Quoted Text

NITED NATIONS — The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a pioneering treaty aimed at regulating the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first time linking sales to the human rights records of the buyers.
Related

DOCUMENT: Arms Trade Treaty
U.N. Treaty to Control Arms Sales Hits Snag (March 29, 2013)
U.N. Close to Curbing Arms Trade With Treaty (March 28, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Readers’ Comments
"There are too many in Congress who owe allegiance to the NRA and the armaments industry and not to the best interests of the U.S."
RHSchumann, Bonn
Read Full Comment »
Although implementation is years away and there is no specific enforcement mechanism, proponents say the treaty would for the first time force sellers to consider how their customers will use the weapons and to make that information public. The goal is to curb the sale of weapons that kill tens of thousands of people every year — by, for example, making it harder for Russia to argue that its arms deals with Syria are legal under international law.

The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, reflects growing international sentiment that the multibillion-dollar weapons trade needs to be held to a moral standard. The hope is that even nations reluctant to ratify the treaty will feel public pressure to abide by its provisions. The treaty calls for sales to be evaluated on whether the weapons will be used to break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, abet terrorism or organized crime or slaughter women and children.

“Finally we have seen the governments of the world come together and say ‘Enough!’ ” said Anna MacDonald, the head of arms control for Oxfam International, one of the many rights groups that pushed for the treaty. “It is time to stop the poorly regulated arms trade. It is time to bring the arms trade under control.”

She pointed to the Syrian civil war, where 70,000 people have been killed, as a hypothetical example, noting that Russia argues that sales are permitted because there is no arms embargo.

“This treaty won’t solve the problems of Syria overnight, no treaty could do that, but it will help to prevent future Syrias,” Ms. MacDonald said. “It will help to reduce armed violence. It will help to reduce conflict.”

Members of the General Assembly voted 154 to 3 to approve the Arms Trade Treaty, with 23 abstentions — many from nations with dubious recent human rights records like Bahrain, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

The vote came after more than two decades of organizing. Humanitarian groups started lobbying after the 1991 Persian Gulf war to curb the trade in conventional weapons, having realized that Iraq had more weapons than France, diplomats said.

The treaty establishes an international forum of states that will review published reports of arms sales and publicly name violators. Even if the treaty will take time to become international law, its standards will be used immediately as political and moral guidelines, proponents said.

“It will help reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement after the United States, the biggest arms exporter, voted with the majority for approval.

But the abstaining countries included China and Russia, which also are leading sellers, raising concerns about how many countries will ultimately ratify the treaty. It is scheduled to go into effect after 50 nations have ratified it. Given the overwhelming vote, diplomats anticipated that it could go into effect in two to three years, relative quickly for an international treaty.

Proponents said that if enough countries ratify the treaty, it will effectively become the international norm. If major sellers like the United States and Russia choose to sit on the sidelines while the rest of the world negotiates what weapons can be traded globally, they will still be affected by the outcome, activists said.

The treaty’s ratification prospects in the Senate appear bleak, at least in the short term, in part because of opposition by the gun lobby. More than 50 senators signaled months ago that they would oppose the treaty — more than enough to defeat it, since 67 senators must ratify it.

Among the opponents is Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican. In a statement last month, he said that the treaty contained “unnecessarily harsh treatment of civilian-owned small arms” and violated the right to self-defense and United States sovereignty.

In a bow to American concerns, the preamble states that it is focused on international sales, not traditional domestic use, but the National Rifle Association has vowed to fight ratification anyway. The General Assembly vote came after efforts to achieve a consensus on the treaty among all 193 member states of the United Nations failed last week, with Iran, North Korea and Syria blocking it. The three, often ostracized, voted against the treaty again on Tuesday.

Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian envoy to the United Nations, said Russian misgivings about what he called ambiguities in the treaty, including how terms like genocide would be defined, had pushed his government to abstain. But neither Russia nor China rejected it outright.

“Having the abstentions from two major arms exporters lessens the moral weight of the treaty,” said Nic Marsh, a proponent with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo. “By abstaining they have left their options open.”

Numerous states, including Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua, said they had abstained because the human rights criteria were ill defined and could be abused to create political pressure. Many who abstained said the treaty should have banned sales to all armed groups, but supporters said the guidelines did that effectively while leaving open sales to liberation movements facing abusive governments.

Supporters also said that over the long run the guidelines should work to make the criteria more standardized, rather than arbitrary, as countries agree on norms of sale in a trade estimated at $70 billion annually.

The treaty covers tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms and light weapons. Ammunition exports are subject to the same criteria as the other war matériel. Imports are not covered.

India, a major importer, abstained because of its concerns that its existing contracts might be blocked, despite compromise language to address that.

Support was particularly strong among African countries — even if the compromise text was weaker than some had anticipated — with most governments asserting that in the long run, the treaty would curb the arms sales that have fueled many conflicts.

Even some supporters conceded that the highly complicated negotiations forced compromises that left significant loopholes. The treaty focuses on sales, for example, and not on all the ways in which conventional arms are transferred, including as gifts, loans, leases and aid.

“This is a very good framework to build on,” said Peter Woolcott, the Australian diplomat who presided over the negotiations. “But it is only a framework.”


Rick Gladstone contributed reporting from New York, and Jonathan Weisman from Washington.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 4, 2013


An article on Wednesday about the United Nations General Assembly’s overwhelming approval of an arms control treaty misspelled, in some copies, the surname of the head of arms control for Oxfam International, one of many rights groups that pushed for the treaty. She is Anna MacDonald, not McDonald.

Quoted Text

U.N. approves global arms treaty
By Colum Lynch,April 02, 2013

A delegate takes photographs of semi automatic weapons at the International… (Rehan Khan/EPA )
UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to create the first treaty regulating the international arms trade, a landmark decision that imposes new constraints on the sale of conventional arms to governments and armed groups that commit war crimes, genocide and other mass atrocities.

The vote was hailed by arms-control advocates and scores of governments, including the United States, as a major step in the global effort to put in place basic controls on the $70 billion international arms trade. But the treaty was denounced by Iran, North Korea and Syria, which maintain that it imposes restrictions that prevent smaller states from buying and selling weapons to ensure their self-defense.

The treaty covers a wide range of conventional weapons, including battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, missiles and small arms. Under the accord, these items cannot be transferred to countries that are subject to U.N. arms embargoes or to states that promote genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

Ads by Google
Watch TV NowInstantly Watch TV Shows & Movies. Try It Free. hulu.com/plus

Although legally binding on states that ratify it, the treaty does not establish an enforcement agency. Instead, signatories will be required to pass new laws and regulations governing their arms trade and national authorities will be responsible for enforcing them.

The United States, which co-sponsored the treaty, said U.S. agencies will review the accord before it is presented to President Obama for signature. The treaty would then require ratification by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

The National Rifle Association contended during negotiations that the treaty would weaken Second Amendment gun rights in the United States. The powerful gun lobby has pledged to fight the treaty’s ratification in the Senate.

U.S. officials and several nongovernmental organizations, including the American Bar Association, have argued that the treaty would have no effect on U.S. gun rights.

The treaty contains language recognizing “legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.”

Quoted Text

Agenda 21 - Chapter 1
PREAMBLE
1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities
between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the
continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However,
integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the
fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems
and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a
global partnership for sustainable development.
1.2. This global partnership must build on the premises of General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22
December 1989, which was adopted when the nations of the world called for the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, and on the acceptance of the need to take a balanced
and integrated approach to environment and development questions.
1.3. Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the
challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest
level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost
the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in
achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this
context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional
organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the
active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be
encouraged.
1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new
and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for
the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate
sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of
international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude
assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be
examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations.
1.5. In the implementation of the relevant programme areas identified in Agenda 21, special attention
should be given to the particular circumstances facing the economies in transition. It must also be
recognized that these countries are facing unprecedented challenges in transforming their economies,
in some cases in the midst of considerable social and political tension.
1.6. The programme areas that constitute Agenda 21 are described in terms of the basis for action,
objectives, activities and means of implementation. Agenda 21 is a dynamic programme. It will be
carried out by the various actors according to the different situations, capacities and priorities of
countries and regions in full respect of all the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development. It could evolve over time in the light of changing needs and
circumstances. This process marks the beginning of a new global partnership for sustainable
development.
* * * * *
* When the term "Governments" is used, it will be deemed to include the European Economic Community within its
areas of competence. Throughout Agenda 21 the term "environmentally sound" means "environmentally safe and
sound", in particular when applied to the terms "energy sources", "energy supplies", "energy systems" and "technology"
or "technologies".

Quoted Text

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) released an outraged statement in response to “new shocking
revelation” of the “NSA extensive seizure and surveillance” of Americans’ Verizon phone records:
“If the President and Congress would obey the Fourth Amendment we all swore to uphold,
this new shocking revelation that the government is now spying on citizens’ phone data en
masse would never have happened.”

Yes, it’s “shocking” to some, but not to anyone who actually works in DC, and certainly
not to Congress, since Congress knew about it for the last seven years.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Saxby Chambliss
(R-GA) said that they have been kept informed under the law and that the surveillance
is legal. Chambliss added that the court order lasts three months and was a regular renewal
of the legal authority, which has been going on for seven years.