John Kerry signs U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

[Masark]

Worst waste I ever saw was the throwing away of an industrial sized waste container full of UNOPENED packages of air navigation charts because they were out of data, many of which were not even needed at the command.

Well yeah. Stuff goes out of date. They publish a new Canada Flight Supplement ever 56 days.

Noble as the treaty may be, I have one concern about the UN being able to determine who does and doesn't get weapons: As I recall, the UN doesn't recognize Taiwan. Will this, in any way, effect our ability to supply Taiwan with arms?

Unlikely. Read articles 6 and 7.

As far as I'm aware, Taiwan isn't the subject of any arms embargos nor have they been involved in genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, serious violations of international humanitarian law, serious violations of international human rights law, or sponsoring terrorism/organized crime.

And in other news, Harper appears to be uninterested in signing it.

[Xarkan]

We're the 91st country to sign the treaty. Requires ratification from Congress (which it will not receive).

http://world.time.com/2013/09/26/the...-trade-treaty/

Looking at the list..

Denmark signed that treaty but did not ratify it. What exactly is stopping us? I mean come on, the great Danish weapons industry? Wtf really? At least Sweden make and sell loads of weapons but Denmark? Are we gonna mass import weapons from the US and sell them to banana republics? That would not end well. For us or for the banana republics.

*taps foot*

Ratify that please.

[Masark]

Looking at the list..

Denmark signed that treaty but did not ratify it. What exactly is stopping us? I mean come on, the great Danish weapons industry? Wtf really? At least Sweden make and sell loads of weapons but Denmark?

It would restrict your exports of weapons-grade satisfaction.

[Deleted]

So which firearms will get banned?
It sounds a little unconstitutional.

Try reading the link.

[Masark]

So which firearms will get banned?
It sounds a little unconstitutional.

None. This is about restricting what countries military arms (tanks, planes, helicopters, missiles, etc. in addition to small arms) can be sold to.

[Kellhound]

Its just another treaty that most of the world will ignore anytime thay want to.

- - - Updated - - -

Well yeah. Stuff goes out of date. They publish a new Canada Flight Supplement ever 56 days.



Unlikely. Read articles 6 and 7.

As far as I'm aware, Taiwan isn't the subject of any arms embargos nor have they been involved in genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, serious violations of international humanitarian law, serious violations of international human rights law, or sponsoring terrorism/organized crime.

And in other news, Harper appears to be uninterested in signing it.

The unit in question had a known need for maps, they had 5X what they needed. They also had maps they didnt need at all. The funny part was the fire storm caused when I found classified maps mixed in....

[Slybak]

Yep.

Congress: "Here, have a tank!"
Army: "We have enough."
Congress: "We weren't asking. Take your fucking tank."

While that does happen, it often works more like this:

Foreign Government: "We could use some money to deal with some problems that also affect you."
Congress: "Here, have lots of money!"
Foreign Government: "Wow, thanks!"
Congress: "But you have to use that money to buy tanks from this guy."
This Guy: "Woohoo!"
Foreign Government: "Uh... OK."
This Guy: "So who do I make the campaign donation out to?"
Congress: "My friends call me 'Cash.'"

This is why the treaty won't be ratified.

[Sunseeker]

I love all the people who think this will allow the UN to seize their private guns.

[Kalyyn]

Unlikely. Read articles 6 and 7.

As far as I'm aware, Taiwan isn't the subject of any arms embargos nor have they been involved in genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, serious violations of international humanitarian law, serious violations of international human rights law, or sponsoring terrorism/organized crime.

And in other news, Harper appears to be uninterested in signing it.

But my concern is that the UN considers Taiwan to be part of China, which is a habitual human rights violator. So my fear is that under this treaty, the UN may consider America's supplying of Taiwan as giving weapons to China. I hope these fears are unfounded, but they are fears nonetheless.

[Kellhound]

But my concern is that the UN considers Taiwan to be part of China, which is a habitual human rights violator. So my fear is that under this treaty, the UN may consider America's supplying of Taiwan as giving weapons to China. I hope these fears are unfounded, but they are fears nonetheless.

And the UN can do what exactly to stop the US from selling anything to anyone?

[Kalyyn]

And the UN can do what exactly to stop the US from selling anything to anyone?

Realistically, nothing. But the point of treaties is for countries to adhere to them, yes? So what I'm asking is, if America hypothetically were to follow the letter of this treaty, could we still offer protection to our allies in Taiwan? Because due to the UN's failure to recognize the nation of Taiwan, in their eyes we would be a) violating Chinese sovereignty, b) arming a foreign rebel group, c) exporting weapons to China, or d) all of the above. Now I've read your link, but I still can't figure out for sure if we'd be violating the treaty.

Do realize that I'm not arguing against this treaty in any way. I just have questions about it's implementation. So try not to think of me as an opponent here, but simply a curious observer.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

So which firearms will get banned?
It sounds a little unconstitutional.

None at all. It explicitly allows countries to use their own fire-arm ownership regulations. All it is for is halting the gun trade between nations that are known to commit genocide, sell weapons on to terrorists and warlords or commit major transgressions against the international treaties on human rights and war crimes. It won't mean that Ban Ki-moon will turn up at your house tomorrow morning and demand you turn over your weapons.

[Kellhound]

Realistically, nothing. But the point of treaties is for countries to adhere to them, yes? So what I'm asking is, if America hypothetically were to follow the letter of this treaty, could we still offer protection to our allies in Taiwan? Because due to the UN's failure to recognize the nation of Taiwan, in their eyes we would be a) violating Chinese sovereignty, b) arming a foreign rebel group, c) exporting weapons to China, or d) all of the above. Now I've read your link, but I still can't figure out for sure if we'd be violating the treaty.

Do realize that I'm not arguing against this treaty in any way. I just have questions about it's implementation. So try not to think of me as an opponent here, but simply a curious observer.

The UN decides things when the US decides it for them.... If the US decides it doesn't cover sales to the ROC, it doesn't cover it, period.

[Tinykong]

While that does happen, it often works more like this:

Foreign Government: "We could use some money to deal with some problems that also affect you."
Congress: "Here, have lots of money!"
Foreign Government: "Wow, thanks!"
Congress: "But you have to use that money to buy tanks from this guy."
This Guy: "Woohoo!"
Foreign Government: "Uh... OK."
This Guy: "So who do I make the campaign donation out to?"
Congress: "My friends call me 'Cash.'"

This is why the treaty won't be ratified.

And this is also why members of Congress owning stock in companies like GE, Proctor and Gamble, Lockheed Martin, etc. is complete shit.

[Kellhound]

There does exist the possibility that some aspects of the treaty could be used to enact laws in the US concerning gun control under the guise of implementing the treaty, that is where the opposition comes from.

[Nakura Chambers]

Its a good treaty.

Doesn't stand a chance.

How is it good exactly?

[Kellhound]

How is it good exactly?

It feels good, and allows us to claim UN backing when we blow up ammo dumps in other countries.

[Tinykong]

It feels good

That's pretty much what all the gun control legislation under the Obama administration is centered around.

"Feels good, man."

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

There does exist the possibility that some aspects of the treaty could be used to enact laws in the US concerning gun control under the guise of implementing the treaty, that is where the opposition comes from.

No, there isn't. The treaty explicitly states that it does not concern itself with domestic firearms policy.

[Skroe]

No, there isn't. The treaty explicitly states that it does not concern itself with domestic firearms policy.

True. But it has the potential to limit the sale of guns between countries and individuals, which will shrink gun manufacturer's overall business. Less so foreign sales here, than domestic arms companies sales elsewhere. It will hurt their bottom line, end of story.

I call that a big positive.

As for being pass by Congress, well the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty wasn't either, but it's still observed. And I wouldn't exactly expect a Tea Party President anytime soon.