In the wake of the Newtown shooting, UN negotiators are gathering for one last push for a strong treaty to regulate international arms sales.
Thalif Deen, last updated: December 27, 2012
Inter Press Service
Amidst a politically divisive debate on gun control in the United States following a rash of mass shootings, the United Nations will meet in March to finalise an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) after nearly two decades of negotiations.
Dr. Natalie Goldring, a senior research fellow at the Center for Security Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS the upcoming conference probably represents the last opportunity to reach an Arms Trade Treaty within the U.N. structure.
“If this conference fails, supporters of an ATT are likely to look outside the U.N. for the next stage of negotiations, as was the case with the Landmine Treaty,” said Goldring, who has been monitoring negotiations since the early 1990s.
She said the real test of the ATT will be whether it helps set strong international standards for the arms trade.
If it helps bolster international human rights and humanitarian law, she argued, it will be a success, and it will save lives.
“If a weak ATT is negotiated, it may undermine existing practice and international law. Simply put, a weak ATT could be worse than not having an ATT,” warned Goldring.
The 193-member General Assembly last week voted overwhelmingly – 133 to nil, with 17 abstentions – to hold the conference Mar. 18-28, 2013.
All six major arms-exporting countries – China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the United States – voted for the resolution.
The abstentions, mostly from the Middle East, included Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Yemen.
The conference is expected to approve a treaty to regulate the estimated 73-billion-dollar global arms trade. In 2011, the United States alone concluded arms agreements worth 66.3 billion dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The current draft text, which will be the negotiating document next March, has been kicked around since July 2012.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), the most powerful gun lobby in the United States, has opposed the treaty on the mistaken belief it will hinder or deprive gun ownership in the country.
Brian Wood, arms control manager at Amnesty International, said the upcoming meeting will be the final leg of a 17-year campaign by his London-based human rights organisation and its partners.
The primary objective, he said, was to achieve an arms trade treaty to help protect people on the ground who, time and again, have borne the brunt of human rights violations during armed repression, violence and conflicts around the globe.
“We know sceptics will keep trying to undermine the human rights rules in the final treaty, but Amnesty International and its partners will keep up the pressure to secure the strongest possible text that protects human rights,” Wood said.
Last July, after nearly a month of negotiations, U.N. member states were close to an agreement on the proposed treaty.
But the U.S. delegation announced on the last day of the conference that it would not be able to support the draft treaty text that had been negotiated, and that insufficient time remained to reach agreement on a revised text.
With that statement, and the concurrence of other key arms suppliers, the talks collapsed.
Since the mid-1990s, the NRA has opposed U.N. efforts to reduce gun violence. It was unsuccessful in blocking the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in 2001.
“And I believe they will also fail in their efforts to prevent the signing of an Arms Trade Treaty,” Goldring predicted.
The proposed ATT does not affect civilian possession of weapons, and NRA efforts to claim otherwise are at best misleading, she said.
“The NRA’s outrageous statements about the ATT seem designed to mobilise their supporters. Their tactics may also be effective as a fundraising tool. But there’s no factual basis for the NRA’s claims,” Goldring added.
Ironically, the NRA’s trumped-up objections to an ATT free the U.S. government to negotiate a strong treaty, she said.
“If an ATT is unlikely to be ratified in the United States in the near term, there’s little incentive to compromise with U.S. senators who oppose a strong treaty,” she said.
“The political environment is quite different (since the November presidential polls). My hope is that President (Barack) Obama’s convincing re-election victory last month will help ensure that the U.S. delegation advocates a strong ATT now and in the negotiating conference next spring,” Goldring said.
Meanwhile, the biggest stumbling block to a strong ATT is the continued emphasis on consensus. If even a single delegation announces that it is unable to support consensus on the treaty, it will not be agreed.
“By insisting on consensus adoption of a treaty, the U.S. government has a veto over a prospective treaty,” said Dr Goldring.
“But it also gives every other country a veto, including sceptical delegations such as Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, and Egypt. This reduces the likelihood of success in March,” she added.
The U.S. government has made clear its refusal to accept a treaty with any provisions that would restrict civilian possession of firearms in the United States. It has even published its “diplomatic redlines” on the Department of State website, an action that may be without precedent in this context.
Thus far the U.S. government has also opposed any inclusion of ammunition or explosives in the treaty, which Goldring considers “short sighted”.
“At a minimum, all countries should be required to track ammunition when it is exported, as the United States already does. To be effective, an ATT must include all types of transfers and all types of conventional weapons, including their parts, components, and munitions,” she said.
Thalif Deen is a contributor to Inter Press Service.
William Kristol has a plan for a Republican-controlled Senate, which not surprisingly involves curtailing President Obama and pursuing a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy. “Republicans have to constrain the president, rebuild American defenses, do their best to stop a bad deal with Iran,” Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard recently. He has also argued that for the United States to be conservative in the future, it needs to “restore” its “military strength and morale” and deal “urgently with serious threats abroad.”
Paul Wolfowitz, the controversial former World Bank chief and Pentagon official who was instrumental in pushing the 2003 decision to oust Saddam Hussein, now claims that the success of “Islamic State” demonstrates why it was necessary to invade Iraq. Quipped one commentator: “What’s amazing about this is the extent to which Wolfowitz is treated as a serious interlocutor. It’s as if his history never happened, and he were just another pundit with another perspective.”
Joshua Muravchik is a long-standing proponent of interventionist U.S. foreign policies who has played an important role in shaping neoconservative ideology. Affiliated with numerous neoconservative political pressure groups—including the American Enterprise Institute, the Project of the New American Century, and the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs—Muravchik has been unabashed in his lopsided support of Israel. During the 2014 Gaza War, for instance, he criticized Human Rights Watch for documenting Israeli abuses, accusing the group of pursuing “a relentless campaign against the Jewish state.”
David Wurmser, a neoconservative ideologue who served as Mideast adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and now promotes Israeli natural gas interests, recently called on the Obama administration to use a “hammer” in its response to Russia’s moves in the Ukraine. He also recently revealed that Karl Rove was behind the covering up of abandoned chemical weapons shells, which were originally discovered in Iraq in 2004. The shells—which caused serious injuries amongst U.S. troops at the time—were leftover chemical weapons produced by Iraq with Western support and used during the Iran-Iraq War.
Marc Thiessen is a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and currently a Washington Post columnist and American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow. Known for his defense of controversial U.S. security and defense policies—including “enhanced interrogation techniques”—Theissen recently joined the neoconservative chorus calling for U.S. ground forces to be sent into Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS. Thiessen has also attempted to whip up fear about the Ebola crisis, arguing that “Suicide bombers infected with Ebola could blow themselves up in a crowded place … spreading infected tissue and bodily fluids.”
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
October, 31 2014
Recent name-calling notwithstanding, US-Israel relations are not at a point of crisis, but could be in the near future.
October, 24 2014
The U.S. bears enormous responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and needs to do less, in terms of its overriding commitment to Israel, to resolve this conflict.
October, 24 2014
A recent letter to members of Congress from 37 organizations urges support for the White House’s efforts to reach a diplomatic agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.
October, 24 2014
A recent endorsement for a possible nuclear deal with Iran by an influential former official will provide much needed political cover to shaky Democrats.
October, 21 2014
Obama’s decision to airdrop new weapons and supplies to Kurdish fighters in the besieged town of Kobani has been praised by Republican hawks, who have called for much stronger action, including no-fly zones and attacks on Syrian military targets.
October, 21 2014
Democrats and Republicans in Washington have been swift in their efforts to discredit human rights groups who have criticized the Israeli government’s talking points on Gaza.
October, 15 2014
The crumbling Levant poses a greater danger than ISIL and must be addressed first and foremost by the states of the region.