Military Review

Short International Arms Trade Treaty. In the UN, do not intend to listen to Russia?

33
The other day, the regular discussion of the International Trade Treaty took place at the United Nations building. weapons. The initiators of the conclusion of the ATT declare that it will bring order to the market for the sale of various types of weapons, the annual volumes of which (the market) today are, according to various estimates, from 65 to 70 billion dollars. To restore order is to put a fat cross on the illegal circulation of weapons, which today often manifests itself in different countries of the world.


Short International Arms Trade Treaty. In the UN, do not intend to listen to Russia?


If you turn to stories discussing the need to sign the ATT, then the whole story begins in the spring of 1997. It was at that time that the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates (ex-President of Poland), Tenzin Gyatso (Dalai Lama) and Oscar Arias Sanchez (Ex-President of Costa Rica), unexpectedly preoccupied with the uncontrolled state of the military equipment market, decided to express an idea about the expediency of signing international treaty that would eradicate the illicit arms trade. The Nobel laureates, of course, were listened to, said “thank you very much” for the initiative, but did not develop the initiative, to put it mildly - they forgot about it for a while.

However, after about eight years (in 2005), one of the most “peace-loving” countries on our planet, the United Kingdom, decided to reanimate the initiative. It would seem that the British for their desire to eradicate the illicit arms trade on the world market need only applaud and immediately put all the necessary signatures on the relevant document, but many countries, as they say, began to be tormented by vague doubts. The fact is that if such a “peaceful” initiative is expressed by the UK, then doubts are born of their own accord. As it turned out, these doubts were not idle at all.

Since the idea of ​​signing the ATT (the name was originally somewhat different, but it is not so important), more than 16 years have passed, but not all countries in the world, let's say, were quick to sign the document and, moreover, ratify it, passing through parliaments or their existing counterparts. Even more “wonderful” is that the UK itself is not even going to ratify it, which, through the mouth of its foreign minister, Mr. Stroit, has signed for the document “by the whole world”.

To date, of all the countries that are part of the UN, only four countries have ratified the ATT with 107 signatories. Ratified - Antigua and Barbuda, Nigeria, Guyana and Iceland. In order for the document to enter into force, it must be ratified by at least fifty States Signatories of the ATT.

Now it is worth touching the letters of this ATT and the relationship to its letter of the Russian Federation. So, the document at first glance looks kind: the regulation of the arms trade processes, the exceptional legality of transactions, the guarantee of the right of states to self-defense (both individual and collective), the rules for imposing an embargo on states, the ban on the supply of those weapons that were used for genocide , terrorist attacks, war crimes, etc. The agreement creates regulations for the sale of armored vehicles aviation, ships and submarines, artillery, air defense systems, small arms.

But there are gaps in this agreement that made the Russian delegation to the UN not to sign an ATT. The point is that the treaty is very superficially considering the issue of re-export of weapons and does not address at all the issue of the inadmissibility of the supply of various types of weapons to so-called unauthorized non-state actors. In simple terms, it turns out that the document actually recognizes the possibility of the sale of certain types of weapons to various extremist groups, which have nothing to do with the state structures of the country in which, let's say, operate. The Russian delegation is not satisfied with this version of the treaty, which its representatives directly stated, expressing the words that if such concerns were taken into account, Russia would immediately sign the treaty with the possibility of its subsequent ratification.

Let us try to figure out what could be the adoption of an ATT today on the conditions that were voiced above. So, the contract regulates the introduction of an arms embargo with respect to a particular country, but does not regulate (does not affect at all) the possibility of supplying weapons to non-state structures. If we proceed, for example, from the Syrian situation, it turns out (in the event that the ATT acted now) that the “world community” easily brings the matter to a total embargo on the supply of military equipment and weapons to the legitimate authorities of this state, while legally passing to the sale of equipment and weapons of the same Syrian militants. In principle, something similar is happening now, but only so far it all works on an unofficial level, and after the possible adoption of an ATT, everything will still be legally justified.

As a result, this same ATT as an effective legal basis can be used against any state whose authorities suddenly did not please the “world majority.” How to use? Yes, it’s happening now without adopting any document: to create mixed armed groups in it, striving for “freedom and democracy”, which can already be, declaring it legal, to supply weapons legally and without restrictions. What a wonderful document, however, was prepared, isn’t it? .. It is not surprising that Iran, the DPRK and Syria opposed its adoption. Russia has so far refrained from signing it, hoping that both re-export points and bans on the sale of weapons to non-state unauthorized structures will be worked out and entered into the treaty. China is abstaining too.

Question: why in the same UK local parliamentarians are not eager to move to ratification of the treaty, why is the agreement signed by John Kerry (US Secretary of State) also unlikely to pass ratification in the United States Congress? The fact is that both these countries themselves are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, they clearly want to bring a legal base for the arms trade with those with whom they wish at the moment to be necessary (even with Al-Qaeda), but on the other hand - in the UK there are “unauthorized non-state” structures that would They wanted to receive their weapons from the outside with a legal justification, legally. In Ulster, for example, there will definitely be interested persons ... In general, both want to and prick ...

Another question: why not listen to Russia and China, who are proposing to bring to the ATT a clause on a ban on the supply of weapons to rogues who present themselves as fighters for democracy? So if such an item is introduced, the contract for the same States and Great Britain will lose any meaning at all, because to think that Washington and London sign an agreement for world peace, well, it’s already completely naive ... After the Russian proposals are already included in the document It will be known exactly how the old Soviet ammunition carrying toxic gases got into the territory of the same Syria if the USSR never delivered such ammunition to Damascus. Is the disclosure of such a secret in the interests of those who made the “knight's move” to substitute Moscow? Of course not.

But if the ATT remains in its present form, Russia and China will not begin to sign it, and the Russian Federation and the PRC will have their hands free to implement their plans to sell weapons where they see fit. It turns out that the signing and ratification of the treaty in its current form is impossible by definition, how low and the likelihood that Russia's position on the ATT will be heard. And if so, then the ATT fully discredits itself before entry into force.

As they say, we do not need such an ATT ...
Author:
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Gennady1973
    Gennady1973 30 September 2013 08: 57 New
    +7
    I wonder who will decide who can and who can not? How to recognize and distinguish "fighters for democracy" from militants and terrorists in appearance? We need to supply as much as we think is necessary and to whom we want. We do not need anyone to ask permission The main thing is not to harm yourself and that's it.
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 30 September 2013 09: 09 New
      +3
      Who will comply with projects restricting the sale of weapons when this is the most profitable business, bringing huge profits to exporting countries?
      1. Vrungel78
        Vrungel78 30 September 2013 09: 38 New
        +3
        Yes, and this is the main reason for the blocking of arms sales by Russia. The UN has long since turned from a political organization into a prostitute of the "powerful", adopting resolutions that are convenient for amers and their henchmen. And they, in turn, destroy the economy of the next axis of evil and then throw their goods at them, buy up profitable objects, such as oil fields, etc., for a pittance, in general, seize territory. Russia and China (lately) have a bone in their throats. And judging by the outcome with Syria, at least tibia.
        1. Nuar
          Nuar 30 September 2013 11: 43 New
          +3
          Quote: Vrungel78
          The UN has long been transformed from a political organization into a prostitute of the "powerful"

          and was she once different?
          before the organization was established (45), the intervention in Korea immediately began (50). UN Voyka fight against communism.

          After this incident, the Union tried to block the decisions of these tricks, and only by this the UN looked more or less decent.
    2. SHILO
      SHILO 30 September 2013 09: 10 New
      +6
      Ratifiers - Antigua and Barbuda, Nigeria, Guyana and Iceland.


      Significantly. Do they have anything to export?
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 30 September 2013 10: 46 New
        +5
        Antigua and Barbuda - bows, spears, poisoned arrows. laughing
      2. IRBIS
        IRBIS 30 September 2013 10: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: SHILO
        Ratifiers - Antigua and Barbuda, Nigeria, Guyana and Iceland.


        Significantly. Do they have anything to export?


        Their warehouses are littered with spears, bows and arrows with the latest ballistic tips. Everything is in good condition.
    3. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 30 September 2013 10: 06 New
      +1
      Spit. We sold and will sell.
    4. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 30 September 2013 23: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Gennady1973
      It’s interesting and who will decide who can be put and who not? How to find out and


      Like who ? US State Department estessno. Do not go to a fortuneteller.
      1. alexng
        alexng 1 October 2013 01: 05 New
        0
        Will be gone.
  2. shpuntik
    shpuntik 30 September 2013 08: 58 New
    +9
    As they say, we do not need such an ATT ...

    Another scam from Ban Ki-moon. Booth, give us back, wild dogs !!!
  3. svp67
    svp67 30 September 2013 09: 01 New
    +3
    There is nothing personal here - just "Britain's interests are above all ..."
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 30 September 2013 10: 39 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      There is nothing personal here - just "Britain's interests are above all ..."

      An attempt to push through a law permitting the overthrow of objectionable governments, bypassing directly the permission from the UN. Indeed, in this scenario, the opposition can supply at least airplanes with at least chemical warfare agents - all for the good of democracy!
  4. Airman
    Airman 30 September 2013 09: 04 New
    +6
    We climbed into the WTO, God forbid we get into the MTTO, then we will live according to the orders of the West.
  5. Shkodnik65
    Shkodnik65 30 September 2013 09: 23 New
    +3
    Let's analyze: for the first time, the Dalai Lama and the President of Costa Rica Sounded the idea of ​​Walesa, then Great Britain "took care of" the problem, ratified the treaty by Antigua and Barbuda, Nigeria, Guyana and Iceland. Well, why BOTH talk about joining this sharashkin office ??? England has muddied, so let it join with all its allies and satellites. And in general, in my opinion, it is less necessary to limit yourself to such agreements.
  6. Very old
    Very old 30 September 2013 09: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: Gennady1973
    . The main thing is not to hurt yourself.

    Perhaps this is the most important thing. Often Russian weapons were used against Russia. And, as the air defense officer said, "God forbid we get in." And in the UN, Churkin and the PRC are still in the same team, nothing shines for the West
  7. Nitarius
    Nitarius 30 September 2013 09: 32 New
    0
    as always, out of a good IDEA DEPLOYED THROUGH THE REAR AND FOR YOURSELF!
    False Britain - Berezovsky did not give up. And here he plays the giveaway.
    no - it’s better not to sign anything —SUTER AMERICA DOES NOT SIGN A contract - to extradite our criminals
    1. v.lyamkin
      v.lyamkin 30 September 2013 12: 21 New
      +1
      And you didn’t notice: always, if an idea is dragged through the backside, then it, too, always turns from good to bad. This is a pattern.
  8. kosmos84
    kosmos84 30 September 2013 09: 33 New
    +2
    LUKoil: gas will cost 37,5 rubles

    http://auto.mail.ru/article.html?id=43674
    there you go
  9. morpogr
    morpogr 30 September 2013 09: 34 New
    0
    That's who came up with let them sign and comply, but we will see and trade.
  10. Russ69
    Russ69 30 September 2013 09: 41 New
    0
    As they like shaving, they push all sorts of contracts with the Yankees, and then when everyone is ready, they themselves refuse to sign, so it was with mines, cluster munitions and I still don’t remember something ...
  11. navy1301
    navy1301 30 September 2013 10: 01 New
    0
    Well, what are you talking about .....

    "-To date, of all the countries that make up the UN, only four states have ratified the ATT with 107 signatories. The ratifiers are Antigua and Barbuda, Nigeria, Guyana and Iceland. In order for the document to enter into force, it must be ratified at least fifty States signatory to the ATT.- "


    What is the point of waiting for Russia to say China? will sign the majority and enter into force .... but then it will be interesting
  12. ReifA
    ReifA 30 September 2013 10: 04 New
    +1
    You look like that .. Any proposal from Britain and the United States was originally with a catch, therefore, if they themselves offered, let them show by personal example, signing. And we can smile approvingly.
    1. Papania
      Papania 30 September 2013 13: 48 New
      +1
      Why smile - show big and dirty .....
  13. Sunjar
    Sunjar 30 September 2013 10: 10 New
    +5
    Urgently, urgently, to sign and immediately start supplying tanks to Mexico: there, the local drug traffickers really need heavy equipment. Actually in the United States, you can supply all sorts of weapons, in Detroit, for example. Let the local niggas have some fun The Indians can be armed: they will begin to take revenge for the genocide of their people. Well, in general, everyone in all countries will begin to trade in arms. "Excuse me, but what about the APC?" "50000 thousand bucks." "I take it, wrap two!" Here we will live peacefully ...
  14. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 September 2013 11: 22 New
    +3
    Obviously, the treaty is being prepared solely as a lever of influence on Russia and China. They will crush and annoy. There is obviously only one way out. Sign your agreement within the BRICS or SCO, create an alternative international arms trade bloc with advantages for yourself. Work within its framework and use the treaty to put pressure on Western countries. The UN treaty will have to be "coordinated" for another 10-20 years, if there is an alternative working agreement, there are more chances that our opinion will be heard and taken into account. While the crisis in America and Europe has weakened, you need to seize the moment and change the rules of the game.
    1. 270580
      270580 30 September 2013 12: 13 New
      0
      It is high time to change the rules, and not to follow the lead of our so-called "partners"
  15. 270580
    270580 30 September 2013 12: 15 New
    +4
    sleep and see where nae..t Russia.
  16. Ihrek
    Ihrek 30 September 2013 15: 12 New
    0
    Ratified by those who have nothing to trade.
    1. 270580
      270580 30 September 2013 15: 38 New
      0
      Quote: Jamal
      Ratified by those who have nothing to trade.
      1. 270580
        270580 30 September 2013 15: 38 New
        0
        ratified by those who cannot read between the lines.
  17. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 30 September 2013 16: 51 New
    +1
    It’s time to get used to what the impudent Saka Kodla does not offer is always to the detriment of Russia. It’s time to think about how to get out and break up the WTO or they will devour us. We need to trade weapons, but only sell to adequate and friendly regimes. it says business and nothing personal.
  18. Lavr75
    Lavr75 30 September 2013 21: 15 New
    0
    But someone minus someone hurt
  19. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 30 September 2013 23: 36 New
    0
    However, after about eight years (in 2005), one of the most “peace-loving” countries of our planet - Great Britain - decided to reanimate the initiative. It would seem that the British for their urge to eradicate arms trafficking in the world market only need to applaud and immediately put all the necessary signatures on the relevant document, but many countries, as they say, began to be tormented by vague doubts. The fact is that if the UK expresses such a “peaceful” initiative, then doubts arise by themselves.

    laughing good
  20. SIT
    SIT 1 October 2013 15: 37 New
    0
    In general, as a whole, without a relatively MTTO, our world lives according to some kind of dislocated laws. In order to buy a shotgun for one person, you need certificates and a conclusion from a local police officer, but if a crowd of thugs has a lot of dough and especially black cash, then you don’t need to get any certificates on the gray market with a steamer with holds full of weapons - pay the loot and take apart the pieces of iron. The white arms market is comparable in turnover with the gray one, only tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, etc. are sold on white, and gray is mostly light weapons. So how much do you need to sell AK and M16 to help out the same dough as for example for a fighter? The world is already littered with these weapons and ammunition. It is without a black market. If taking into account the black market, then only in the Russian Federation 255 criminal trunks were wanted. These are 000 divisions. And all that went to the same East Africa according to gray schemes also became part of the black market. And finally, what was pulled from Gaddafi’s arsenals. There are so many MANPADS that, if desired and simple organization, terrorists can suddenly cease the existence of such a mode of transport as civil aviation. One must either do something to limit this uncontrolled arms race, or give out all 20 million for signature. Kalash from warehouses to the entire adult population and organize a national guard from it, in case someone decides to quietly throw a small handful of 17-1 million units of weapons wandering around the world what thread brothers in faith in Russia, so that they have something to come to Prospect Mira in Navruz Bayram.