Sounds like a big strain on the State Dept. budget to me.
I think Bush has that covered; he's encouraging the GOP congressional members to spend the Medicare surplus.
Did a bit of research this morning...I think I found more detail on why the US is opposed to any agreement that might come out of the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons [sarcasm]
The five major reasons the US should oppose the objectives of the UN
From: un.org
1. The focus of the United Nations Conference is on illicit trade in small arms, not the legal trade, manufacture or ownership of weapons.
Assault rifles and other small arms and light weapons have become the weapons of choice in many internal conflicts waged around the world. They are weapons manufactured to military specifications for use as lethal instruments of war. These weapons often end up in the possession of organized crime syndicates, drugs traffickers, and warlords who promote strife for personal gain. Because these weapons are light and easy to use, they are put in the hands of 300,000 child soldiers.
The Conference is about finding ways to curb and eliminate illicit trafficking in such weapons. The Conference is not about outlawing the legal manufacture or trade of these weapons, nor their legal, private ownership.
2. The UN Conference will have no effect on the rights of civilians to legally own and bear arms.
The United Nations Charter (Article II, paragraph 7) specifically forbids the UN from intervening in matters that are within a Member State’s domestic jurisdiction. The UN Conference is being held as a result of a unanimous decision by Member States and will not interfere with any State’s internal laws or regulations and will not violate national sovereignty. The Conference will seek to promote global peace, security and development through promotion of international norms and cooperation to combat the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons.
3. The United Nations is seeking to strengthen the law enforcement capacities of States through cooperation in information sharing and openness about arms trading and production.
Greater cooperation in enforcement of import and export control and brokering regulations, for example, will strengthen the capabilities of all States.
From: un.org
4. More than 500 million small arms and light weapons are in circulation around the world – one for about every 12 people. They were the weapons of choice in 46 out of 49 major conflicts since 1990, causing four million deaths – about 90 per cent of them civilians, and 80 per cent women and children.
Human security is under increasing threat from the spread of small arms and light weapons and their illegal trade. These were the weapons of choice in 46 of 49 major conflicts since 1990. They have devastated many societies and caused incalculable human suffering. They continue to pose an enormous humanitarian challenge, particularly in internal conflicts where insurgent militias fight against government forces. In these conflicts, a high proportion of the casualties are civilians who are the deliberate targets of violence — a gross violation of international humanitarian law. This has led to millions of deaths and injuries, the displacement of populations, and suffering and insecurity around the world.
5. Two million children have been killed in the last ten years in conflicts where small arms have been used; five million have been disabled; and twelve million left homeless.
Nobody is immune from devastation
No region, no country is immune from the devastating consequences of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. While accumulations of these weapons by themselves do not cause conflicts, easy access encourages violence as an option to settle differences and tends to worsen the conflict and make it more lethal. Easy access interferes with development and relief assistance efforts, and endangers the lives of humanitarian aid workers, non-governmental partners and United Nations peacekeepers.
*******************
The US is one of major producer of weapons in the world. As such, it is in our National Interest to ostensibly claim that our sovereignty is being infringed in order to continue to facilitate the illicit trade. Any such agreement, binding or non-binding, to limit the illicit trade would be anti-business. And anti-business is bad for the US economy.
God Bless America.
*******************
Notice to Conservatives: None of the above has been reviewed or approved by Rush. Do not under any circumstances read the material at the referenced sites until Rush gives explicit approval to do so.
jttmab |
