Allies Challenge Biden’s Decision To Send Ukraine Cluster Munitions
The United Kingdom and Spain, two of America’s long-standing NATO allies, recently voiced their disapproval of Joe Biden’s contentious decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine. This dissent shows a crack in the unity of the NATO coalition and undermines a convention held sacrosanct by many of the world’s nations.
As Ukraine marks over 500 days since Russian forces invaded, the strategic course of the Biden administration is meeting significant resistance. Notably, the British and Spanish governments are advocating for Washington to backtrack on its commitment to send these deadly weapons into the conflict.
Under the International Convention on Cluster Munitions, the use, manufacture, and transfer of these weapon types are prohibited. This treaty has been signed and respected by over 100 countries, including the UK and Spain. However, the U.S., Ukraine and Russia are key holdouts, highlighting the conflicting ideologies within the NATO alliance.
Biden has publicly defended his “very difficult” decision. He has cited the depletion of ammunition in Ukraine and the U.S. shortage of 155-millimeter artillery shells as the primary reasons for supplying cluster munitions during this “transition period.” Despite his reassurances that these weapons won’t be used in civilian areas, the justifications have failed to quell the concerns of London and Madrid.
The British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, was explicit in his opposition. He stated that the U.K. is a signatory to a convention that discourages the use of cluster munitions, and it intends to stand by that. Spain’s Defence Minister, Margarita Robles, was similarly critical, underlining that Biden’s decision was a unilateral one, not endorsed by NATO. She emphasized Spain’s commitment to Ukraine and its categorical opposition to delivering these deadly weapons.
The emerging disapproval within NATO underscores the delicate balance of power in the alliance. With a pivotal NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania on the horizon, the dissent signals potential trouble for discussions regarding Ukraine’s prospective membership in the alliance. A key point of contention is the fear of provoking a full-scale conflict with Russia. Germany and Washington have expressed their hesitations, aiming to prevent the NATO treaty’s Article 5 from being potentially triggered by Ukraine’s contested borders.
Biden has indicated his alignment with Germany’s cautionary stance. He has stated his desire to evade a situation where “we’re all in the war, we’re in a war with Russia.” He has suggested that Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO may take significant time due to the country’s readiness and geopolitical complexities.
Even within the Democrat ranks, the President’s decision has met with opposition. Robert Kennedy Jr., a candidate for the Presidential race, has called for the cessation of “ceaseless escalation.” He reminded the public that Jen Psaki, the former White House Press Secretary, had previously labeled the use of cluster bombs as a potential “war crime.”
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian people bear the brunt of this strategic deadlock. As civilians and soldiers face the fallout from the conflict, the controversial supply of cluster munitions has ignited a fresh diplomatic dispute. As NATO allies challenge Washington’s unilateral decision, the question remains if the current strategy truly serves the pursuit of peace and global security.
