Iran, North Korea and Syria
Cast Sole Votes Against Treaty
The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on
Tuesday overwhelmingly
approved the first treaty on the global arms trade, which is to regulate the
$70 billion business in conventional arms and keep weapons out of the hands of
human rights abusers. 155 nations voted in favor, while Iran, North Korea
and Syria cast sole votes against the treaty, while 22 countries did not
vote or abstained.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the vote, saying the
treaty “will make it more difficult for deadly weapons to be diverted into the
illicit market and ... will help to keep warlords, pirates, terrorists,
criminals and their like from acquiring deadly arms.” (Reuters, 2 April)
In the U.S., the NRA opposes the treaty and has vowed
to fight to prevent its ratification by the U.S. Senate when it reaches
Washington. The NRA says the treaty will undermine domestic gun rights, a view
the U.S. government has strongly rejected.
Like the UN, this is a toothless talk-fest as the US, UK, France,Germany,the Zionist entity, and the so-called champions of "human rights" and their puppet nations (Arab pimpdoms) are the biggest in proliferation and warmongering from Mali, Syria, Iraq, Korean peninsula to Af-pak . This is like asking Dracula to make a donation to the blood bank.
ReplyDelete155 nations voted for the Dracula? And only three countries thought a ban on arms smuggling is a bad idea? I guess those three countries are the ones who are confused here.
DeleteDoes this mean that the European and Arab countries can't continue smuggling weapons to the Al Qaeda brigands in Syria or is this one of those arbitrary laws that must be adhered to by only a select few.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you are attacking the treaty and yet are concerned about the smuggling of arms to Al Qaeda. Syria, along with Iran, actually voted against the treaty. Probably they were concerned that the treaty might create problems for transfer of arms to the Syrian government. If their concern was arms transfer to Al Qaeda, they should have voted for it, no?
DeleteI think you`ve hit the nail on the head my friend,the us will use this as a cudgel to beat those nations who will not bow down while at the same time it will simply ignore it if it gets in the way of us interests.This sadly is the us cynically using the global arms trade of which it is the largest purveyor to try and restrict the transfers of advanced weapons tech like long range cruise and ballistic missiles or air defenses to nations the us considers as enemies and could be attacking in the near future.Personally I think it takes a lot of courage to stand up for ones beliefs and not just take the cowards way out and vote with the rest or abstain
DeleteAt least they are not being hypocrites.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlnrr4EUqVQ --- controlling global arms trade
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDeEHdmmIko --- UN conference on gun control.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=hpdj-gEOr8A&feature=endscreen --- the NRA makes its case.
DeleteNot to mention that some of these same countries, namely the US, Russia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, are among the few nations on earth that have so far refused to ratify a global UN ban on anti-personnel landmines. And all of a sudden they all join forces to stand up to this non-proliferation issue while some of them continue to arm extremist groups all over the world whenever it suits their interests, like Jabat Al Nusra by Qatar, and to governments still based on shariah that abuse human right as we speak, namely on women, like Saudi Arabia, or Sunni monarchies quelling protests in blood like in Bahrain, courtesy of the United States for both cases. Or Bashar's Syria thanks to the Russian government's deep sense of empathy (irony here, just in case), which has no need for introduction in this blog... Double Standards all the way, for everyone, for a change. If only ANY of this nice posturing was for some REAL humanitarian purposes coming from ANY of these actors...
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. government always opposed this treaty until Obama got elected and the government changed its policy and championed the passage of the treaty. Now it is the NRA that opposes the treaty in the U.S. and hope to stop it from being ratified by the Senate.
DeleteGuns don't kill people, people kill people. LOL.
DeleteAnd ? it is the same man who championed the massive expansion of american unsanctionned drone srikes , condemned by the UN for its unaccountable nature and the inherent and confirmed harm that it does on civilian populations, including on US citizens themselves. and condemned at home for its unconstitutionnal attributes. That so-called landmark treaty will allow them to legiimize an already flourishing business with human rights abusers, while attempting to hold the moral high-ground in all audacity against others, just like Russia , China or European countries do. Nothing spectacarly worth of respect or celebrating.
DeleteAnd why do you oppose the treaty? What is it in it that is so bad that Iran should have opposed it? What if Iran decides to change the policy, as the U.S. did under Obama, and signs the treaty? Unless the conversation here is not the treaty itself, but opposing anything the U.S. and Obama administration propose or support, isn't it?
DeleteCertainly not, rest assured. I supported Obama on his healthcare plans to this very day and salute his efforts in that regard. Same goes for his initial though long gone calls for settlement freeze in East Jerusalem and the West bank, and for his.attempts to curtail assault rifle circulation in the US. But here it is indeed about pointing out their latest hyprocritical and highly cynical posturing towards their adversaries while grasping on moral high ground themselves. The US administration knows full well the non-binding nature of what they have ratified, and many levers that are kept to their discretion to continue providing whatever weapon they want to whatever monster they want, remain de facto in place.After all, they are the number one arms dealer in the world, dominating the arms market by a great margin. But with that mostly symbolic measure, they hope to hold out yet another time as the beacon of light for humanity while violating what they preach on a daily basis.(i.e. Arming Bahrein/KSA/Israel to name only the ME). Isolated NK, embargoed Iran (since Irak started its aggression and got international support to do it, and only tightened since the nuclear standoff, for reminders), and embattled Syria have at the contrary all the reasons to fear an even harder access to an already mostly locked arms market. All ethical considerations put aside, their "no" is as legitimate as America's "yes".
DeleteOK, thanks. But I still do not understand what is in the treaty that you oppose. The treaty will go into effect if ratified by 50+ countries and becomes binding for any country that ratifies it, including the U.S.
DeleteMy pleasure to clarify. In fact, to be honest, if we narrow the scope of the discussion to the strict boundaries of the treaty's contents in essence, I would say that I fully support it in principle, since I happen to think of myself as a proponent of full nuclear disarmament, and arms control in general. Always been educated that way to begin with. Part of my family still remembers Scuds crushing in Tehran during the war of the cities, while I was too little and born in Europe so I didn't have the "privilege" to witness or recall it outside of TV, so as far as proliferation control is concerned, I cannot decently go against it. But my point is, Nader, that my position towards it becomes totally irrelevant and a non-starter when it comes to the whole "game" surrounding its current ratification. We are traversing too hot an era specifically in a hotspot like the ME nowadays, to be naive/optimistic enough to think such a treaty has simple come out of nowhere while its main signatories are actively taking sides in an internal and devastating conflict in one of the most sensitive parts of this same region, providing arms and munitions to non-state actors whose ideology and allegiances are reported to be unclear at best. Would it be Iran transferring arms to Hamas/Hezbollah or Qatar and the KSA providing all-out and blatant support to Al-Nusra. Or the US or European powers doing the very same with Israel, Bahrain, or the myriad of UN violators among their allies, except that they share a collective quasi-monopoly on that business, practically holding the keys and hidden cards in their sleeves to go whatever ways they want outside of the treaty they ratified "strictly officially" . That is all I'm saying. The treaty's actual content can be as beautiful as the American or French Constitution for that matter, it won't change much on the ground and the sad associated truths...
DeleteObama administration opposed the treaty last year. Isn't that right? I thought what you said here distorted the reality as if Bush opposed it and Obama was always for it.
Deleteof course Bush was against it, and Obama changed the government's policy, inherited from the previous administration, and became active supporter of the treaty.
DeleteAnonymousApril 3, 2013 at 8:56 PM
DeleteWell said
But, he opposed it last year. So it took Obama 5 years to change the inherited policy?
DeleteInteresting to see if Russia signs the treaty, and if this gets ratified in Congress.
ReplyDeleteInteresting in what sense? Do you want to see it signed by Russia and ratified by the Senate?
DeleteLOGICAL REASONS!
ReplyDeletebehind every political move by the Islamic IRAN, is a logical reason!!.