The UN arms treaty
25/12/14 17:51![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe world probably just got its best New Year's present in many decades, it seems...
UN officials hail entry into force of landmark global arms trade treaty
"United Nations officials are welcoming the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), hailing it as a new chapter in collective efforts to bring responsibility, accountability and transparency to the global arms trade."
This is a landmark piece of international legislation, a result of long and hard work by a number of countries, and is aiming to provide the much anticipated change in the way arms industries around the world are regulated. After two decades of preparation, this treaty was finally opened for signing about a year ago, potentially making global arms trade subject to international law. It has now been signed by over 130 states, and ratified by 60 of them, who in turn have adopted its stipulations into their own laws.
The initiative which gave the final push was launched by Amnesty International, which recruited several of the most prominent Nobel Peace Prize laureates lead by former Costa Rican president Oscar Arias. Actually the most decisive breakthrough came in 2006 when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution instructing the Secretary General to explore a future arms trade treaty - curiously, out of 154 votes at the time, 153 were in favour, and the only one against was... wait for it... the USA.
This is hardly surprising, as there have been wide-spread concerns in US society that the effects of this treaty could have on the US would be far-reaching, and could provide a rationale for infringement upon the much revered (and furiously advocated) 2nd Amendment. We all know how jealously the US society likes to guard its sovereignty against internationally imposed legislation, and with what distrust the UN is being viewed there (although the UN headquarters is hosted in NYC, and the UN was largely inspired by the US). The main concern, among other things, is that "the broad scope of the treaty is unrealistic and dangerous".
In the meantime, other major players in the global arms trade like Germany, are meeting the news of the signing with hopes that their arms industry could actually benefit indirectly from it, as developed countries like the Western states, the US and NATO in general could be granted a more even playing field compared to countries like China, Russia, Ukraine, etc, which generally sell globally without needing to consider humanitarian concerns - which will no longer be the case under the ATT: "We welcome that, on the basis of this treaty, a legal framework exists especially in the area of developing countries, according to which those countries have to make their own political export and import decisions. This provides all sides with more legal certainty and will, hopefully, lead to avoiding misuse of weapons exports in particular." (a spokesman for the German arms industry said).
In any case, the main purpose of this treaty is to force countries to adopt a common international standard and approval process for the transfer of weapons across international borders. The signing countries agree to regularly report all their arms imports and exports to a central body. The treaty will also require of states to determine if particular arms transfers could potentially facilitate violations of human rights, acts of terrorism, or international organised crime.
Of course there had to be some compromises in order to get the main players on board. In the ideal case, the treaty could have brought stricter rules on human rights, more transparency and a more rigorous system of compliance, and of course better-defined methods for licensing and control. The sceptics say that in the best case, the ATT will at least bring more transparency in international arms trade, and create mechanisms for helping countries to improve their arms transfer controls, and stimulate exporters to stop some of the more irresponsible arms transfers. Still, this new development probably won't stop even some of the EU member states to keep exporting arms to regimes that keep commiting human rights violations, like Amnesty has reported before.
But despite all these concerns, criticism and pitfalls, and the room for vague interpretation on some aspects of the treaty, the ATT is definitely a step in the right direction. The arms trade issue is important enough, and has been quite politicised and distorted by ideology throughout the years, that even the very fact that it was signed by so many countries, is remarkable. If anything, it is a major step towards changing the way arms control is being perceived, because until recently there was this false dichotomy of two extremes - either ban a weapon altogether because it was inhumane, or not do anything, save for merely reporting to the UN about human rights violations and misuse of arms in general, this only resulting in vague formal UN resolutions that had no actual effect whatsoever. And now the tools for enforcement will be there. Because the ATT ultimately represents a legal framework for real control of the arms trade worldwide. Something that had never happened before. And something that probably scares some people beyond description - either people who have something to hide about their arms dealings, or those who, for ideological or personal reasons, have chosen a side of history that will ultimately prove to be the wrong one.
UN officials hail entry into force of landmark global arms trade treaty
"United Nations officials are welcoming the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), hailing it as a new chapter in collective efforts to bring responsibility, accountability and transparency to the global arms trade."
This is a landmark piece of international legislation, a result of long and hard work by a number of countries, and is aiming to provide the much anticipated change in the way arms industries around the world are regulated. After two decades of preparation, this treaty was finally opened for signing about a year ago, potentially making global arms trade subject to international law. It has now been signed by over 130 states, and ratified by 60 of them, who in turn have adopted its stipulations into their own laws.
The initiative which gave the final push was launched by Amnesty International, which recruited several of the most prominent Nobel Peace Prize laureates lead by former Costa Rican president Oscar Arias. Actually the most decisive breakthrough came in 2006 when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution instructing the Secretary General to explore a future arms trade treaty - curiously, out of 154 votes at the time, 153 were in favour, and the only one against was... wait for it... the USA.
This is hardly surprising, as there have been wide-spread concerns in US society that the effects of this treaty could have on the US would be far-reaching, and could provide a rationale for infringement upon the much revered (and furiously advocated) 2nd Amendment. We all know how jealously the US society likes to guard its sovereignty against internationally imposed legislation, and with what distrust the UN is being viewed there (although the UN headquarters is hosted in NYC, and the UN was largely inspired by the US). The main concern, among other things, is that "the broad scope of the treaty is unrealistic and dangerous".
In the meantime, other major players in the global arms trade like Germany, are meeting the news of the signing with hopes that their arms industry could actually benefit indirectly from it, as developed countries like the Western states, the US and NATO in general could be granted a more even playing field compared to countries like China, Russia, Ukraine, etc, which generally sell globally without needing to consider humanitarian concerns - which will no longer be the case under the ATT: "We welcome that, on the basis of this treaty, a legal framework exists especially in the area of developing countries, according to which those countries have to make their own political export and import decisions. This provides all sides with more legal certainty and will, hopefully, lead to avoiding misuse of weapons exports in particular." (a spokesman for the German arms industry said).
In any case, the main purpose of this treaty is to force countries to adopt a common international standard and approval process for the transfer of weapons across international borders. The signing countries agree to regularly report all their arms imports and exports to a central body. The treaty will also require of states to determine if particular arms transfers could potentially facilitate violations of human rights, acts of terrorism, or international organised crime.
Of course there had to be some compromises in order to get the main players on board. In the ideal case, the treaty could have brought stricter rules on human rights, more transparency and a more rigorous system of compliance, and of course better-defined methods for licensing and control. The sceptics say that in the best case, the ATT will at least bring more transparency in international arms trade, and create mechanisms for helping countries to improve their arms transfer controls, and stimulate exporters to stop some of the more irresponsible arms transfers. Still, this new development probably won't stop even some of the EU member states to keep exporting arms to regimes that keep commiting human rights violations, like Amnesty has reported before.
But despite all these concerns, criticism and pitfalls, and the room for vague interpretation on some aspects of the treaty, the ATT is definitely a step in the right direction. The arms trade issue is important enough, and has been quite politicised and distorted by ideology throughout the years, that even the very fact that it was signed by so many countries, is remarkable. If anything, it is a major step towards changing the way arms control is being perceived, because until recently there was this false dichotomy of two extremes - either ban a weapon altogether because it was inhumane, or not do anything, save for merely reporting to the UN about human rights violations and misuse of arms in general, this only resulting in vague formal UN resolutions that had no actual effect whatsoever. And now the tools for enforcement will be there. Because the ATT ultimately represents a legal framework for real control of the arms trade worldwide. Something that had never happened before. And something that probably scares some people beyond description - either people who have something to hide about their arms dealings, or those who, for ideological or personal reasons, have chosen a side of history that will ultimately prove to be the wrong one.
