UN arms treaty. The US says NO!

#1
So the UN want to have a new treaty on exporting weapons around the world.

The UN voted on the subject and the result?

139 in favour, 26 abstain and 1 voted no.

Guess who, the Americans of course voted against.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26250543.htm

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 26 (Reuters) - A U.N. General Assembly committee voted on Thursday to let work begin on a new treaty intended to strengthen arms embargoes and prevent human rights abuses by setting uniform global standards for arms deals.

The assembly's Disarmament and International Security Committee voted 139 to 1, with the United States casting the sole "no" vote, to approve the start of work on a new arms trade.
The Americans are all in favour of "voluntary principles aimed at guiding arms deals".

I wonder why?
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#2
Because they are up to their necks in covert arms transfers from eastern Europe to Iraq, Afghanistan and some African states.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT300072006?open&of=ENG-390

Chinese and US arms routes to Nepal – Despite international concern at the grave human rights abuses being perpetrated by both sides of the conflict in Nepal, the Chinese and US governments decided to provide further arms using obscure routes. The Chinese supplier reportedly used one of the world’s most difficult highways to deliver the arms to Nepal. In contrast, just before the King’s takeover of absolute power, the US government sponsored a covert arms delivery by air using a Bulgarian private sub-contractor and an extremely circuitous route via Canada and Europe, during the time that it was "reviewing" the possibility of suspending supplies.

Bosnian surplus arms supposedly to Iraq - Hundred of thousands of small arms and light weapons from the Bosnia and Herzegovina’s (BiH) war-time stockpiles together with tens of millions of rounds of ammunition were reportedly shipped - clandestinely and without public oversight - to Iraq by a chain of US, Israeli, UK, Swiss, Bulgarian, Croatian. Moldovan, Ukrainian and other private brokers and transport contractors under the auspices of the US Department of Defense between 31 July 2004 and 31 June 2005. One of the air cargo companies used had been named in April 2003 by the UN for violating the arms embargo on Liberia. While such deliveries to the Iraqi security forces at this time would pose a threat to human rights in Iraq, West European officials say that some of the weapons to Iraq "may have been siphoned off". There has been massive corruption involving Iraqi government arms purchases and efforts to sell off surplus Iraqi arms. As yet there is no proof that the weapons flown out of BiH in August 2004 actually arrived in Iraq. The US and local authorities in Iraq and BiH, when questioned, cannot or will not account for the deliveries. This case is detailed in a whole chapter of the report.
 
#3
diplomat said:
Bosnian surplus arms supposedly to Iraq - Hundred of thousands of small arms and light weapons from the Bosnia and Herzegovina’s (BiH) war-time stockpiles together with tens of millions of rounds of ammunition were reportedly shipped - clandestinely and without public oversight - to Iraq by a chain of US, Israeli, UK, Swiss, Bulgarian, Croatian. Moldovan, Ukrainian and other private brokers and transport contractors under the auspices of the US Department of Defense between 31 July 2004 and 31 June 2005. One of the air cargo companies used had been named in April 2003 by the UN for violating the arms embargo on Liberia. While such deliveries to the Iraqi security forces at this time would pose a threat to human rights in Iraq, West European officials say that some of the weapons to Iraq "may have been siphoned off". There has been massive corruption involving Iraqi government arms purchases and efforts to sell off surplus Iraqi arms. As yet there is no proof that the weapons flown out of BiH in August 2004 actually arrived in Iraq. The US and local authorities in Iraq and BiH, when questioned, cannot or will not account for the deliveries. This case is detailed in a whole chapter of the report.
An aquaintance of mine is still flying the same goods over the same routes! And didn't an Iraqi MP just get booted out because he'd syphoned off several $$ million (billion?) from the 'defence procurement' budget?

:) :)

PS. Good to see the US remaining consistant and not letting world opinion and common sense get in the way of bad policy. :evil:

I do hate hypocracy. :twisted:
 
#4
Steven said:
So the UN want to have a new treaty on exporting weapons around the world.

The UN voted on the subject and the result?

139 in favour, 26 abstain and 1 voted no.

Guess who, the Americans of course voted against.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26250543.htm

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 26 (Reuters) - A U.N. General Assembly committee voted on Thursday to let work begin on a new treaty intended to strengthen arms embargoes and prevent human rights abuses by setting uniform global standards for arms deals.

The assembly's Disarmament and International Security Committee voted 139 to 1, with the United States casting the sole "no" vote, to approve the start of work on a new arms trade.
The Americans are all in favour of "voluntary principles aimed at guiding arms deals".

I wonder why?
It's very simple. US representative voted 'NO', so the planned treaty contradicts American interests. What are real American interests? Nobody knows exactly except the few in Washington. Though the 'NO' gives the ability to make reasonable suggestions.

I fancy our friend Andy_Pipkin would call this thread as anti-American. Are you anti-American btw?
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#5
KGB_resident said:
I fancy our friend Andy_Pipkin would call this thread as anti-American. Are you anti-American btw?
On this particular issue I am getting that way!

It beggars belief though - they import guns, using dogy arms dealers, lose control over them and then get shot by insurgents using the very same weapons.

(And yes I do know that there are a lot more ilcit weapons available then the stuff that is diverted - it is fundamental principles of accountability, weapons security and transparency that are been breached by their policy and its implementation).
 
#6
One must realise that roughly 20% of the US economy is arms trade, and so protecting that is an elementary interest.

"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP."
(See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
 
#7
There is also some worry amongst Americans that the UN arms trade resolutions might open the door to resolutions which affect the civilian arms trade within the US.

NTM
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#8
Cult_of_Amateur said:
One must realise that roughly 20% of the US economy is arms trade, and so protecting that is an elementary interest.

"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP."
(See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
How would an ATT impact on their weapons exports if they are, as they state, only exporting to reputable end users? Quality, price. performance and design impacts on their competitiveness NOT an Arms Trade Treaty.
 
#9
Cult_of_Amateur said:
One must realise that roughly 20% of the US economy is arms trade, and so protecting that is an elementary interest.

"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP."
(See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
Do You have a page and paragrah, please??
 
#10
Why does the US have to use clandestine ways of shipping weapons to the AFG government when it would be perfectly legitimate to ship arms in the usual way???

Where does Amnesty get its information from, do they name their sources???
 
#11
'Fraid not. I don't have the work where I'm currently at, so grabbed the quote from shittipedia.
(Defence: Have read the book before though and do remember coming across that paragraph, or at the very least one extremely similar.)
 
#12
Cult_of_Amateur said:
'Fraid not. I don't have the work where I'm currently at, so grabbed the quote from shittipedia.
(Defence: Have read the book before though and do remember coming across that paragraph, or at the very least one extremely similar.)
Thanks anyway
 
#13
russia and china abstained so basically no as well
 
#14
Cult_of_Amateur said:
One must realise that roughly 20% of the US economy is arms trade, and so protecting that is an elementary interest.

"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP."
(See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
Well mabey if they stopped selling weapons to dodgy coutries they wouldnt have to spend so much money on deffense in the first place. They would save a fortune on all the wars that they wouldnt have gotten involved in.
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#15
Sven said:
Why does the US have to use clandestine ways of shipping weapons to the AFG government when it would be perfectly legitimate to ship arms in the usual way???

Where does Amnesty get its information from, do they name their sources???
Flight data from EUROCONTROL, shipping notes, flight plans - they have the lot. Its all there.
 
#16
Cult_of_Amateur said:
"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP."
(See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
FWIW, from today's AFP wire.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061029/wl_afp/usrussiafranceweapons_061029103208

The US is behind Russia and France.

In fairness, the UN attempt was to deal with all those weapons mucking around in African and Asian countries. More often than not, they're AKs and FALs, not M-16s.

NTM
 
#17
Cult_of_Amateur said:
One must realise that roughly 20% of the US economy is arms trade, and so protecting that is an elementary interest.

"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP."
(See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
I read in the last couple of days (New York Times - business section, online, IIRC), that Russia has just overtaken the USA in arms sales.

Quite what that means in the long run, I dunno, but instinctively I figure it ought to worry us all. :?
 
#18
Steven said:
So the UN want to have a new treaty on exporting weapons around the world.

The UN voted on the subject and the result?

139 in favour, 26 abstain and 1 voted no.

Guess who, the Americans of course voted against.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26250543.htm

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 26 (Reuters) - A U.N. General Assembly committee voted on Thursday to let work begin on a new treaty intended to strengthen arms embargoes and prevent human rights abuses by setting uniform global standards for arms deals.

The assembly's Disarmament and International Security Committee voted 139 to 1, with the United States casting the sole "no" vote, to approve the start of work on a new arms trade.
The Americans are all in favour of "voluntary principles aimed at guiding arms deals".

I wonder why?
139 might have voted in favour of this resolution but this equates to less than the square root of zero. The vast majority of these 'countries' would have seen it as an opportunity to increase illegal arms dealing as the legal market was tightened up within the US/EU. Result - job losses in the US/EU and parties all round for the rest.

At least the US is honest even if it is morally wrong.
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#19
California_Tanker said:
Cult_of_Amateur said:
"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP."
(See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
FWIW, from today's AFP wire.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061029/wl_afp/usrussiafranceweapons_061029103208

Would these be the AKs being procured by the US government for distribution to certain African states then? (See forthcoming AI report).

The US is behind Russia and France.

In fairness, the UN attempt was to deal with all those weapons mucking around in African and Asian countries. More often than not, they're AKs and FALs, not M-16s.

NTM
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top