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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more