This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/world/iran-and-north-korea-block-arms-trade-treaty.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
U.N. Treaty To Control Arms Sales Hits Snag U.N. Treaty to Control Arms Sales Hits Snag
(about 2 hours later)
UNITED NATIONS — The global attempt to establish a universal standard to regulate the sale of conventional weapons suffered a temporary setback on Thursday after Iran, Syria and North Korea opposed the draft Arms Trade Treaty, blocking the consensus needed for passage after years of arduous negotiations. UNITED NATIONS — The global effort to regulate the sale of conventional weapons suffered a significant though likely temporary setback on Thursday after Iran, Syria and North Korea opposed the draft Arms Trade Treaty, blocking the consensus needed for passage after years of arduous negotiations.
The three countries, often isolated as pariahs for their arms and human rights records, used their rejection of the treaty to lash out at what they see as their unfair treatment.The three countries, often isolated as pariahs for their arms and human rights records, used their rejection of the treaty to lash out at what they see as their unfair treatment.
Achieving consensus among all 193 member states of the United Nations is considered a monumental task, but it was hoped that it would be possible in this case because so many countries supported the idea of trying to regulate the $70 billion annual industry that causes so much death and destruction. Achieving consensus among all 193 member states of the United Nations is considered a monumental task, but it was hoped that it would be possible in this case because so many countries supported the idea of trying to regulate the $70 billion annual industry at the root of much death and destruction.
After Iran and North Korea voted against the draft treaty, Peter Woolcott, the Australian ambassador who was the president of the treaty conference, suspended the meeting. But diplomats and analysts said both countries seemed adamant in their objections, and when the meeting resumed, Syria voted against the treaty as well. The treaty would require states exporting conventional weapons to develop criteria that would link exports to avoiding human rights abuses, terrorism and organized crime. It would also ban shipments if they were deemed harmful to women and children.
Without consensus it was expected that the treaty would be sent to the General Assembly as early as next week for approval. That is considered a weaker, but no less binding, manner of getting the treaty passed. After Iran and North Korea voted against the draft treaty, Peter Woolcott, the Australian ambassador who was the president of the treaty conference, suspended the meeting. When it resumed, Syria voted against the treaty as well.
Although opposition from Iran, North Korea and Syria had been expected, there was hope among diplomats and outside proponents of the treaty that the three countries would not stand in the way of an accord that so many others want. They all belong to the roughly 120-member Nonaligned Movement — Iran is the current president of that group — and the bulk of its members in Africa and Latin American strongly backed the treaty. Without consensus it was expected that the treaty would be sent to the General Assembly as early as next week for approval. That is considered a weaker, but no less binding, manner of getting it passed. After General Assembly passage, the treaty would still require ratification by 50 member states before it could take effect.
But in the end, Iran, North Korea and Syria went with their domestic concerns. All three are subject to arms embargoes already, and were concerned that the treaty would add further muscle to such blockades, diplomats and analysts said. “We are certainly disappointed, because we could not achieve the expected result tonight,” said Juan M. Gómez-Robledo, vice minister of multilateral affairs and the head of the Mexican delegation, “but it is only matter of days,because this conference has shown that the overwhelming majority wish to adopt this text.”
After the consensus failed, one delegate after another took to the floor to express disappointment that just three countries had been able to block a treaty aimed at curbing violence around the world. He rejected the three countries’ objections that not enough time or attention had been given to negotiate their concerns, noting that the talks had been going on for seven years.
Their frustration was echoed by rights groups that had been lobbying heavily for the United Nations to approve the treaty. Most countries who spoke after the treaty stalled said they fully supported it, although some major ones, including India and Russia, voiced strong reservations about some provisions. India said the draft treaty favored exporters. Russia said it should be more specific about banning conventional weapons sales to nonstate actors.
“The world has been held hostage by three states,” said Anna Macdonald, the head of arms control at Oxfam. “We have known all along that the consensus process was deeply flawed, and today we see it is actually dysfunctional.” Countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea, she said, “should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of the world how the sale of weapons should be regulated.” Thomas M. Countryman, the assistant secretary of state who led the American delegation, said that the United States would support the treaty in the General Assembly based on the fact that, he said, it would promote global security, advance humanitarian objectives and curb illegal arms sales, all without affecting the constitutional right to bear arms.
In a statement, Amnesty International called the action by the three countries “a deeply cynical move.” The treaty would require states exporting conventional weapons to develop criteria that would link exports to avoiding human rights abuses, terrorism and organized crime. Although opposition from Iran, North Korea and Syria had been expected, diplomats and outside proponents of the treaty hoped the three countries would not block an accord sought by so many . They all belong to the roughly 120-member Nonaligned Movement — Iran is the current president of that group — and the bulk of its members in Africa and Latin American strongly backed the treaty.
In rejecting the treaty, Mohammad Khazaee, the Iranian ambassador, said the text left too much in doubt. But in the end, the three went with their domestic concerns. All three are subject to arms embargoes already, and were concerned that the treaty would add further muscle to such blockades.
After the consensus failed, one delegate after another, notably from Africa and Latin America, took to the floor to express disappointment that just three countries had stalled a treaty aimed at curbing violence globally.
Their frustration was echoed by rights groups that have long sought such a treaty. “The world has been held hostage by three states,” said Anna Macdonald, the head of arms control at Oxfam. “We have known all along that the consensus process was deeply flawed, and today we see it is actually dysfunctional.” In rejecting the treaty, the Iranian ambassador, Mohammad Khazaee, said it left too much in doubt.
“While the rights of arms-exporting states is well preserved in this text,” he said, “the right of importing states to acquire and import arms for their security needs is subject to the discretionary judgment and subjective assessment of the exporting states.”“While the rights of arms-exporting states is well preserved in this text,” he said, “the right of importing states to acquire and import arms for their security needs is subject to the discretionary judgment and subjective assessment of the exporting states.”
He said that the measure would leave the sale of conventional weapons covered by the text “highly susceptible to politicization, manipulation and discrimination.”He said that the measure would leave the sale of conventional weapons covered by the text “highly susceptible to politicization, manipulation and discrimination.”
Iran also took a couple of indirect swipes at the United States and Israel. The preamble of the treaty stresses that use of individual weapons for sporting or traditional uses is protected — considered a bow to the United States, where the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups have criticized the treaty despite assurances it would not restrict the constitutional rights of American gun owners. Iran also took a couple of indirect swipes at the United States and Israel over language in the preamble — meant to mollify the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups — that stresses that use of individual weapons for sporting or similar activities is protected.
But Iran and the N.R.A. turned out to be unlikely allies, at least for the moment. Both Iran and Syria suggested that there should have been a specific reference to the rights of states facing occupation to acquire arms, referring to the Palestinians.
“While the right of individuals to own and use guns has been protected in the current text to meet the constitutional requirements of only one state, the inalienable right to self-determination of peoples under foreign occupation or alien and colonial domination has completely been ignored, just to appease that state and its staunch ally in the Middle East,” Mr. Khazaee said. Given the civil war in Syria, its ambassador, Bashar Jaafari, also said arms shipments to terrorist groups and nonstate actors should have been banned.
He also objected to the treaty’s exemption concerning arms transfers by states to their own armed forces outside their borders — saying such weapons had been used “to commit aggression and occupation” in many parts of the world, including the Middle East. This was an indirect reference to the American invasion of Iraq, among other instances. Given the violence being visited on civilians in Syria by government forces, the treaty, if in effect, could well curb weapons supplies to the Damascus government, which Iran supports as its key Arab ally.
Syria, too, suggested that there should have been a specific reference to the rights of states facing occupation to acquire arms. Given the civil war in Syria, its ambassador, Bashar Jaafari, also said arms shipments to terrorist groups and nonstate actors should have been banned.
North Korea’s envoy, Ri-tong Il, said the treaty could be “politically abused by major arms exporters.”
The treaty would for the first time set international standards for conventional weapons sales, tying them to respect for human rights, the prevention of war crimes and the protection of civilians. Rights advocates have called the treaty the most ambitious attempt to stop the illicit spread of weapons.

Rick Gladstone contributed reporting.

Rick Gladstone contributed reporting.