On 26 October, the UN General Assembly’s First Committee (which deals with disarmament and national security) passed a draft resolution requesting the Secretary-General to look into the possibility of creating a comprehensive, legally binding international instrument to control the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.
Co-sponsored by 116 states, the resolution received overwhelming support. Of the 164 states that voted (the delegates of a number of smaller states were absent), 139 were in favour, including Britain and the whole of Europe; 24 abstained, including China, Cuba, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and Somalia; and only one voted against – the United States.
It appears that most of the world would like to control the trade in conventional arms – the assault rifles in the hands of the boy soldiers of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda and the warring militias of Chechnya, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Tonga......
The voting patterns over the last 12 months are revealing. On a resolution on the illicit trade in small arms, 172 countries were in favour, with no abstentions and only the US against. On a resolution towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, 168 were in favour, there were eight abstentions, and four against: Equatorial Guinea, India, North Korea and the US. On a draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, 175 countries were in favour, there were four abstentions, and two against: North Korea and the US.
Is it naive to ask why the richest and most ‘Christian’ country in the world should go out on a limb and set itself against all that seems right and honourable and Christian in this way? Is it too simplistic to wonder why the US is willing to vote against everyone else and align itself with North Korea?
Not that we can, with integrity, express self-righteous indignation at the voting patterns of our partner in the ‘war on terror’. Even now, the British government is using all its diplomatic skills to back the US in blocking a ban on cluster bombs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The reaons for a vote against are not always what's assumed or implied. On the small arms initiative, the US voted against it because they thought the actions were woefully inadequate. The US is in fact spending more money than any other on small arms control. I found a response at this page http://www.armscontrol.org/interviews/20060811_Kidd.asp that will shed some light on that issue.
The nuclear issue is more troubling. It's a self defense issue. While not Christian, if Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons and ignore treaties, is it wise to put down your arms?
And on the issue of the US being the most Christian country in the world: I think that that refers to percentage of individuals who are believers. Government policy, though is something different entirely. If the UK and US were passive like Jesus, would they exist?
I do not agree with all the George Bush does, but I think the US UN delegation is competant. With respect to small arms, I think it's not that the US delegation disagrees with the end goals, they disagree with the way that it's being addressed. Granted, they are arrogant about it. It's like "Yes, we need to control arms imports, exports and it's our way or the highway." Bush et al. never got points in my book for their outstanding, or shall we say abominable diplomacy.
Leah's corrected me. Jesus was a pacifist, not passive.
Post a Comment