UN
Arms Trade
Treaty Opening
Stalled on
Question of
Palestine,
Ammo Is Easy?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee,
Partial
exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
July 2 -- Ban
Ki-moon was
slated to
speak at 10:30
am Monday
at the opening
of the UN
Conference on
the Arms Trade
Treaty. But it
did not
happen. The
opening was
delayed, at
least until
Monday
afternoon.
Why?
On
June
29 in a nearly
empty UN North
Lawn building,
two
representatives
of the
Palestinian
Mission to the
UN sat talking
with the
Argentine
chair of the
ATT. Nothing
was resolved.
On July 2,
sources in the
North Lawn
told Inner
City Press a
dispute arose
about where
and how
to seat
Palestine.
As
Inner
City Press exclusively
reported on
June 8,
Palestine
after
being voted
into UNESCO
next
participated
in the Law of
the Sea
event, which
it had been
seeking since
1974. And
now the ATT.
At
1:30
pm on Monday,
after asking
questions at
Security
Council
stakeouts by
Navi Pillay
and French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud,
Inner
City Press
asked the
Argentine
chair of the
ATT about the
Palestine
issue. It is
not resolved
yet, he
exclusively
told Inner
City Press.
They are
talking about
it
right now.
Two
representatives
of the Holy
Sea moved past
the stakeout
and into the
garage. They
are a
precedent;
there are
others. Watch
this site.
Footnote:
In
an NGO press
conference
last week
previewing the
ATT, the word
"Palestine"
did not arise.
(Nor does it
in this
derivative
wire story.)
This, however,
was asked and
answered:
Q:
the
US/Mexico
dispute. The
NRA has been
mentioned. It
has its
internal
political
issues on
this. Some
have said
ammunition
shouldn't be
covered. How
do you expect
this issue
will play out
in
July?
Abramson:
Are
you talking
about
ammunition in
particular?
There were a
couple
disputes in
February. ...
It's my
expectation
that
ammunition
will be
included in
the treaty.
It's really a
very small
number of
countries,
including the
United States,
who are
arguing
against it.
And it's a
little bit
nonsensical
for the United
States,
actually
because the
United States
already
licenses the
import and
export of
weapons, so
functionally
they're
arguing for a
standard lower
than what they
already do. I
think they
understand
that. You've
already
started
hearing the
United States
talk about, if
you provide us
with a
workable
solution we'll
work at that.
So I'm
relatively
confident
that that
issue can be
worked
through, in
part because
it's just
insane to
think of this
treaty without
ammunition.
When you're
talking about
the harms
caused by
guns, it's not
the gun, it's
the
bullet. If
you're talking
about the
issue where
you're asking,
will
this make a
difference?
The guns, they
have a long
life span. If
you
really want to
control their
harm, you have
to control the
expendable
item, which is
the
ammunition.
And multiple
countries are
making this
case. So I do
expect that be
resolved.
Watch
this
site.
, 
