-
The Washington Times
The
U.N. General Assembly
on Tuesday approved a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty aimed at
regulating the estimated $60 billion international arms trade, brushing
aside gun rights groups’ concerns that the pact could lead to a national
firearms registry in the U.S.
The long-debated
U.N.
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the
export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft
and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such
weapons.
The treaty also
provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes or
international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry
to countries where they could be used for genocide, crimes against
humanity or other war crimes.
“This is a good day for the
United Nations, and a good day for the peoples of the world,” said Australian Ambassador
Peter Woolcott, the lead negotiator during the process.
With the
Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the
General Assembly vote was 155-3, with 22 abstentions.
Iran,
Syria and
North Korea voted against the proposal.
U.S.
gun rights activists say the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is
unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in
its list of weaponry subject to international regulations.
The
activists said they do not trust
U.N.
assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade
and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.
One
provision requires participating countries to keep records of arms
exports and imports, including the quantity, value, model/type, and “end
users, as appropriate” for at least 10 years.
Gun record-keeping
is a thorny issue in the U.S., where similar questions have stalled a
debate over expanding background checks to include all private gun
sales.
Second Amendment
supporters worry that such records eventually will pave the way for a
national firearms registry, currently prohibited by federal law.
Texas Attorney General
Greg Abbott
wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying he would sue to
block the treaty if it is ratified. It “appears to lay the groundwork
for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the
UN,” the letter said.
The
Senate
last month also signaled its aversion, voting 53-46 to oppose the
treaty in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate. Eight
Democrats joined all 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.
Sen. Jerry Moran, Kansas Republican, said Tuesday that it made no sense to pass a treaty that will bind the U.S., while
Iran,
Syria and
North Korea will ignore it.
“The
U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on
level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arm
terrorists, but there is real concern that the administration feels
pressured to sign a treaty that violates our constitutional rights,”
Mr. Moran said.
White
House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was
pleased with the outcome, but “as is the case with all treaties of this
nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of
the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty.”
Amnesty International and the Arms Control Association hailed the
U.N. vote.
Under
the treaty, countries must consider whether weapons would be used to
violate international humanitarian or human rights laws and facilitate
acts of terrorism or organized crime.
“The treaty’s prohibition
section, if it were in force today, would prohibit the ongoing supply of
weapons and parts and components to the Assad regime in
Syria,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the ACA, a national group that works on arms-control policies.
The American Bar Association released a white paper arguing that the treaty would not affect Second Amendment rights.
The
U.N.
vote clears the way for countries to add their signatures to the treaty
starting June 3. The treaty will take effect 90 days after 50 nations
sign it.
Within one year of signing on, each country must submit a
report outlining the steps it has taken to comply. But more specifics
on the implementation, enforcement and possible punishment for
violations of the treaty remain to be seen. Countries have the right to
withdraw from the treaty, but are not, as a result, excused from
obligations they had while participating.
“This is a very good
framework, I think, to build on — it’s fair, I think it’s balanced, and
it’s strong. But it’s only a framework,”
Mr. Woolcott said. “And it’ll only be as good as its implementation.”
More
rule-making is to be delegated to a conference of participating
countries, to convene within one year after the treaty goes into effect
to review its implementation and consider amendments.
Proponents hoped that the treaty could be ratified by acclamation at a final negotiating conference last week, but
Syria,
Iran and
North Korea objected.
Some
abstaining countries, including India and Egypt, said the treaty did
not go far enough on its language regarding terrorism or human rights.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/un-passes-international-arms-regulation-treaty/?page=all#pagebreak
Share this feature on Facebook
