Peter Kellner
:Cameron's EU Tactics Backfire
Deborah Jack
:End Homophobia to Reduce HIV
Philip Mansbridge
:G8 or Too Late: Obama, Cameron and G8 Heads Must Tackle Ivory Poaching Crisis Now
European Parliament Web Team
:Homophobia: One-In-Four LGBT People Victim of Violence or Threats in the Last Five Years
Over the last six years, the UK has led international efforts to agree a robust and effective Arms Trade Treaty. In 2006, the UK co-authored the first UN Resolution on this subject, alongside Kenya, Costa Rica, Australia, Japan, Finland and Argentina. This eclectic group of countries demonstrates the strength and breadth of international support for a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty.
This work is coming to a head at the United Nations in New York where intensive negotiations on the text of a treaty are due to conclude Friday 27 July.
International regulation of the arms trade is urgently needed. More than 740,000 men, women and children die each year as a result of armed violence. Two thirds of these deaths occur in countries that are not officially in conflict. Weapons move easily across borders. A treaty will help stop arms reaching terrorists and insurgents. It will also reduce violent conflict which is so detrimental to developing countries: it is estimated that each year Africa foregoes wealth creation of $18 billion as a result of armed conflict.
For the regulation of the arms trade to be effective, it therefore needs to be truly global in its reach, and be supported by the major arms exporters.
The overwhelming majority of countries, from across all regions, are strongly behind this work. Non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Red Cross have worked tirelessly to raise public awareness and backing for the treaty around the globe. The responsible defence industry also fully supports these efforts.
In our view, the treaty must include everything from firearms to fighter planes, bombs to bullets. Arms brokering must be controlled and corrupt practitioners prosecuted. It should establish a transparent system whereby states publish a list of controlled goods and report regularly on their arms exports. Greater transparency will build global confidence and will give the unscrupulous nowhere to hide.
The treaty should include strong provisions on human rights, sustainable development, the risk of exacerbating conflict or being subject to corrupt practices. This will help ensure arms do not fall into the wrong hands.
There will be compromises. That is the essence of negotiation, but we are determined that the treaty will contain the highest possible standards.
But time for the negotiations is running out, genuine differences remain to be bridged and there is a small but determined minority of states who oppose the treaty. Their opposition is directly counter to the interests of the vast majority of the world's population.
We have both travelled separately to New York over the past three weeks to show our firm support for the negotiations and to engage personally in working to persuade key states to agree to a strong treaty. We are determined to spare no effort to ensure these negotiations have the best possible chance of success, despite the real challenges they face.
The world is watching negotiations at the UN and will be ready to hold the international community to account. It needs to deliver.
Follow Alistair Burt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/foreignoffice
Kate Allen: Historic British Achievements of 2012: Let a Strong Arms Trade Treaty be One of Them
Aaron Taylor: The Triumph of Hypothetical Evil Over Real Evil
UN arms treaty aims at terror, but puts Second Amendment in crosshairs
Arms trade treaty negotiations begin, Syria casts shadow
The UN Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal?
If these bombs were ever used,earth would not be worth living on,even if there was a few survivors.
And it goes up everyday by a significant amount. Food for thought
The largest corporations in the richest countries all make money from it. It is simply not going to happen, but enjoy your junkets to NY boys!
After decades of campaigning to ensure that this trade is properly controlled, we now have a once in a lifetime chance to secure a bullet proof Arms Trade Treaty. We cannot allow a minority of sceptical states to drive through a weak treaty that would allow arms to be sent to places like Syria where they continue to be used to abuse human rights. Get a strong treaty and the weapons stay out of the wrong hands. Get a weak one and we may never get another chance.
Given the crucial role of the UK government, to date and that you have personally been very supportive, I hope to see the UK Government continue to lead the world in securing the strongest possible Treaty. If there is a substantial risk that arms exported to another country will contribute to serious human rights abuses, those arms supplies must be stopped. Human rights must be at the heart of the Treaty that our world so desperately needs. On this issue - there should be no compromise.
Contradiction, we're one of the worst when it comes to flogging arms to despots! Past & present Governments are guilty of this! Look at how much we sold to the Saudi's, a country with one of the worst human-rights record in the World. And they're sending only two female athletes to compete in London this Summer...progress or token gesture?
I leave London for New York today for the fourth and final week of the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations. Having seen the voices of sceptical countries increasingly prominent over the course of this month's deliberations it was encouraging to see such a robust statement from 74 countries at the end of the third week. Looking through the list of states endorsing the statement though I was ashamed, as a member of UK civil society, to see the UK missing from the list: http://bit.ly/LF7Khe.
The worst outcome from these negotiations, as many of us have discussed with you, would be a weak treaty that legitimises the current practice of a handful of states that reject constraints on their arms exports and imports. Some of the texts circulating in New York would constitute a serious step backwards in this regard. A treaty based on such weak language would risk legitimising, for example, Russia's transfers of arms to Syria that have been widely condemned.
I urge you to add the UK's name to the list of countries associating themselves with Friday's statement delivered by Malawi and to work with the states determined to fulfil the UNGA mandate for an Arms Trade Treaty that recognises the rights of victims of armed violence and that will prevent the transfer of arms when they risk being used to violate human rights and humanitarian law or to undermine development.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Nash
Director
Article 36
www.article36.org
It is all very well saying this on Huff Post - but it would be far more impactful to say it in the negotiations.
If you do stand for a treaty with "strong provisions on human rights, sustainable development, the risk of exacerbating conflict or being subject to corrupt practices" then please do something to support that happening. Right now the UK is not one of the Governments standing up for these principles in the negotiations. There are only 5 days left. As well as writing these views on Huff post, voice them loudly in the negotiating room!