U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks

[Tim Nunan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/ ... 7J20121107

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

'MONTHS AWAY' FROM DEAL?

Countries that abstained included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. China, a major arms producer that has traditionally abstained, voted in favor.

Among the top six arms-exporting nations, Russia cast the only abstention. Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution.

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."

The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.

Britain's U.N. mission said on its Twitter feed it hoped that the March negotiations would yield the final text of a treaty. Such a pact would then need to be ratified by the individual signatories before it could enter into force.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. interest group, strongly opposes the arms treaty and had endorsed Romney.

The United States has denied it sought to delay negotiations for political reasons, saying it had genuine problems with the draft as written.

[Fred762]

The solution to this problem is really simple...1. the USA pays 45% [at least] of the total worldly expenses of the dang UN..so 2. we simply tell them we will NOT abide any UN agreements which are contrary to the Constitution of the USA...then3. if anything is tried by the UN, we could simply withdraw our mony and 4. tell the thousands of bureaucrats and boozers to take a hike...which they would if the US taxpayers' money is withdrawn!!! Defund the UN would be the cry!

Of course this presupposes a President who has "co jones" and who understands and is governed BY the US Constitution..and sadly we do not have this.

[Tim Nunan]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... ade-treaty

In an attempt to avoid public scrutiny, President Obama plans to sign the controversial United Nations gun treaty in August, when Congress is in summer recess. According to White House press secretary Jay Carney, Obama will sign the treaty “before the end of August,” even though legally he could have done so next week.

The treaty is problematic for a variety of reasons ranging from the substantive to the procedural. On substance, the treaty is designed to regulate arms importers and exporters, which the United States already does. The treaty, however, does not properly regulate foreign countries, leaving the United States on the hook while leaving actual wrongdoers alone. Meanwhile, signatories are supposed to keep information on “end users” of arms imported into their country and to give that information to the supplying country. In other words, it makes it more difficult for American citizens to import arms, and guarantees the solid chance that foreign governments have information about domestic gunowners.

Procedurally, the United States originally insisted that the treaty go through consensus decision-making, meaning that everyone sign on. But when a conference to do so failed, the US decided that the treaty did not need to apply to all countries. Countries abstaining from the vote include China, Russia, India, and Egypt.

While the Obama administration openly supported the treaty when it was first proposed, it has changed its view since the failure of domestic gun control legislation. Now, it appears that the White House wants the benefit of being on the record with regard to the treaty, but does not want the fallout of a public battle over the treaty before the 2014 elections, especially given the fact that the treaty will not be ratified in the Senate.

“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States,” Carney said of signing the treaty. “While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

While President Obama wants to delay the treaty for political reasons, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly wants it signed as soon as possible. “The United States welcomes the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty for signature and we look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.”