Its very high on the BS meter, but not total BS either. The treaty is designed to stop flooding countries with AKs and RPGs. Basically it tightens requirements for end user certificates and makes it very hard to sell to anyone other than governments. This is the same as selling tanks and helicopters. As far as I understand it, which is not all that far, the repercussion might be a tightening of EXPORT of firearms. I don't see anything about domestic sales. It might make it harder to get an AK in future, but I have not spent much time on this and so could be wrong either way. I will poke around and report back.
FQ13
PS Here's the wiki cliff notes (of the NGO preffered harshest form of the treaty), which sounds beyond annoying, but not life threatening, if applied only to EXPORTS. If it applies to intra-national transfers, than yes, the end is nigh and we'll all be commiserating with Phil about the good old days and hating BillT more than we already do. It seems however to apply only to commercial inernational transfers. I still don't like it, but I'm not running for the hills either. It would seem to be more a doubledged sword FP wise than anything else. On the one hand harder for countries to ship arms to terrorist groups, on the other, harder for us to send them to "freedon fighters". Also, knowing how the UN works, it will probably wind up biteing Israel in ass, as everything the UN does seems to do.
[edit] What would an Arms Trade Treaty look like?
International non-government and human rights organisations including Amnesty, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (who lead the Control Arms Campaign) have developed analysis on what an effective Arms Trade Treaty would look like.[7]
It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:
• Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;
• Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime;
• Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;
• Be diverted from its stated recipient;
• Adversely affect regional security; or
• Seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.
It would have no loopholes. It would include:
• All weapons – including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment;
• All types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer and transhipment, in the state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts and aid; and
• All transactions – including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security.
It must be workable and enforceable. It must:
• Provide guidelines for the treaty’s full, clear implementation;
• Ensure transparency – including full annual reports of national arms transfers;
• Have an effective mechanism to monitor compliance;
• Ensure accountability – with provisions for adjudication, dispute settlement and sanctions;
It must include a comprehensive framework for international cooperation and assistance.
NGOs are also advocating that the Arms Trade Treaty must reinforce existing responsibilities to assist survivors of armed violence, as well as identify new avenues to address suffering and trauma.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
