“We do not support the use of cluster munitions and we are committed to ending the effects of these weapons on civilians, especially children,” a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly told CBC News in an email on Friday.
That said, the more important story is the sending of cluster munitions in the first place. And this article seems to agree, considering you have to scroll down a bit to get to the Canadian opinion. I’m not surprised the CBC is interested in the Canadian government’s response to this.
You are correct, and my comment was dismissive. My issue, or maybe frustration is a better term, is that we are worrying about the potential future impact that the use of effective cluster munitions may have after the end of hostilities. This is a reasonable concern, but the genocide is a very pressing concern. It is extremely unlikely that the number of affected children who may theoretically suffer injury or death due to these weapons, can possibly match the number who are dying or being forcibly deported weekly in this conflict.
Cluster munitions are an effective way to improve the kill and disable rate of Russian soldiers, and do so more efficiently with less barrels and rounds fired. Since destroying the Russian military as a combat ready force is the only way to end the war, it just makes sense in the cost benefit calculation to accept a theoretical future risk in addressing an immediate existential situation.
So yes, there’s a story, I just don’t agree with my government creating diplomatic heat around vital weapon supplies.
There is no controversy. Canada is not providing the weapons. The US and Ukraine are not signatory to the ban. Story doesn’t exist. Sigh
There is actually, and here’s your story:
That said, the more important story is the sending of cluster munitions in the first place. And this article seems to agree, considering you have to scroll down a bit to get to the Canadian opinion. I’m not surprised the CBC is interested in the Canadian government’s response to this.
You are correct, and my comment was dismissive. My issue, or maybe frustration is a better term, is that we are worrying about the potential future impact that the use of effective cluster munitions may have after the end of hostilities. This is a reasonable concern, but the genocide is a very pressing concern. It is extremely unlikely that the number of affected children who may theoretically suffer injury or death due to these weapons, can possibly match the number who are dying or being forcibly deported weekly in this conflict.
Cluster munitions are an effective way to improve the kill and disable rate of Russian soldiers, and do so more efficiently with less barrels and rounds fired. Since destroying the Russian military as a combat ready force is the only way to end the war, it just makes sense in the cost benefit calculation to accept a theoretical future risk in addressing an immediate existential situation.
So yes, there’s a story, I just don’t agree with my government creating diplomatic heat around vital weapon supplies.