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

[edstephan]

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

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

(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.


An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%,
Ed Stephan

[PisnNapalm]

You do know this article is from last October right?

[Pector55]

You do know this article is from last October right?

Beat me to it..
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT

Still, we have to keep an eye on this type of bullshit. Heathcare was hanging out there since when? I don't trust these phuckstixx.

[Brick]

An old story making the rounds again!

But, always good to know what's going on. Just remember:

Treaties
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.

The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.

Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.

The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved.

The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.

The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval.

see here for more information: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...g/Treaties.htm

[NotThatOne]

another thing people need to understand...Without studying treaty member country's constitutions, charters, laws whatever...we should be VERY skeptical of any treaty.

See, the US Constitution states that any treaty approved by the means set out in the Constitution is the "Law of the Land" All Judges, Federal, State, and Local must abide by all treaties entered into by the US.

Member countries may not be bound by the same standards.

THIS IS SPECULATION, but say we have a nuclear arms treaty that states we won't distribute materials or information to non-nuclear states. That is now our law. But suppose Russia doesn't have any "Law of the Land" clauses. What is to stop them, other then good faith?

What is good faith good for? Ask the Japanese right before Pearl Harbor or Saddam Hussein for the entire 90's....

[tsafa]

First time I am seeing it. Thanks for bringing the subject back up if it was discussed before. I have to suspect anything backed by Hillary and coming from the Obama administration. I know that in their hearts they hate guns and will push restrictions as far as they can where they can.

[eXceLon]

Just so you guys understand, this doesn't have anything to do with civilian arms. When they talk about "international arms dealing", they aren't talking about restricting the import of Austrian Glocks, Croatian XDs, and Italian Berettas for the enjoyment of American civilians.

These kinds of treaties are about the international trade between nations of military weapons, like aircraft and missiles and so forth. The reason that the US has opposed this in the past isn't because it's a 2nd Amendment issue, it's because American defense contractors make a ton of money on foreign exports.

Now with that in mind, you may or may not choose to oppose this kind of thing. Just so long as we understand what it's actually about. This is more about selling the Saudi's F-15s and Apaches, and the Egyptians Abrams Tanks. It's not about banning guns from American citizens.

[Nullifidian]

Just so you guys understand, this doesn't have anything to do with civilian arms. When they talk about "international arms dealing", they aren't talking about restricting the import of Austrian Glocks, Croatian XDs, and Italian Berettas for the enjoyment of American civilians.

These kinds of treaties are about the international trade between nations of military weapons, like aircraft and missiles and so forth. The reason that the US has opposed this in the past isn't because it's a 2nd Amendment issue, it's because American defense contractors make a ton of money on foreign exports.

Now with that in mind, you may or may not choose to oppose this kind of thing. Just so long as we understand what it's actually about. This is more about selling the Saudi's F-15s and Apaches, and the Egyptians Abrams Tanks. It's not about banning guns from American citizens.

That's not it's official purpose. Unfortunately these types of treaties DO have a tendency to have unintended (or perhaps may they ARE intended) side effects. For example, there is an existing treaty which incidentally prevents anyone in the US from importing small arms directly from Russia. The intention had nothing to do with preventing gun shops from selling AKs, SKSs, Mosins, etc. The treaty was to prevent anyone in NATO countries from engaging in back room arms deals with the Soviet Union and to give those countries a tool to help prevent the Soviet Union from creating Communist insurgencies in any NATO countries by supplying them with arms. It's a Cold War era treaty. After the Cold War, the treaty wasn't repealed, merely applied directly to Russia instead.

[FUNDAMENTALS]

The Huntsville Times, Sunday, March 28, 2010, G19: "The Army's foreign
military sales unit finds overseas bussiness growing". This organization
conducts bussiness all over the world from bandages to Tanks, etc. It
is not funded by normal tax appropriations, but through the sale
of the items/materials purchased by foreign governments. The Organization
is: United States Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC).

[Brick]

Just so you guys understand there are treaties and there are treaties and the base article in the OP does not cite which specific treaty:

Here's an article about one already signed by Pres. Clinton (a great supporter of your 2A rights) and still stalled in the Senate. You should note this treaty is from the Organization of American States.

The U.S. Senate: Stalling Hemispheric Arms Control
By
Frida Berrigan,New America Foundation
March/April 2008 | North America Congress on Latin America
Due to the inaction of the US Senate, an agreement to end illicit arms manufacture and trafficking among American nations is left on the table.
In 1997, President Bill Clinton, standing beside Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo in the Organization of American States’ flag-bedecked Hall of the Americas, declared: “Gun trafficking is an issue of national security for our governments, and a matter of neighborhood security for all of us in the Americas.”

http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio...s_control_7104

Please note the overall tone of the article is not in favor of your 2A rights.

And btw, I've read a fair bit of this actual treaty (available at the OAS website) and I believe that portions of it could be used to require registration of handloaders as "ammunition manufacturers" and government regulation thereof. Try getting into the weeds on some of this and you'll find the details do not support your current freedoms. ANd if memory serves me correctly that was one of the less onerous sections.

Here's some information from the UN on the subject of Small Arms (Note Small Arms are not M1 tanks!

Towards an Arms Trade Treaty
“…world leaders must accept the fact that we cannot let the free market rule the international arms trade”. Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica and.Nobel Peace Prize laureate


Open-Ended Working Group on an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

Next session on an ATT:
12-23 July 2010


Undeniably, too many arms still end up in the wrong hands. Shipments appear in countries with dismal human rights records or where they exacerbate conflict or facilitate repression. These may be direct deliveries which might be considered irresponsible.

The misuse of arms could also be the result of activities of illicit arms brokers and traders who conclude their deals by exploiting legal loopholes, evading customs and airport controls and falsifying documents . Such illicit activities have violated every United Nations arms embargo, with small arms and ammunition as the main items transferred.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has identified as a “recurring problem” the absence of a normative framework for all states to guide decisions regarding arms transfers. He underlined that regional examples of such agreed standards have proven useful in preventing the transfer of arms to areas of conflict or repressive governments.

And here's where it comes from: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convar...html/ATT.shtml

Now please tell me how the UN is going to regulate the production AK-47 in Waziristani "machine shops" when it is much easier (and safer) to regulate the large firearms manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe.