Arms Trade
"We feel that we could have an agreed (treaty). It is disappointing that more time is needed. But an arms-trade treaty is coming - not today - but soon. We've taken a big step forward." spokesman, British delegationThe 193-nation United Nations General Assembly was hoping that it could produce a draft arms-trade treaty, adopted with a two-thirds-majority vote. That draft failed to materialize this time around as delegates from around the world, representing 170 countries meeting in New York, failed to reach a consensus adoption of a deal.
Most countries' delegates are committed to a universal treaty meant to regulate the over $50-billion industry world-wide. One person every minute dies as a result of armed violence around the world. Arms control activists feel a universally-declared convention is required in prevention of the illicit trade in guns pouring into conflict zones, fuelling wars and atrocities.
Those same activists cited a small minority of states that included Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria who opposed global arms control throughout the negotiations. Aside from those countries, however, blame was laid squarely before the United States and Russia; both countries declaring insufficient time for them to resolve issues.
"Moving forward, President Obama must show the political courage required to make a strong treaty that contains strong rules on human rights a reality", urged an Oxfam America senior policy adviser. President Obama, however, just like every other politician in the United States, cannot even move forward on the issue of gun control in a country where a majority of the population owns guns.
The draft arms-trade-treaty currently under negotiation has a requirement that countries must assess whether an arms export could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian or human rights law.
Covered would be all conventional arms in the categories of battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, along with small arms and light weapons. There would be no interference with the domestic arms trade "and the way a country regulates civilian possession", clarified the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.
The five top arms suppliers: Britain, China, France, Germany, United States and Russia.
This is really dreaming in technicolour. Nothing will stop the international arms trade. Regulations can be agreed upon, but manufacturers in collusion with government agencies will always find a way to interpret regulations in a manner that will exempt them. And there are countless governments that will not even pretend to observe any approved regulations.
Russia has supplied Syria with large-scale technologically advanced weaponry to enable it to attack its own civilians. Turkey and doubtless Qatar has supplied the Syrian rebels and their allies with weapons to mount attacks and counter-attacks. Iran supplies Hezbollah and has supplied Hamas with weapons meant to be interdicted.
How will the United Nations enforce the new regulations, and apply penalties to those held to have abused them? By urging UN members to pursue "this noble goal"?
Because the United Nations is itself such an arbiter of human rights and values that it conveys the necessity for universal respect among all its members? Through elevating on a constant basis, one human-rights-abusing state after another to positions of respect and prominence?
Labels: Human Relations, Political Realities, Technology, United Nations, Values, Viewpoint, World Crises
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, July 29, 2012
<< Home