online http://dcointl.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/plugins/wptouch.php geneva; font-size: small; line-height: 200%;”>Besides the questions of morality due to the long term effects of cluster munitions, viagra dosage http://chelseamamma.co.uk/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-media-list-table.php here is my take why there was a muted response to “allegations of use of eight (8) cluster bombs:”
- Unlike the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, South Sudan is neither a Party nor is it a Signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions of 2007.
Therefore in South Sudanese context there was no crime committed.
2. The area in which the eight (8) bombs were allegedly used and allegedly found was not inhabited at the time by civilians.
In addition, the context probably under which they would have been used, would have been on an armed group that had attacked a sovereign army of a Non-Party State.
3. If the accused alleged user is Uganda then again, Uganda has not and would not have committed any crime because Uganda is signatory but it has not ratified the treaty.
4. Frankly speaking in comparison to other hazards in South Sudan like UXO or Landmines, eight (8) bombs in a given limited geographic entity are not going to do much harm so long as they are identified hazards (as they have been already identified and probably cleared) compared to the rest which are mostly widespread and unknown.
In recent wars the loudest trumpeters of “South Sudan Cluster Munitions Crime” are the same hypocrites who used cluster munitions in Former Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade usually killing innocent civilians without apology.