U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

[dc dalton]

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.


A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

[ehidle]

I admit I haven't read the treaty, but it sounds like they're talking about regulating the sales of arms between Nations rather than the sale of small arms to citizens by private manufacturers? The article isn't very clear on the content of the actual treaty.

Is there a website where proposed treaties are posted for review before they are passed? I know our government posts all congressional bills to the web so the citizens can have ample time to read them before they come to a vote...

Oh wait a minute...

[Armed_in_Lancity]

Sounds about right... USA sells weapons to country... country goes batshit... USA goes to war with said country... USA confiscates or destroys said weapons... USA sells weapons to country....and so on and so on.

Maybe Obama is trying to arm Zealots

[ChamberedRound]

Regardless of whether this is about small arms or about nations buying and selling, it sounds like Clinton's statement is an attempt by the Obama administration to have it both ways. Bubba LOVED that game, and now it seems the new Dems are borrowing his playbook.

By backing the launch of talks, it makes them look like they're not actively blocking the process as the Bush Administration did. However, by requiring consensus nothing will change, because the UN can't decide ANYTHING unanimously.

[adymond]

Regardless of whether this is about small arms or about nations buying and selling, it sounds like Clinton's statement is an attempt by the Obama administration to have it both ways. Bubba LOVED that game, and now it seems the new Dems are borrowing his playbook.

By backing the launch of talks, it makes them look like they're not actively blocking the process as the Bush Administration did. However, by requiring consensus nothing will change, because the UN can't decide ANYTHING unanimously.

The two things I could see the UN backing unanimously are gun control and anything anti-Semitic.

[ehidle]

The two things I could see the UN backing unanimously are gun control and anything anti-Semitic.

You forgot anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, and anti-sovreignty... Hillary's not going to veto anything along these lines, either...

[ChamberedRound]

The two things I could see the UN backing unanimously are gun control and anything anti-Semitic.

I disagree. This might be true of the permanent members and many of the NATO nations, but not all. There are some damn despicable governments that are part of the UN, and if they get a vote as consensus would require, and think an arms treaty is going to either a) hurt their cash flow because they are a major exporter or middle-man, or b) going to put their sovereignty (read: control and power) at risk due to a increase in the difficulty of importing, they will vote against it.

This issue should be watched carefully by Americans without a doubt, but I still believe that consensus makes this a dead dog.

[adymond]

Hypothetical question for greater minds than mine. Should our representatives to the UN support something that cedes our sovereignty, through some agreement that would be binding without a treaty ratification, would they be guilty of treason?

[dc dalton]

Hypothetical question for greater minds than mine. Should our representatives to the UN support something that cedes our sovereignty, through some agreement that would be binding without a treaty ratification, would they be guilty of treason?

hmm, now that's a hell of a question. I would think (but not 100% sure) that any treaty signed by our government that effects US citizens must be within the realm of the constitution. One would at least hope that's the way it is.

[adymond]

hmm, now that's a hell of a question. I would think (but not 100% sure) that any treaty signed by our government that effects US citizens must be within the realm of the constitution. One would at least hope that's the way it is.

Well a treaty would need ratification. I was thinking something more like a binding UN Resolution that limited sale of conventional arms or some such. It would then not need ratification by the Senate.

Though back to that thought about the treaty I hear (but haven't seen the videos yet) Lord Monkton (sp?) has some pretty interesting things to say about this very subject. I believe the jist of it is that if an international treaty is signed and ratified it may in fact supercede the US Constitution as the law of the land.