Analysis of the failed small arms control treaty
Interesting analysis. The popular narrative is that the U.S. killed the treaty. This analysis argues that the treaty was dead on its feet anyway, for reasons linked to other nations' interests. The treaty had many provisions, and the ones attracting the most opposition were ones that would have restricted arms transfers that were thought to pose a risk of fueling violations of international human rights law, or might adversely affect socio-economic development. No less than 39 countries were objecting to the last. The treaty had nowhere near a consensus backing it. Cuban, Iran, and Venezuela each had more objections than did the U.S..
"In conclusion, UN ATT Conference died from lack of consensus. This death was due less to failed diplomacy, or pressure by the firearms industry and gun rights groups, than it was the result of many years of abortive advocacy lead by an unraveling UK-based Control Arms campaign. Control Arms’ broad vision for the ATT was more extreme than consensus could sustain. Ultimately, humanitarian groups sabotaged consensus for an ATT by pushing diplomats too hard for far too much and provoked dispositive sovereignty concerns across the Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East in addition to the United States.
An interesting point, and probably a valid one. I am do however have to disagree that there will be an ATT outside of the UN,or if there is it will be even less meaningful than treaties banning landmines or cluster munitions. Such treaties only work if the countries that make and export such weapons are all willing to sign on. The ones that really matter have shown time and again that the will not go against their own best economic or military interests that would be involved in signing on to these misguided pieces of toothless feelgood excuse for international diplomacy.
Posted by: KSGunner at October 28, 2012 04:24 PM
"Gun control" is people control.
Posted by: Mman at October 28, 2012 05:26 PM