Jump to content

Arms Trade Treaty: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 69: Line 69:
* [[Mine action]]
* [[Mine action]]
* [[Prepcom]]
* [[Prepcom]]
* [[National Rifle Association]]


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 01:07, 22 July 2012

The Arms Trade Treaty is the name of a controversial potential multilateral treaty that would regulate the international trade in conventional weapons. The treaty will be negotiated at a global conference under the auspices of the United Nations from July 2 – 27, 2012 in New York.

Origins

Initially put forward in 2003 by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates led by Óscar Arias, it was first addressed in the UN in December 2006 when the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”.

Development

Resolution 61/89 requested the UN Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, and to submit a report on the subject to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session. 94 States submitted their views, which are contained in the 2007 report A/62/278.

Support from Member States

153 Member States voted in favor of Resolution 61/89. UK Ambassador John Duncan formally introduced the resolution in First Committee on October 18, 2006, speaking on behalf of the co-authors (Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, and Kenya). On behalf of the EU, Finland highlighted the support for the effort when it said, “everyday, everywhere, people are affected by the side effects of irresponsible arms transfers... As there is currently no comprehensive internationally binding instrument available to provide an agreed regulator framework for this activity, the EU welcomes the growing support, in all parts of the world, for an ATT.”[1]

24 countries abstained: Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Laos, Libya, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The United States of America voted against the resolution.[2]

Several countries provided explanations of vote: Jamaica[dead link], Cuba[dead link], Venezuela, China, India, Iran[dead link], Algeria, Libya, Russian Federation[dead link], Israel, Pakistan[dead link], and Costa Rica.[3]

Responding to procedural concerns that were not resolved before the final draft of the resolution, the UK said the aim of the initiative is to start a discussion on the feasibility and draft parameters of an ATT and that those “agnostic” states will have a clear opportunity to engage in the process. After the vote, Algeria indicated that the effort must receive broad-based support from states and be based on the principles of the UN Charter.[4]

Group of Governmental Experts

Resolution 61/89 also requested the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts, on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for such a legal instrument, and to transmit the report of the group of experts to the Assembly for consideration at its sixty-third session. On September 28, 2007, the Secretary General appointed a Group of Governmental Experts from the following 28 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States. The GGE met three times in 2008 and its final report has now been made public, to be submitted by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly in Fall 2008.[5][6]

Preparatory Committee

In 2009 an Open–ended Working Group – open to all States – held two meetings on an arms trade treaty. A total of six sessions of this Group were planned. However, at the end of 2009 the General Assembly decided by resolution A/RES/64/68 to convene a Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in 2012 "to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms". The General Assembly also indicated that the remaining four sessions of the Open–ended Working Group should be considered as sessions of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for this Conference. The first PrepCom took place in July 2010, the second was in February – March 2011, the third in July 2011 and the fourth in February 2012.

U.S. overturns former position

On October 14, 2009, the Obama administration announced in a statement released by Hillary Clinton and the State Department that it was overturning the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed a proposed Arms Trade treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.[7] The shift in position by the U.S., the world's biggest arms exporter with a $55 billion–a–year trade in conventional firearms[8] (40 percent of the global total), led to the launching of formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to begin drafting the Arms Trade Treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement the U.S. would support the negotiations on condition they are “under the rule of consensus decision–making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation.” Clinton said the consensus, in which every nation has an effective veto on agreements, was needed “to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be directly exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”[8]

Opposition in the United States

Given the predominant position of the United States as a global arms exporter,[9] any such treaty would have limited relevance without its participation. Ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate in addition to presidential approval, which is rendered unlikely by opposition from gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, who claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.[10] Advocates of the treaty claim that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws.[11][12] These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

As of September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition to an ATT that would limit the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.[13] As this group comprises far more than 1/3 of the Senate, it is sufficient to block ratification of the treaty by the United States if the treaty addresses civilian ownership of firearms. However, the strength of the opposition remains unclear because the treaty will not likely address the Second Amendment issue.

A quick search of the Internet (on February 8, 2012) confirms that the treaty is highly controversial in the United States and has been fodder for political speeches, blogs, viral political e-mails and advertisements claiming or insinuating that the treaty provides a "legal way around the 2nd amendment," and a "complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens." Snopes.com, the "urban myth" tester, calls the viral e-mail "scarelore" and false.[14] The Huffington Post reports that "such a scenario remains virtually impossible."[15] The Los Angeles Times reports on October 23, 2011 that "only a narrow fringe purports that Americans could see their guns taken away by the U.N., which has no authority over constitutional rights."[16]

Advocated contents

International non-government and human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (who lead the Control Arms Campaign) have developed analysis on what an effective Arms Trade Treaty would look like.[17]

It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:

  • be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;
  • facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender-based violence, violent crime or organized crime;
  • violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;
  • be diverted from its stated recipient;
  • adversely affect regional security; or
  • seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.

Loopholes would be minimized. It would include:

  • all weapons—including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment;
  • all types of transfer—including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer and transshipment, in the state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts and aid; and
  • all transactions—including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security.

It must be workable and enforceable. It must:

  • provide guidelines for the treaty's full, clear implementation;
  • ensure transparency—including full annual reports of national arms transfers;
  • have an effective mechanism to monitor compliance;
  • ensure accountability—with provisions for adjudication, dispute settlement and sanctions;
  • include a comprehensive framework for international cooperation and assistance.

NGOs are also advocating that the Arms Trade Treaty must reinforce existing responsibilities to assist survivors of armed violence, as well as identify new avenues to address suffering and trauma.

One NGO has concerns about the treaty violating the human right of self-defense, infringing on the sovereign rights of citizens of countries like the U.S. and otherwise limiting rights.[18] However, it has been asserted that a Treaty would not affect domestic rights.

Criticism

On July 12, 2012, the United States issued a statement condemning the selection of Iran to serve as vice president of the conference. The statement called the move "outrageous" and noted that Iran is under Security Council sanctions for weapons proliferation.[19] The U.N. watchdog group UN Watch also condemned the move, noting that it happened after a UN Security Council report determined that Iran was guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to Syria, which is a breach of a U.N. ban on weapons exports by Iran.[20][21]

See also

References

  1. ^ “Statement by H.E. Mr. Kari Kahiluoto, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Finland to the Conference on Disarmament, on behalf of the European Union, UN 61st Session; First Committee, Thematic Discussion: Conventional Weapons, 12 October 2006, New York.”[dead link], retrieved October 3, 2008
  2. ^ ODS Team. "Ods Home Page" (PDF). Daccess-dds-ny.un.org. Retrieved 2012-07-21.[dead link]
  3. ^ "Draft Resolutions from the First Committee on Disarmament and International Security 2006, October 2- October 31, 2006, Voting Results Chart."[dead link], Reaching Critical Will. Retrieved October 3, 2008
  4. ^ “The First Committee Monitor, 2006 Final Edition.”[dead link], Reaching Critical Will. Retrieved October 3, 2008
  5. ^ “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty”[dead link], UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, retrieved October 3, 2008
  6. ^ “Global week of action to support Arms Trade Treaty” Amnesty International retrieved September 12, 2008
  7. ^ "U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade". Reuters. October 15, 2009.
  8. ^ a b "U.S. Backs Arms Trade Treaty at UN, Abandoning Bush Opposition". Bloomberg. October 30, 2009.
  9. ^ "Top List TIV Tables-SIPRI". Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved 2012-07-21.
  10. ^ "NRA to UN: don]'t regulate US arms ownership". SFgate.com. 2011-07-15. Retrieved 2011-07-21. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) [dead link]
  11. ^ "Separating fact from fiction on the Arms Trade Treaty". oxfamamerica.org. 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2011-08-15.
  12. ^ "A big deal about small arms". birchbarkletter.com. 2012-04-25. Retrieved 2012-05-15.
  13. ^ "57 Senators Protest U.N. Small Arms Treaty". GeeksWithGuns.com. 2011-08-05. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
  14. ^ "scarelore" snopes.com, | politics, | guns: Small Arms Treaty
  15. ^ Oct, 2011: "Michele Bachmann Warns Against United Nations Taking Away Gun Rights"
  16. ^ Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2011 "only a narrow fringe purports that Americans could see their guns taken away by the U.N.[dead link] "
  17. ^ See http://www.controlarms.org/en
  18. ^ "Saf Press Release :: Saf Report Live From The Un". Saf.org. Retrieved 2012-07-21.
  19. ^ Kornblau, Mark. "Statement by Mark Kornblau, Spokesman, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, on the Selection of Iran to Serve as a Vice President to the Arms Trade Treaty Conference". United States Mission to the United Nations. Retrieved July 12, 2012.
  20. ^ "UN Watch: Iran elected to UN Arms Trade Treaty post". UN Watch. UN Watch. Retrieved July 12, 2012.
  21. ^ Charbonneau, Louis (June 29, 2012). "U.N. publishes report on Iran arms trade with Syria". Reuters. Retrieved July 12, 2012.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arms_Trade_Treaty&oldid=503519239"