Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGenerals, War Correspondents Promote Treaty on Small Arms
United Nations - Activists campaigning for tough international actions against illicit gunrunners made further gains this week when they found an unexpected ally in their lobbying efforts at the United Nations.
On Tuesday, ahead of the new round of UN talks on the small arms trade, a group of former UN military leaders publicly announced their support for a worldwide coalition of advocacy groups calling for the creation of a treaty to regulate the sale and purchase of small weapons.
"It is very significant that these generals are supporting the treaty," said Jeremy Hobbs, director of the humanitarian group Oxfam International, which is part of the Control Arms campaign.
Oxfam and other major rights advocacy groups, such as Amnesty International, have been campaigning in support of the proposed treaty for well over five years. They scored a major victory last year when the UN General Assembly gave its nod to the idea of an arms control treaty.
Despite fierce opposition from the United States and abstention from 24 others, over 150 countries voted for the resolution acknowledging the need to adopt a treaty. The passage of that resolution requires further diplomatic discourse by the first committee of the General Assembly, which is currently in session.
Many among those that refused to endorse the resolution are large-scale manufacturers and suppliers, including the United States, which is estimated to have an over 35-percent share in the global market of light weapons.
Driven by concerns over the continued loss of civilian lives as a result of arms proliferation, proponents of the proposed treaty say it would prevent small weapons transfers if they are used, or likely to be used, in violation of international human rights law.
Small arms, according to a UN experts panel, include assault rifles, pistols, submachine guns, light machine guns, mortars, portable antiaircraft guns, grenade launchers, antitank missile and rocket systems, hand grenades and antipersonnel landmines.
Arms control campaigners who have gathered more than one million signatures on a petition calling for the treaty formation said that in addition to former UN military leaders, some veteran war correspondents are also supporting their demand for the treaty.
"It's about people. It's about their struggle for life," said Janine di Giovanni, a well-known European war reporter who has covered various bloody conflicts around the world for over 20 years.
"These weapons destroy entire societies," she told reporters at a news conference organized by Oxfam at UN headquarters Tuesday.
According to the United Nations and Oxfam researchers, in 2005, small arms alone were responsible for the deaths of over half a million people --10,000 per week on average.
Like Giovanni, all the ex-generals who joined the arms control campaigners at the United Nations appeared to hold the unanimous view that strict and comprehensive international rules against the illegal gun business is a must to save innocent lives.
Major General Patrick Commaert, who has led UN forces in many countries, told reporters that while his job required disarming the warring parties, he knew the flow of weapons would continue.
"It was like you are mopping the floor, but the tap is on," said Commaert, who is fully supportive of those calling for the adoption of the treaty to control illegal arms supplies.
Like Commaert, Dr. B. S. Malik, former chief of staff of the Indian army's western command, also expressed his support for the treaty, but noted that a number of governments and industry leaders were creating hurdles to its adoption.
"This trade is very lucrative. The industry makes money out of peoples' difficulties," he told OneWorld, adding that many governments were more interested in their defense needs while the industry cared only about economic gains.
Currently, about 25 percent of the $4 billion annual trade in small arms is either illicit or not recorded as required by law, according to the Small Arms Survey, an independent research project at the Graduate Institute of International studies in Geneva, Switzerland.
Arms dealers in several African countries continue to violate embargoes -- whether imposed by the United Nations or the United States -- by using false documents or bogus certificates.
Such violations, according to UN researchers, are mostly carried out by an international network of middlemen involved in the illicit brokering of small arms. Most are operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, and Cote d'Ivoire.
Last month, a new UN study pointed out that by the middle of this year, about 40 countries had enacted national laws and procedures against arms brokering, which constitutes only about one fifth of the United Nations' membership.
In accordance with last year's resolution, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has received proposals on how to develop the treaty from at least 97 countries, say diplomats involved in negotiations.
Last year, Ban's predecessor Kofi Annan described the proliferation of small arms as a "grave" problem, noting that their spread fuels not only conflicts but also refugee flows, undermines the rule of law, and spawns a culture of violence.
Ban plans to form a group of government experts who will come up with their recommendations on the treaty formation in 2008. Activists hope that a treaty could be drafted by 2010, which would be a relatively short period of time for such a complex process.
© 2007 One World.net
11 Comments so far
Show All" . . .in 2005, small arms alone were responsible for the deaths of over half a million people –10,000 per week on average."
So did these small arms grow legs and arms of their own and begin blasting away? No UN, intelligent people don't buy that "small arms alone were responsible" for anything. A government big enough to give everything we want is strong enough to take everything we have.
The UN - what a wonderful organization - able to stop the rwanda massacre for example - NOT!
"UN admits Rwanda genocide failure"
The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed.
In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres.
US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke
Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.
an excerpt from a BBC article....
maybe if they did their job then efforts like the one above wouldn't seem so spurious. there's more to stopping war then just going after weapons
"This is civilization brought to you compliments of the US of NRA: the largest narco-terrorist advocacy group in the world."
i guess that 2 million of us belong to a "narco-terrorist" group then eh?
Apparently you yahoos posting above didn't bother to read the article:
"Small arms, according to a UN experts panel, include assault rifles, pistols, submachine guns, light machine guns, mortars, portable antiaircraft guns, grenade launchers, antitank missile and rocket systems, hand grenades and antipersonnel landmines."
And
" . . .in 2005, small arms alone were responsible for the deaths of over half a million people –10,000 per week on average."
This is civilization brought to you compliments of the US of NRA: the largest narco-terrorist advocacy group in the world.
I understood it was the right of every citizen to bear arms against an unpopular governments and rulers...... I seem to remember Dick Gregory saying this in a documentary
The Constitution Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms see
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
QUOTE:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society, and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.
Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm.
Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states. etc etc UNQUOTE
......
WhiIe I oppose the excessive ease of access of arms in the US and believe it leads to the kind of school shootings that seem to be part of American life, it is clear that it is the activity of governments in the arms trade that leads to the greatest violence and the US is the biggest offender. Private gun ownership should be subject to greater regulation and gun sellers should be informed of potential shooters- look at the outrageous armoury andobvious profile of the latest Cleveland shooter:
http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF0098989A00160098A676/
In Australia only certain guns are allowed and they cannot be repeaters.
See also
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade.asp
The arms traders are the merchants of mass murder and such trade is a boomerang which comes back to haunt them.
Africa has been impoverished by the arms trade- Africa received about $350 billion in aid and spent the equivalent in arms.
The present administration belives that violence is as a means of solving problems so it is not surprising that there are citizens which emulate the President, who in some sense is the international equivalent of the typical high school shooter. Got a problem blast away. Except in his case up to 600,000 Iraqis may have died and many miliions displaced.
The more hated the isolated shooter is the more he shoots.
Violence begets violence and governments must not only ban illegal trade but the legal trade as well, to the victims of war the distinction is irrelevant.
if we are to continue to evolve and not destroy ourselves, WMD must be completely eliminated and the whole arms trade subjected to de-escalation and limitation.
Our spaceship planet is headed for disaster and we must join hand to prevent catastrophe instead we are fighting each oher in the passenger seats. It may seem safe in first class but everyone crashes. http://peacesource.net/
no doubt the Left will be here again, insulting gun owners and calling them gun nuts...which is one of the reasons that they don't seem to appeal to the general public. All that stuff like this treaty will do is attempt to disarm the law abiding public.
Right on, Paul from Texas.
MaxheMust, "If every American worker had a rifle or shotgun, and a pistol and knew how to use them, the bastards in power would be too afraid to piss on us (the peasants)."
Go, my man, MaxheMust!
I and my militia did not win the freedom of the people, and the 2nd amendment here without guns, duh.
Matter of fact, there likely would be no Bill of Rights, at all, without me and my men.
Think of every violation of constitutional and human rights that the likes of Bush-Cheney have done in the past six years, and how easily they have gotten away with them.
THEN tell me that gun control is still a good idea. Imagine what they would do with wholly unarmed, cringing peasants.
If every American worker had a rifle or shotgun, and a pistol and knew how to use them, the bastards in power would be too afraid to piss on us (the peasants).
I'm 100% against needless violence, but who can say what is or is not needless? History has shown that violence is one thing that gets the attention of the power drunk bastards who are in charge.
What would the world look life if everyone cowardly submitted to the bullys? What would Iraq look like today if the courageous Iraqis meekly submitted to the invaders/occupiers (and their corrupt leaders- like Bush & Cheney)?
They'd have about the same thing that Latin Americans got when they cooperated with the the US - about 5% of the population controlling about 85% of the wealth, with most people living in poverty, barely getting by.
Evolution and revolution go hand in hand. Maybe 'Goliath' needs to get his face smashed again. Then, perhaps he'll get his big ass out of the people's way.
——————
"I swear by the God of my parents, I swear by my nation,
I swear by my honor that I will not allow my soul to rest,
nor my arm to relax until I have broken the chains
that oppress my people through the will of the powerful.
Free elections, free land and free men, horror to the oligarchy."
Oath used by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - the Great,
(when he was 28) and some of his revolutionary friends.
-copied from Page 80, !HUGO! by Bart Jones
==========
The revolutionary path is bathed in light. Take the oath and do what you can! To be complacent is to be complicit.
—————————
"Almost anything you do [to help humanity] will seem insignificant, but it's very important that you do it."
Mahatma Gandi
"Despite fierce opposition from the United States..."
Surprise, surprise!
~ Proud Unamerican.