It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arms Trade Treaty proposal

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
www.oxfam.org...




"Work on an international Arms Trade Treaty will begin immediately following a historic vote in the UN General Assembly today, which saw 153 governments supporting the proposed Treaty to prevent international arms transfers that fuel conflict, poverty and serious human rights violations. Only the United States voted against the proposal, and 24 governments abstained."


Behind the democratic curtain and in the bureaucratic reality we see what obviously can be internalized as the U.S's true ideals on proliferation of arms and WMD's. Voting against this treaty ensures that more violence perpetuates in third world countries ravaged by IMF, World Bank and U.S policies and creating a power vacuum that prohibits any compromise to U.S interests in these regions of the world. Though these such things never make headline news it's important that they are perpetuated throughout the world so that one day we can be aware of the inner workings of geopolitics.

I would personally like to see the U.S lose it's seat in the UN as it does not compose a universal manner yet instead a very myopic and self-interested one that dissuades the international community of a uniform voice.

While the U.S complains about the importing of weapons that devastate the security in Iraq, they are more than kind to supply other nations with such weapons to carry out their own slaughters. Does this double standard not mean anything anymore? The media is a pathetic attempt in the U.S at showing it's governments true logic.

Luxifero




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
What, nobody can champion a reason as to why the United States would be the only country to vote against this? Are we more worried about Iranian arms being used in conflicts, something which has very little veracity?

Luxifero



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   
America's attitude towards arms has always been very liberal, both internally and externally. Are we discussing small arms or arms in general?either way, I dont think the UN will be able to do anything to impact the arms market.

The arms market is huge, even if you limit it to small arms, that hurts several countries like US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, czech republic, etc.

This will never carry any weight.

Besides, you are blaming the tool not the man that wields it. Do weapons cast a mysterious spell over people? are they then compelled to use such weapons?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Besides, you are blaming the tool not the man that wields it.


The old, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument?

If that was the case then the US has no reason to berate Iran over alleged arms supplies to Iraqi insurgents. After all, what the Iraqi's do with supplied weapons is not Iran's business, right?
Same can be said for Israel. The US supplied nice shiny new bombs that were dropped on civilian centres in Lebanon, but it's not Americas fault and they are not responsible for how the weapons are used?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   


America's attitude towards arms has always been very liberal, both internally and externally. Are we discussing small arms or arms in general?either way, I dont think the UN will be able to do anything to impact the arms market.


You're correct; the UN is powerless to US vetos on the issue.




The arms market is huge, even if you limit it to small arms, that hurts several countries like US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, czech republic, etc.


You're more worried about the financial instability then the potential saving of lives? Are you implying that capital is more important than the human life?




This will never carry any weight.


Did you read the article?




Work on an international Arms Trade Treaty will begin immediately following a historic vote in the UN General Assembly today, which saw 153 governments supporting the proposed Treaty to prevent international arms transfers that fuel conflict, poverty and serious human rights violations. Only the United States voted against the proposal, and 24 governments abstained.





"Significant support for an Arms Trade Treaty has come from some of the world’s most gun-affected regions; this indicates not only widespread recognition of the problem but also widespread political will to take action," said Rebecca Peters, Director of IANSA.


Luxifero



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join