UNITED
NATIONS, March
18 -- As the
Arms Trade
Treaty talks
got underway
Monday morning
at the UN, as
if in a
parallel world
France and the
UK
among others
were pushing
to be able to
arm the rebels
in Syria. How
would the
proposed ATT
apply to such
arms
transfers, or
to France's
air-dropping
of weapons
into Libya's
Nafusa
mountains?
A
pro-ATT press
conference was
given
including
Oxfam's Anna
Macdonald,
the actor
Djimon Hounsou
and Jeffrey
Duke of the
South Sudan
Network
on Small Arms.
Regarding
South
Sudan, Inner
City Press how
the proposed
ATT would have
allowed
the SPLA to
become armed
to fight
aginst
Khartoum? How
would it apply
to the
SPLM-North in
Southern
Kordofan? And,
of course, to
armin the
Syrian rebels.
The
question was
referred to
Duke of the
South Sudan
Network on
Small
Arms, who
said, “what
you've stated
is a concern
world has to
come
to terms with
when
considering
how to control
arms... Our
struggle
was a genuine,
legitimate
struggle for
liberation
against
oppression
everyone could
see.”
There
are of course
other
oppressions
that can be
seen. Can
rebels there
all be armed?
Duke
continued that
it's a “high
level
political
decision to
distinguish
which groups
are pursuing
the rightful
cause of self
determination.”
Fine.
But who makes
that
determination,
which rebels
are
legitimate?
Consider
Syria. Or Sri
Lanka, or
Sudan. Or
Palestine. Or
any number
of other
places.
Duke
said, and it
is not clear
if this is
Oxfam's
position, if
you
“support them,
make it
transparent...
the ATT is
supposed to
indicate
transparency
in transfers,
liberation
organizations
must be
discussed and
made public.
The world
cannot watch
while a group
is
being
oppressed.
What's
important is
transparency
in support.”
Is
that Oxfam's
position?
France's? The
UK's?
Oxfam's
Head
of Arms
Control Anna
Macdonald was
second to
answer, adding
that
the ATT would
be
“preventative.”
It would not
immediately
“solve
the problems
of Syria” but
could “stop
future Syrias,
Malis,
Libyas” by
stopping the
stockpiling of
weapons where
there's a risk
of human
rights abuse.
But
still, how
would such
governments be
overthrown?
With
sling-shots?
Over
in the North
Lawn, India
was saying the
draft favors
arms
exporters.
A Permanent
Five member of
the Security
Council called
the draft
“rubbish.”
Macdonald said
rather than a
weak consensus
text it
might be worth
taking it to
the General
Assembly for a
vote. Coming
out of the
Security
Council an
hour later,
another
Council member
said the key
would be
implementation,
and laughed at
the question
of
Syria. And so
it goes at the
UN. Watch this
site.
, 
