1
   

DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "

 
 
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 09:22 pm
By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS, July 7 (Reuters) - A U.N. meeting meant to expand a
five-year-old crackdown on the illicit global trade in small arms ended in
chaos on Friday as delegates ran out of time without reaching agreement
on a plan for future action.

"There was a total meltdown at the end. You don't know if it was a
conspiracy or just a screw-up
," said one delegate, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

Other delegates said negotiations had simply proceeded too slowly,
leaving too much to accomplish on the last day.

But Rebecca Peters of the London-based International Action Network on
Small Arms accused governments of letting a few states "hold them all
hostage and to derail any plans which might have brought any
improvements in this global crisis."

IANSA identified the main players blocking agreement as Cuba, India,
Iran, Pakistan and Russia. Other gun control activists named China, Egypt
and Venezuela as well.

The meeting was dogged from the start by zealous members of the
U.S. National Rifle Association, who flooded the United Nations with letters
falsely accusing it of secretly plotting to take away Americans' guns on
July 4, a U.N. holiday marking U.S. Independence Day when delegates did not meet.

The George W. Bush administration, an ally of the rifle association, set
the tone from the start when U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms
Control Robert Joseph laid out a long list of proposals that Washington
would not accept.

Joseph, however, said Washington was willing to endorse a set of global
principles aimed at keeping small arms out of the hands of groups intent
on human rights abuse, genocide or breaking U.N. arms embargoes.

The idea of tightening controls on international arms transfers turned out
to be a popular one, winning support from 115 governments, IANSA's
Anthea Lawson said.

But plans for a formal appeal for tougher controls died at the meeting's
end, although it was expected to resurface later in the year in the 192-
nation U.N. General Assembly.

The conference was called to update a 2001 action plan against illegal
small arms, which as defined by the United Nations range from pistols and
rifles to grenades, mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

But two weeks of negotiations and speeches came to naught.

"In my estimation, an agreed final declaration was within grasp," said
conference president Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador.
But he said the meeting had still succeeded by focusing attention on the
small arms issue.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 705 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 09:25 pm
Re: DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "
OmSigDAVID wrote:
"There was a total meltdown at the end. ,"

[snip]

The George W. Bush administration, an ally of the rifle association, set
the tone from the start


you get what you set up
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 09:52 pm
Re: DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "
OmSigDAVID wrote:

The meeting was dogged from the start by zealous members of the
U.S. National Rifle Association, who flooded the United Nations with letters
falsely accusing it of secretly plotting to take away Americans' guns on
July 4, a U.N. holiday marking U.S. Independence Day when delegates did not meet.


That is both hilarious and tragic at the same time.

They really gotta get over this self manufactured persecution complex problem.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 04:49 am
Re: DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The conference was called to update a 2001 action plan against illegal small arms, which as defined by the United Nations range from pistols and rifles to grenades, mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.


Well, the NRA and the Bush admin can be proud of themselves. It's really a good thing that illegal pistols, rifles, grenades, mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles will remain to be easily available on the black market. Somebody should tell Al Qaeda to write them a thank-you note.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 06:06 am
Re: DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "
old europe wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The conference was called to update a 2001 action plan against illegal small arms, which as defined by the United Nations range from pistols and rifles to grenades, mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.


Well, the NRA and the Bush admin can be proud of themselves. It's really a good thing that illegal pistols, rifles, grenades, mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles will remain to be easily available on the black market. Somebody should tell Al Qaeda to write them a thank-you note.


You really think they are going to do away with the black market? Just as gun control here in the US has done away with it. It is far easier to obtain fire arms illegally here in the US then it is to go out and by one. No paper work and they don't care why you are buying it.

While I support the shut down of black market fire arms I also think it is a pipe dream. You aren't going to end it any time soon. They have as much chance of defeating that as the left says we have of ending terrorism.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 06:15 am
Re: DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "
Baldimo wrote:
While I support the shut down of black market fire arms I also think it is a pipe dream. You aren't going to end it any time soon. They have as much chance of defeating that as the left says we have of ending terrorism.


I agree that it's not likely to end it any time soon. Does that mean we shouldn't at least try to make it more difficult for somebody who wants to buy a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile? Illegally?

You know, you won't stop the consumption of alcohol by underage people anytime soon. Does that mean we should do away with the laws altogether? Does it mean we shouldn't make an effort enforcing these laws?

Or, as you are saying (and I agree): we aren't going to end terrorism any time soon. Does that mean we should stop fighting terrorism? I don't think so, and I don't think you'd disagree with me.

So, what's the problem with cracking down on illegal arms traders? Internationally?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 07:51 am
People in the US who are politically minded pretty much have stances already mapped out on any given subject and that goes for any political persuasion even so called independents or the green party (whatever it is called.) Because we do (I count myself as I know sometimes (more often than not) I have hard time looking at something objectively) have our stances mapped out any new ideas which seems threaten that preconceived stance is looked on with hard suspicion.

I favor a compassionate government which helps those who have no other way to get what they need and because I do any idea that might be thrown around in a debate I would look at suspiciously. This is a mistake on my part because it distorts my objectivity.

Those who are so up in the air about gun control are the same way. They are so afraid that liberals want to take away their right to have guns that they fight even common sense regulations and laws which do not threaten legal gun ownership.

All people should want to stop International illegal gun trade and its just silly to not want to stop it because of the fear of having their gun rights taken away.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 10:23 am
Re: DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "
Baldimo wrote:

You really think they are going to do away with the black market? Just as gun control here in the US has done away with it. It is far easier to obtain fire arms illegally here in the US then it is to go out and by one. No paper work and they don't care why you are buying it.

While I support the shut down of black market fire arms I also think it is a pipe dream. You aren't going to end it any time soon. They have as much chance of defeating that as the left says we have of ending terrorism.


That is a terrible argument. Gotta do better than that, man.
0 Replies
 
chearn73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 11:23 am
So, I mighta missed it...but...did throngs of armed UN militia men flood the streets of the US confiscating small arms from the cold dead hands of americans? If it happened, it wasn't covered very extensively in our papers here.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 11:37 pm
Re: DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "
ehBeth wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
"There was a total meltdown at the end. ,"

[snip]

The George W. Bush administration, an ally of the rifle association, set
the tone from the start


you get what you set up


Yes, it's terrible when the President of the United States expresses his support for the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution that this country was founded under.

The President merely expressed to the U.N.'s little commitee that whatever they decided, the United States Constitution guaranteed the people of this country, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DANGEROUS MEETING ENDS IN " CHAOS "
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/25/2019 at 03:27:05