U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Talks Begin

[Marlin T]

Keep your eyes and ears open folks, here we go.





U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Talks Begin

Joe DeCapua 12 July 2010
Formal negotiations began Monday on a new international treaty to control the trade of conventional weapons. More than 190 nations are taking part at U.N. headquarters in New York.
Supporters of the treaty say it would save thousands of lives every year. The Control Arms Campaign, a coalition of civil society groups, says 128 armed conflicts since 1989 have claimed about 250, 000 deaths each year.
The campaign says since 2006, the “vast majority of governments in Africa, Europe and Asia have voted in the General Assembly for the development of the treaty.”
Anna MacDonald, OXFAM’s head of the Arms Control Campaign, says the treaty would control everything from small arms and ammunition to tanks and planes.
“The purpose of the treaty,” she says, “would be to ensure that the arms trade, which currently doesn’t have any effective global regulation, is properly regulated. And the arms aren’t flooding into some of the world’s worst conflict zones.”
She says the unregulated arms trade fuels human rights abuses and undermines poverty reduction.
Enforcement
Once the treaty is negotiated and agreed upon, MacDonald says, “It would mean any arms transfer that was coming from a country or passing through needs to be authorized by the government of that country against a set of criteria, which would include ensuring that there was no high risk that the arms were going to be used in human rights abuses or were going to unstable or a conflict area.”
She says currently there’s a lack of regulations governing the conventional arms trade, such as export controls.
“What this means is at best we have a patchwork system of arms control. And any unscrupulous arms dealer can easily find their way around it. Which is why we find so many weapons flooding into some of the poorest parts of the world,” she says.
Corruption plays a role, too
MacDonald says, “Corruption is a problem in the arms trade. Yes, we would want to see an arms trade treaty help to increase transparency and accountability within the arms trade. And we believe the responsible aspects of the arms industry would also welcome this. Because what we’re talking about is not stopping or preventing the arms trade. We’re talking about ensuring very sensible regulation within the arms trade.”
Taking a toll
The Control Arms Campaign says the lack of regulations results in many people being killed or wounded every day.
“We estimate that around 2,000 people die a day from armed violence around the world. And many more are forced to flee their home, see their lives and livelihoods destroyed,” says MacDonald.
There’s a financial toll, as well. “We estimated that Africa loses (US) $19 billion a year as a result of armed violence and conflict. These are all situations that can be stopped, that governments do have the power to prevent.”
MacDonald says while an arms trade treaty if not a panacea, “it would certain go a long way to prevent the situation that we have at the moment …making bad situations a whole lot worse.”
Draft treaty
The negotiations over the next two weeks at the U.N. will determine when a draft treaty would be available. “That’s really dependent on governments…and the level of political will and ambition they have to make this happen,” she says.
The current negotiations are a prelude to a final negotiating conference in 2012.
The OXFAM official says there’s been a “huge amount of support” for the treaty from governments in conflict zones. “More than 150 governments have voted in favor of it.”

[Terry_P]

Since when did the UN worry about corruption? They are probably equally as corrupt as a Chicago politican.

[lentz]

Get us out of the U.N.! Simple

[wpage]

World gun control...
What a joke.

The purpose of the UN was the same as the League of Nations which also was a failure due to corruption.

[Marlin T]

UN global gun control conference begins in New York

July 13, 12:14 PMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea




"Nations open talks on world arms trade treaty," the Reuters headline informs us:

The world's nations opened negotiations on Monday on an arms trade treaty meant to regulate the $55 billion global weapons market...

"There are currently no legally binding international rules governing the trade in conventional weapons," The Associated Press reports, "and treaty supporters say gaps and loopholes in national regulations allow thousands of weapons to end up in conflict zones in the hands of serious human rights abusers."

Lobbying for the treaty is strong.

"The Control Arms Campaign, a civil society network including Amnesty International, Oxfam and Instituto Sou da Paz, has called on governments to draft a robust and effective treaty to control the arms trade, covering all weapons, ammunition and related equipment," Amnesty International declares.

And Defense News tells us "The European Union has supported a U.N. plan to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty..."

Breaking with the policy from the previous administration, the State Department agreed to participate in the treaty drafting process, albeit with the condition of consensus. Still, the sentiment of Secretary Hillary Clinton could not be made more clear than by State's directed participation in an event last Friday:

The United States is pleased to join the international community in observing International Small Arms Destruction Day as part of our ongoing efforts to reduce armed violence and support the rule of law around the world.

The official policy, written and implemented by those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, is to join forces with the most radical anti-gun zealots on the planet. And to be "pleased" about it.

What's next? This "PrepCom" will continue through July 23. It's the first of three sessions to be held over the next year, with a four-week conference planned in 2012 to finalize the treaty.

After that? There's a Senate ratification process.

So how will an Arms Trade Treaty impact U.S. gun laws? What new domestic controls will be established to implement compliance and what import and export restrictions will be set? We can't say, because the treaty is being drafted. But we can speculate on a "wish list," of what they want and what they think they can get away with.

Because of this, there is much confusion and no small amount of misinformation. That's understandable. After all, when we see creatures like George Soros protege Rebecca Peters and radical citizen disarmament groups like Oxfam International demanding light weapons bans and decrying the option for a veto, and when we see our own State Department celebrating the destruction of guns by armed liberty-crushing regimes of the world, it's obvious what the end goal of all these procedural rituals really is.

Ultimately, here's what it boils down to: Those who desire control want to take away our guns. And some of us will not disarm. No matter what they pass.

Their move.

[millwright]

Its been obvious from the outset, the UN's Ban on Small Arms has been targeted at private U.S. firearms owners !! We're the only nation whose founding documents/law forbids government to infringe upon such ownership !! Not exactly a digestible porridge for the one world government types now inhabiting the Security Council !! (Not that these 3rd world schmucks will exist in the new order that will be established if the U.S. falls....... >MW

[MagnumFan]

The United Abominations

[hogger129]

What a joke. They really think passing legislation against the illegal arms trade is going to stop anything?

[wpage]

No one else seems to care or ever did concern what the UN wanted...
Except for the US to pay for all the bills and tickets of the visitors.

[Bobitis]

You mean the UN is using US taxpayers dollars to support their corruption?

Say it isn't so.

Every country in the UN gets a vote. One vote. That includes the USA.
We foot the bill for their existance, sucking us dry, and Togo has as much say as we do.

Does anyone else see a problem with that?

[belercous]

O.K., anyone who thinks that any U.N. treaty or (even lesser) resolution really does not know how our government works. We have a constitution, please read it.
Any treaty the U.S. enteres into is not binding upon us if it violates our laws or constitution. Our laws can be amended much more easliy than can be done to our const.
Laws dealing with exporting arms are laws which can be changed by Congress & the President. This, in actual practice, doesn't mean much, google "Reagan & Iran conta" to see how our laws can be violated.
Any "small arms" bans treaties passed by the U.N. mean zilch unless we amend our constitution. I really can't see what the problem is, America, as are all countries is a sovereign nation, or is this in doubt? What am I missing here?
And hey, just so you know, which some are clueless about, it is the Security Council, not the General Assembly, who can pass binding resolutions. Resolutions passed by the General Assembly, by themselves, mean nothing other than an expression of the popular sentiment of nations. The U.N. cannot act upon resolutions passed by the General Assembly, only those passed by the Security Council. And it takes a unanimouos vote for that to happen. And we sit on that board, with veto power.
I don't see what the problem is.

[Pustic]

Those morons at the UN can pass whatever they want, I will never surrender my guns and ammo.

[topper]

These UN idiots care nothing about 'saving lives'. All it's about is control.....control the masses and the UN can do anything they want, anywhere. The best way to control people is to disarm them.

[Trouble 45-70]

UN Arms Treaty= Protect the dictator Treaty and allow creation of more dictatorships with no recourse to citizens.