In yesterday's Guardian Bianca Jagger makes impassioned plea for the passage of UN treaty to regulate the arms trade.
It is clear that the international community would benefit from a regulated and constrained arms trade but there are so many vested interests it is hard to see how a treaty that actually took serious steps and had the power of enforcement would ever be passed or ratified. These interests run the gamut from nation states (US, France, UK and Russia) through corporate entities (GE, Raytheon, Boeing, BAE, EADS et al) to the middle men and brokers who operate on the periphery of legality.
The value of the arms export to the US was 18.5 billion USD in 2004. The corresponding values were 4.6 billion USD for Russia, 4.4 billion USD for France and 1.9 billion USD for the UK. (Source.) With the level of UK financial involvement it is surprising, and if sincere, gratifying to see the British government taking the lead in pushing for an agreement. Unfortunately the US has not expressed support for, or interest in, such a treaty.
It is imperative that clauses related to human rights be included but I see such measures as dooming the odds of an agreement being reached; at least an agreement with any teeth.
The world cannot be satisfied with the American definition of human rights abusers (i.e. countries we don't like). Would arms sales be allowed to Israel? To Indonesia? To Pakistan? To Iraq?
As much as I wish this effort to succeed it will take a sea change in thinking within the US (and the UK, France, Russia & China) if anything is to come to pass.
It is clear that the international community would benefit from a regulated and constrained arms trade but there are so many vested interests it is hard to see how a treaty that actually took serious steps and had the power of enforcement would ever be passed or ratified. These interests run the gamut from nation states (US, France, UK and Russia) through corporate entities (GE, Raytheon, Boeing, BAE, EADS et al) to the middle men and brokers who operate on the periphery of legality.
The value of the arms export to the US was 18.5 billion USD in 2004. The corresponding values were 4.6 billion USD for Russia, 4.4 billion USD for France and 1.9 billion USD for the UK. (Source.) With the level of UK financial involvement it is surprising, and if sincere, gratifying to see the British government taking the lead in pushing for an agreement. Unfortunately the US has not expressed support for, or interest in, such a treaty.
It is imperative that clauses related to human rights be included but I see such measures as dooming the odds of an agreement being reached; at least an agreement with any teeth.
The world cannot be satisfied with the American definition of human rights abusers (i.e. countries we don't like). Would arms sales be allowed to Israel? To Indonesia? To Pakistan? To Iraq?
As much as I wish this effort to succeed it will take a sea change in thinking within the US (and the UK, France, Russia & China) if anything is to come to pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment