Will the Obama Administration Support An International Arms Trade Treaty?
Published October 06, 2009 @ 03:16PM PT

Today I got to sit through the United Nations General Assembly conference on disarmament thanks to Oxfam International's Conflict Voice initiative.
While many of the delegates discussed nuclear non-proliferation, one of the big questions at the Assembly was whether or not the United States would change its position on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) now that President Obama is at the helm of U.S. foreign policy decisions.
In October 2008, 145 states voted to start the UN process toward an Arms Trade Treaty showing increasing global consensus in favor of its adoption. At that time, the United States was the only country besides Zimbabwe to explicitly vote "No" on the treaty proceedings.
And then in the speech today from Ellen Tauscher, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, the topic of arms trade was noticeably absent making it clear that the Obama administration is not ready to create change on this issue, yet.
Tauscher, who is a higher-level official compared to those sent to the UN by the Bush administration, used her ten minutes on the Assembly floor mostly to highlight U.S. efforts toward nuclear non-proliferation. Tauscher barely mentioned the arms trade except for one short statement about restricting illegal arms trafficking into the U.S. The lack of discussion about the Arms Trade Treaty could mean that Obama hasn't chosen to address this topic yet or that the U.S. will again vote "No" on this measure.
For those unfamiliar with small arms trade, there are estimated to be nearly 650 million small arms in the world today. Oxfam International has reported that 2.1 million people have died as a result of armed violence. And women, in particular, are disproportionally affected by the arms trade as victims of it's violence. While available data supports the widespread assumption that most direct casualties of gun violence are men, particularly young men, women also suffer from firearms violence indirectly.
For example, WomenDeliver writes about how displaced women and girls are vulnerable to rape and other forms of sexual violence as they flee violent areas, when they search for firewood and even when they go to the bathroom at night. After a conflict, women become the main breadwinners and primary carers when male relatives are killed, injured or disabled by gun violence. And women, like men, are caught in the crossfire, both in times of war and of peace.
In general, the passage of the ATT would help prevent the sale of American weapons that are then used to commit human rights abuses or kill U.S. soldiers and peacekeepers when trafficked arms get into the wrong hands. The ATT would not effect national ownership of weapons in the United States, but rather help control movement of arms globally which is currently unregulated on an international level.
During the General Assembly, I got to hear one of the strongest pleas for passage of the ATT by Kenya's UN delegate who said that "longtime economic development is tied to longtime security." He reported that the lack of an Arms Trade Treaty has made it especially challenging for the Kenyan government to invest in human capital and create sustained peace or security while being forced to spend money on armed protection.
It is my hope that after hearing the different perspectives on this issue that the U.S. will decide to step up and assist in the passage of the Arms Trade Treaty in order to reduce violent conflict, human rights abuses and the misappropriation of U.S. weapons into the wrong hands around the world.
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Arms Trade Treaty: Women, Autonomy & Industry
-
Update: U.S. Agrees To Negotiate International Arms Trade Treaty
-
Update: Yoani Sánchez Detained & Beaten
Comments (7)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Jen Nedeau is a social media consultant, progressive activist, feminist speaker and writer. She currently lives in New York City, where she works full-time as the Director of Digital Strategy at Air America Media. In August 2008, Nedeau was selected to be the Editor of the WomensRights.Change.Org where she facilitates daily discussion about the feminist movement. Additionally, Nedeau volunteers as the Chief Technology Officer for New Leaders Council, a non-profit that offers exclusive training for young leaders. You can follow her on Twitter @HumanFolly or learn more here: www.jennedeau.com.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















It was a fascinating day, for sure. Women are often the afterthought when people think about war, conflict, guns, weapons, and all the other "macho" things. But the truth is that they are affected by conflict and displacement. And often, this means women lose access to life-saving health services, become victims of sexual abuse and violence, and come home to families torn apart by being abandoned.
Thanks for highlighting this issue, and of course, for linking to Women Deliver! We know that women in conflict areas are some of the most vulnerable and we need to Deliver for Them!
Posted by Janna Oberdorf on 10/06/2009 @ 05:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Some months ago I watched a doco on the situation in Darfur by Brian Steidle, called "The Devil Came on Horseback" In it he referenced that the European Union had called for an International Arms embargo to circumvent the genocide that was going on, and still is. He made the observation that the US was the only country unwilling to enter into such an agreement. He suggested that it was due to the US constitution relative to the right to bear arms. The US couldn't claim one thing in the international arena and have a different national law. Obama is between a rock and a hard place. Microcosm/macrocosm, remember?
Posted by Oceania OZ on 10/06/2009 @ 06:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Janna - great to meet you today...it was a really unique experience listening to all the remarks.
Oceania - haven't seen that movie, but I'll definitely check it out. And yes, Obama has a tough decision to make - especially if the US has political/economic ties to the arms trade (which it does).
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 10/07/2009 @ 05:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I found a site where you can watch it online :
http://media.causes.com/ribbon/591621
Not pretty.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 10/07/2009 @ 06:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I tried to watch it again on this site, but I wasn't able to download to the end. You might have to organize a community screening. We saw it on commercial TV over in parts.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 10/07/2009 @ 04:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hey, great piece!
I live in colombia, and we recently had a tough time with Venezuelan government since some weapons they bought from sweden ended up in our guerrilla's hands. But the problem, for me is even worse: How many kids have been killed in the states with legal guns, anyhow?
Ilegal or legal gun traffic should seriously be controled, and Mr. Obama should make the right choice, both nationally and internationally, and we all know what it is. Guns kill and that's the only function they have. So why should we, as a sane and healthy society, want them?
Posted by juana munoz on 10/15/2009 @ 10:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
History has proved, one of the only reasons the U.S. has never been invaded, is because the citizens are armed; not so ready to give up my rights, and I am a women.
Posted by L.S. hope on 10/16/2009 @ 11:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.