Update | By Trisha Marczak
The U.S., China and Russia made the call Friday to delay negotiations on the International Arms Treaty, drawing criticism from human rights groups who accused the governments of caving into domestic politics and overlooking the immediate need for a treaty.
“These negotiations were an acid test for world leaders,” Secretary General of Amnesty International Salil Shetty said in a press release. “A powerful few failed to live up to their billing and instead opted for political self-interest. This minority may have held back the ride of world opinion today but they cannot for much longer. The majority of governments that want a robust ATT (Arms Trade Treaty) must keep up the pressure so an agreement can be achieved later this year.”
The treaty is set to be discussed again in the U.N. General Assembly in October.
(MintPress) — Amnesty International called on U.S. President Barack Obama Wednesday to step up to the plate and lobby for the closure of major loopholes in the International Arms Treaty that would compromise the ability to control guns and ammunition transferred throughout the globe.
Leaders from around the world converged in New York to draft the new treaty, spending three weeks working out the details of a historic agreement that will, for the first time, regulate trade of weapons internationally. Yet days before the events wrapped up, critics claimed there were still shortcomings that needed to be addressed by the U.S.
“There is still time to strengthen the human rights protections and close major loopholes in the draft treaty, including the obvious need to cover ammunition and all types of international transfer, not just trade,” Amnesty International’s Arms Head of Arms Control and Human Rights Brian Wood said Wednesday in a press release.
Despite being located in Obama’s backyard, the leader did not weigh in — a move criticized by those who say the U.S. should take a more active role, considering it is the main exporter of the weapons and ammunition.
The arguments against Obama coincided with comments he made regarding American gun control following a mass shooting at a Colorado movie theatre. Speaking to the National Urban League in New Orleans last week, the leader cried out against the need for military-style weapons in the hands of average citizens.
“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
That’s the same sentiment carried by those who want the president to step in and close the loopholes in the International Arms Treaty, applying his own argument to the international stage.
“The White House holds the key as to whether this historic opportunity to protect human rights is taken,” Wood said.
While Obama did not specifically step forward, Amnesty International released a statement Friday claiming the White House did take part in the negotiations, but that concerns remain regarding the treaty. Wood issued a last-minute call Friday to governments “to do all they can on the last day to ensure the strongest possible deal is reached.”
Keeping weapons out of the hands of child soldiers, human rights abusers
The monumental step to create the arms treaty has long been in the making. Recognizing an out-of-control trade of weapons throughout the world, as companies benefited, the U.N. called in 2006 for an international treaty.
The move was opposed by the U.S. in 2006, with George W. Bush casting the only “no” vote. In 2009, Obama supported the creation of the treaty — yet has stayed silent throughout the drafting process.
Amnesty International has been at the forefront of a movement supporting an arms treaty, claiming that guns, in many cases, are easier for the world’s people to purchase than bananas — a problem that has exacerbated human rights violations and devastating conflicts for decades.
The treaty seeks to address this issue, prohibiting the transfer of weapons to areas where there is a ‘risk’ that such arms could be used to commit or facilitate human rights violations. Essentially, before international transfers are made, they would be documented to ensure that such conditions are met.
“States would now (also) be required to take appropriate measures to prevent diversion of weapons for unauthorized end use so they don’t end up in the hands of those that are not supposed to have them,” Amnesty International said in a statement.
Writing for the New York Times, author and former child soldier Ishmael Beah, showed support for an effective treaty, recalling his life as a boy in Sierra Leone.
“When I was forced to join the Sierra Leone Army, they gave me a gun, and, after basic training, ammunition,” he wrote. “Instead of training at a shooting range, they would line up prisoners for us to practice on. They gave us AK-47s, the most widely available weapon and the easiest to use.”
Weapons are not produced in Sierra Leone, which means they had to come from somewhere. Beah looks at the treaty, not as a cure-all, but as a way to make it more difficult for arms dealers to freely buy and sell, without documentation or regulation.
Opposition could lead to ‘no’ vote in Congress
While the treaty may not solve the world’s problems and keep all criminals away from weapons, most countries see it as a step in the right direction. The National Rifle Association (NRA), a pro-gun rights lobbying organization, however, does not. And if it has its way, Congress will not ratify the treaty — leaving the U.S., the world’s largest exporter of weapons, out of the equation.
While the treaty is of international scope, the NRA has claimed that it would give the U.N. too much control over the industry and would compromise the Second Amendment in the U.S. The organization has taken a hardline stance on the issue, claiming that the treaty must remove any language regarding ‘civilian firearms.’
“The only way to address the NRA’s objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty. That is the only solution. On that, there will be no compromise,” Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA said at the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Conference.
It’s a claim that supporters of the treaty don’t agree with, saying the treaty has nothing to do with possession of weapons in the U.S., and has everything to do with the transfer of American-made weapons to areas where conflict and terrorism occur — civilian firearms included. There’s also an issue over what the definition of a civilian firearm is, with different countries’ interpretations.
With the U.S. a heavy player in the $60 billion arms trade industry, suspicion has been raised as to whether the connection is hampering efforts to draft a treaty that would be acceptable to those who claim stricter regulations regarding the trade of weapons in the international market need to be made.
The U.S. already has a system of its own to monitor gun sales through the U.S. State Department, but critics say it’s not strict enough, citing the fact that the U.S. is still the largest exporter of weapons.
“The devil is in the detail,” Wood said, “and if the existing loopholes are left open and the rules are not strengthened, these could easily be exploited to allow arms to be supplied to those that intend to use them to commit serious human rights violations, as the world is seeing in Syria.”