U.N. OKs Weapons Trade Treaty Resolution

[cuchulainn]

From the A.P. via the Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4385021.html

Dec. 7, 2006, 12:15AM

U.N. OKs Weapons Trade Treaty Resolution

By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS — Over U.S. objections, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution Wednesday that could lead to the first international treaty on controlling the trade in assault rifles, machine guns and other small arms.

The nonbinding resolution asks the secretary-general to seek the views of the 192-member General Assembly on the feasibility of a comprehensive treaty "establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms."

Global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal. The arms cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year.

The resolution asks the secretary-general to submit a report in the next General Assembly session, which starts in September 2007. It also asks the secretary-general to establish a group of government experts to examine the feasibility of a treaty based on the report.

Resolution advocates said they hope any final treaty would compel countries to officially authorize all weapons transfers, stiffen compliance with previous treaties related to conventional weapons while prohibiting weapons transfers with countries likely to use the arms to violate their citizens' rights.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 153-1 with 24 abstentions.

The United States was the only country to vote against it, despite an appeal from 14 Democratic senators to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed the adoption of the resolution, noting that "unregulated trade in these weapons currently contributes to conflict, crime and terrorism, and undermines international efforts for peace and development," his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

When the resolution was approved by the assembly's legal committee over U.S. objections, Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said: "The only way for a global arms trade treaty to work is to have every country agree on a standard."

"For us, that standard would be so far below what we are already required to do under U.S. law that we had to vote against it in order to maintain our higher standards," he said.

The National Rifle Association has strongly opposed U.N. efforts at crafting a treaty to curb private ownership of small arms. The group has said such a treaty might embolden regimes that violate human rights to disarm their citizens and make popular uprisings against oppression impossible.

But human rights campaigners supporting the drive to regulate the arms trade welcomed the resolution's approval, though they said much work is left to be done before the final passage of any comprehensive compact.

"This indicates not only widespread recognition of the problem but also widespread political will to take action," Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms, said in a statement.

Jeremy Hobbs, director of Oxfam International, called the vote "a historic step," saying only five governments supported the concept of an arms trade treaty in 2003.

"Now governments must follow through and achieve a strong, effective treaty," Hobbs said. "Every day that they delay is another day when thousands of lives are wrecked by armed violence."

 

[Manedwolf]

compel countries to officially authorize all weapons transfers

Of course. So only the genocidal government can get guns, not the oppressed people.

prohibiting weapons transfers with countries likely to use the arms to violate their citizens' rights

You mean most of the members of the UN human rights council?

 

[LAK]

Keyword: tranfers

Well; he had the legal authority as the highest ranking person in the Executive Office of the Federal government of the United States, the opportunity of a whole term and a half. But alas, as a key globalist whipping the big plantation into line - not the motive.

His replacement, as a fellow globalist frontman taking up where their comrade left off will certainly not have the motive either.

I'm running near the half century mark now; and one thing I am not looking forward to dealing with ten or so years down the road (if we are still around) is the moaning and whining of conservative patriot people my age and older about what the global train has unloaded in the way of a euro-style level of "gun controls". The same people that were waving their cowboy hats in unison with those at the RNC and scoffed at the mere suggestion that their hero was a complete and utter fraud - just another frontman for the ruling oligarchy. An oligarchy of globalists with no country, no allegience to anyone but themselves.

I am predicting that the time for a political showdown has passed - it should have taken place in the first months of the "republican" dominated Congress. It's absence then was bad enough, it's absence in the final run of the same Congress sealed it.

About the only hope, and slim with it, is some radical shifts in the interaction with governments at State level. State governors and legislatures could rock the boat sufficiently to bring it back to port where it belongs. Otherwise, this article simply represents what is going to be an increasingly common theme in Washington as well as the U.N. General Assembly.

---------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[buzz_knox]

The United States was the only country to vote against it, despite an appeal from 14 Democratic senators to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Yup. The Dems have leared their lessons from 1994. Right.

 

[eastwood44mag]

We're screwed.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The United States was the only country to vote against it, despite an appeal from 14 Democratic senators to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Yup. The Dems have leared their lessons from 1994. Right.

Which 14?

 

[Manedwolf]

Look at it this way. If they don't behave, if they go back their old tricks, they'll get thrown out in 08, before a new president comes in. They'll also kill any chances that they have to get a president "like them".

Consider this a probationary period for the Democrats, the next two years.

Americans were sick of Republican corruption and incompetence, and threw them out. But they still do not trust the leftist agenda...and if it pops up, 08 will be "We gave you a chance, you blew it, ****."

 

[migoi]

I'm a bit confused...

not an unusual place for me.

Global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal. The arms cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year

.

Does this mean the $4B worth of arms cause 60 to 90 percent of all deaths or that the 25% of arms transfers that are illegal cause the 60 to 90 percent of all deaths?

I'm not sure why we need another rule/law/treaty. It sounds like a whole buncha the U.N. want to be the sole decider on who wins conflicts. By being the overriding authority on which side of a conflict can be armed with firearms they get to decide who wins.

I'm guessing we can count on a similiar percentage of folks ingoring any new rule/law/treaty that is established as are ignoring the current rules/laws/treaties.

migoi