to live. And it’s true: we are not afraid to suffer retaliation when we go to the polls, ours religious, sexual, freedom of expression are averagely respected. We are not afraid of surprises coup d’état, military dictatorships or the heavy hand of theocracies. But this does not seem to apply when it comes to human rights outside our borders. The fake evidence provided for proves it to invade Iraqil white phosphorus are Fallujah, depleted uranium in the Balkans, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraibi black sites from the Ciaeyes closed on Palestinethe betrayal of the Kurds of the Rojavaand yes, even the cluster bombs in Kiev: in these cases, the end justifies the means.