Skip to main content

Taking action in a world awash with arms

Leaving aside the cost of arms being sold around the world - let alone the "waste" of money in manufacturing them in the first place when the money, and resource, could be directed to better use - one has to wonder why so many arms are needed anyway. And whty do so many countries need all those armaments? The New York Times in an editorial details the whole issue and steps being taken to limit all those armaments.
"The world is awash in conventional weapons, like tanks, firearms and aircraft, with the market valued at $40 billion to $60 billion a year. Far too many of these arms are fueling conflicts and atrocities in Syria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and beyond. They have been used to kill countless innocent civilians, and they will be used against countless more if the international community does not find a way to keep them out of the hands of unscrupulous regimes, militants and criminals.
The United Nations is trying to do just that. Last Monday, after a decade of lobbying by human rights groups, United Nations members began negotiating a global treaty to regulate international trade in conventional arms. Agreeing on a strong treaty will not be easy. The pact is supposed to be adopted by consensus at the end of the month, and a single country could block any deal.
The talks bogged down on the first day on an unrelated issue involving the Palestinians. It was eventually resolved, but time was wasted. That was a warning to the countries and the coalition of arms control and human rights groups supporting the treaty that success will require vigorous efforts to keep the negotiations on track.
To be effective, any treaty should be legally binding and cover a broad range of weapons, including ammunition. Governments should be required to regulate the international sale and transfer of these weapons, perform risk assessments before authorizing a sale, and track the use of the arms. The treaty should bar governments from selling arms to any states under a United Nations arms embargo and when there are human rights concerns.
Not surprisingly, Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and Pakistan are balking at the human rights criteria. They are also resisting the ammunition provision, as is the United States, which says it is impractical because ammunition is difficult to track.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Donald T: First seduced..... then betrayed!

All those supporters of Trump - who, heaven's only knows, got him headed for the White House - are in a for more than a rude awakening and shock.   Whatever Trump "promised" is just not going to happen....as Paul Krugman so clearly spells out in his latest op-ed piece "Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump" in The New York Times.

"Donald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left behind by a changing economy and society. And they’re about to get their reward — the same reward that, throughout Mr. Trump’s career, has come to everyone who trusted his good intentions. Think Trump University.

Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed.

The evidence of that coming betrayal is obvious in the choice of an array of pro-corporate, anti-labor figures for key positions. In particular, the most important story of the week — seriously, people, stop focusing on Trum…

Snooping..... at its worst

The Brits have just brought in legislation which allows for unprecedented "snooping" in a Western democracy - says Edward Snowden.   Let truthdig explain....

"On Tuesday, the United Kingdom instated the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, a piece of legislation described by whistleblower Edward Snowden as “the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy.”

The law, informally known as the “Snooper’s Charter,” spent over a year in Parliament before it was passed. The Guardian reported:

"The new surveillance law requires web and phone companies to store everyone’s web browsing histories for 12 months and give the police, security services and official agencies unprecedented access to the data.

It also provides the security services and police with new powers to hack into computers and phones and to collect communications data in bulk. The law requires judges to sign off police requests to view journalists’ call and web records, but the measure has been descri…

A "Muslim Register"

Outrageous is the word which immediately comes to mind - the idea of a  Muslim Register which Trump has floated.     And how and by or through whom would this Registry comes into being?    Let The Intercept explain.....

"Every American corporation, from the largest conglomerate to the smallest firm, should ask itself right now: Will we do business with the Trump administration to further its most extreme, draconian goals? Or will we resist?

This question is perhaps most important for the country’s tech companies, which are particularly valuable partners for a budding authoritarian. The Intercept contacted nine of the most prominent such firms, from Facebook to Booz Allen Hamilton, to ask if they would sell their services to help create a national Muslim registry, an idea recently resurfaced by Donald Trump’s transition team. Only Twitter said no.

Shortly after the election, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty wrote a personal letter to President-elect Trump in which she offered her congratulation…