In a striking declaration, Democratic presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly criticized President Joe Biden’s decision to arm Ukraine with controversial cluster munitions, adding a fresh twist to the ongoing tension in the country.
Biden’s administration recently reversed a prior stance against such weaponry, greenlighting the Pentagon to send M864 155mm artillery shells, or Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICMs), to Ukraine. These munitions are designed to scatter smaller explosives over a wide area, targeting both personnel and vehicles. However, they’ve long been a subject of controversy due to the persistent danger they pose even after a conflict ends, with unexploded submunitions posing a latent threat to civilians.
Kennedy, currently leading the polls among Biden’s Democratic rivals, pointed out the extreme dangers of these weapons. Over 100 nations have committed to an international treaty against their use, considering the high risk to civilian populations. Indeed, Human Rights Watch confirms that the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions witnessed 120 nations taking a stance against these weapons and calling for their disuse.
Taking to Twitter, Kennedy expressed his concerns, saying, “Cluster bombs are munitions so horrific for civilians that more than a hundred nations have signed an international treaty banning them.” He further criticized the Biden administration’s decision to send them to Ukraine, outlining the dangers they present.
“These munitions scatter bomblets across the landscape,” Kennedy added in a subsequent post. “Many fail to explode — until children pick them up later. They have caused thousands of injuries and deaths to civilians.”
Kennedy is not alone in his critique. Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee from California, too, voiced her dissent, suggesting that this move could potentially undermine America’s moral standing in the global sphere. Echoing Kennedy’s sentiments, Lee highlighted the perilous nature of cluster bombs and their long-term threats to civilians.
Interestingly, Jen Psaki, White House spokeswoman, had previously indicated in a media briefing that the use of such weapons could be viewed as a potential war crime.
Defending his decision, Biden admitted his initial hesitance, but argued that the escalating crisis in Ukraine necessitated action. Despite the controversy, he justified the decision as a difficult, yet necessary, move to aid the beleaguered Ukrainians.
These developments underscore the complexity and high stakes of international politics. As tensions escalate in Ukraine, the ethical, humanitarian, and political implications of Biden’s decision add more fuel to the fire of a fraught presidential race. It serves as a crucial reminder that political decisions, while often framed as simple solutions, often entail profound consequences and demand careful, principled scrutiny.
