U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

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

  1. #1
    frank.macher Guest

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

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

    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.

  2.   
  3. #2
    She can negotiate as much as she wants. By 2012, hopefully, there will be little chance of obtaining a 2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify the treaty. Current election wins are beginning to tell the story.

  4. #3
    frank.macher Guest

    True, but I was reminded of a fable...

    Kind of like what goes on to the general sheep population...

    If you put a frog into water and gradually increase the heat, the frog will not move and will eventually boil to death...

    If, however, you turn up the heat and drop the frog into the water when it is getting really hot, it immediately reacts...

    Moral, don't trust the issue to resolve itself, make the fire hot before we (in this case, the frogs) get dropped into the pot.

    I know, kind of cheesy, but, it came from a young man who is just now considering becoming a sheepdog and had been a sheep for most of his life.

  5. #4
    "World's biggest arms exporter".....I'm sure they were referring to the former Soviet Union??? How many terrorists, pirates or Somali warlords do you find toting M-16's???

  6. #5
    frank.macher Guest

    Unhappy Appears I was given an old feed, original was Oct 2009

    Sorry for posting an article that is old. I received it with comments indicating it was recent. There are numerous places where it has resurfaced, and it still is an issue, just older news than I was led to believe.


  7. its ok. we all need to keep an eye on this. but just remember that Obama can favor this all he wants, and he can even sign it. but if the senate does not ratify it, it is not valid.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Lweson View Post
    its ok. we all need to keep an eye on this. but just remember that Obama can favor this all he wants, and he can even sign it. but if the senate does not ratify it, it is not valid.
    I am sure he would love to find a way around that, however.
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    91
    I still cannot connect the dots. How can this Treaty (which only deals in INPORT / EXPORT laws) impact the sell and transfer of firearms within our own borders? All the "Hype" I read states that "If" this treaty is signed, other nations (those who have signed the treaty) will be able to dictate "Our" (USA's) internal sells and transfers of firearms. Will (or can) someone explain to me how they derive this out of an Import / Export treaty?

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    91
    After a lot of investigation, I have been able to answer my own question. Even if we (have) sign(ed) the treaty, and the next UN Chair (Mexico - who blames the USA and its "Private Weapon sales" for all its Border violence) would have to bring up the issue and have the wording/text (of private ownership) entered back into the treaty. Even then, It could NOT over-ride the Constitution, the Second Ammendment, or any existing laws without the Supreme Court Ruling ruling on the issue to make it so. So in the end, it would NOT be the UN who would disarm us (the American public); it would be us, (as in the U.S. Supreme Court) that would ultimately make the desicion to trash the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

  11. #10

    Make No Mistake The U.N. Wants The U.S. General Population Disarmed...

    Make No Mistake The U.N. Wants The U.S. General Population Disarmed...

    It is the major piece of the Global Disarmament Initiative By the U.N. and its one-world Government Socialist Utopia...


    Twisted Gun Sculpture Outside U.N. Building...

    AND CIFTA IS THE MEANS TO THE END...

    Obama Positioning For Backdoor Gun Control

    GOA's CIFTA Treaty Analysis

    Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

    Sen. Barrasso Questions OAS Nominee on CIFTA

    President Obama Continues Assault on the Second Amendment

    CIFTA WILL SUBVERT THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

    Call, Fax, Email, Snail-Mail and other wise hound your Senators & Representatives at via their local & D.C. offices with your unequivocal opposition to CIFTA...

    U.S. Senate: Senators Home

    Representative Offices - United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 2nd Session

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-26-2010, 06:21 PM
  2. I know this has been here before.
    By GETMRUTN in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2010, 09:25 AM
  3. Do You Support Or Oppose Free Trade Agreements?
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-27-2010, 09:38 PM
  4. International treaty may be used to suspend your 2A rights!
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 11:02 PM
  5. Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty
    By HK4U in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-27-2009, 02:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast