|
| |
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
(Reuters) - The United States
reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a
treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a
stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State
Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's
administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national
controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support
the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the
Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty
and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing
to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era
policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales,
some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be
unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major
breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order
to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam
International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by
consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to
veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of
negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said
Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set
international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional
weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing
regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass
onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but
would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under
the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in
advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush
administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the
United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in
global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote
on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the
Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the
access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the
ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the
treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations
including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in
2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.