Quantcast
Connect with us

UN arms treaty gives too many ‘loopholes’: NGOs

Published

on

The International Red Cross has joined opponents of a draft arms trade treaty out Tuesday that critics said contains only “ambiguities and loopholes.”

Following the release of the first draft, the 193 UN members must now race to agree on a text to regulate the $70 billion a year arms trade by Friday, the deadline set by the UN General Assembly.

Civil society groups condemned the draft text for not including ammunition and allowing too much scope for arms transfers that would escape the treaty.

ADVERTISEMENT

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) rarely speaks out on controversial diplomatic topics as it seeks to preserve its neutrality.

But Peter Herby, head of the ICRC’s arms unit, said: “All the core provisions of this draft treaty still have major loopholes which will simply ratify the status quo, instead of setting a high international standard that will change state practices and save lives on the ground.”

The Red Cross joined Amnesty International, Oxfam and other groups which have launched major campaigns to persuade the major powers to agree a tough, binding treaty.

It is a text of “ambiguities and loopholes,” commented Roy Isbister of the Saferworld lobby group. Anna Macdonald, arms control expert for Oxfam, likened the text to a “leaky bucket.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Isbister said the proposed treaty would have little impact on most of the conflicts claiming civilian lives in the world now.

The main arms producers — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, Germany and France — have haggled through three weeks of talks on the scope of the treaty and the criteria for how to judge an arms transfer.

The United States has opposed the inclusion of ammunition, China does not want small arms included, and both Russia and China have sought restrictions on references to humanitarian law.

ADVERTISEMENT

Syria, North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Algeria and other countries have sought from the start to thwart the treaty, diplomats and activists say.

The draft treaty does mention ammunition, but Isbister said it was incomprehensible.

“This means if you want to control ammunition, you can control ammunition, if you don’t want to control ammunition there is nothing here to force you. And that is a glaring problem.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Brian Wood, an expert for Amnesty International, highlighted the vague definition for arms transfers in the draft. It would not cover the substantial amount of arms given as aid or as donations, he said.

“These loopholes 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,” Wood said.

Britain has been one of the most outspoken of the major arms producers calling for a binding, all-encompassing treaty.

ADVERTISEMENT

A British diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “The chair has produced a text that we should all be able to work with to get the high ambition result that we need. The next 24 hours will be crucial in narrowing the gaps.”

The treaty must be agreed by consensus so any of the 193 countries involved could object on Friday. And even if a treaty is concluded, the conference has not yet decided how many countries must ratify it to bring it into force.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Facebook

The term ‘evangelical’ has crumbled into meaninglessness in the era of Trump: professor

Published

on

As the evangelical Christian movement began to rise in politics before the 1980 election, there was a fork in the road that forced the self-described "Moral Majority" to make a decision in regards to which candidate they supported: the devout Christian Jimmy Carter, or the divorced Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan.

Writing for the Atlantic, Baylor University professor of humanities Alan Jacobs says it was the Moral Majority's decision to go with Reagan that "inaugurated the affiliation of white American evangelicals with the Republican Party that has lasted to this day."

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trump complains at the UN: ‘I would get a Nobel Prize for a lot of things if they gave them out fairly’

Published

on

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

Fox legal analyst: Ukraine scandal is ‘far more serious’ than what Mueller dug up on Trump

Published

on

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano on Monday told Fox Business host David Asman that President Donald Trump's now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a serious case of corruption that cannot be ignored.

Although Asman tried to make the story about the actions of former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Napolitano said that what Trump has done appears far worse than anything the former vice president did.

"This is the most serious charge against the president, far more serious than what Bob Mueller dug or dragged up against him," Napolitano said. "If there was a quid pro quo -- it does appear as though a quarter of a billion dollars in defensive weaponry was held back for a period of time while these... conversations were going on between the presidents."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Investigate and Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image