Thursday, November 8, 2012


My response to Tuesday night...

After Obama won reelection, (Vomit, I don't want to discuss it. However I did in my daily campus article if you care to read it. I pretended to be a lot more positive about him winning than I really am. We're screwed.) the United states moved to back a UN arms treaty that would allow for tighter restrictions on arms trade worldwide. Basically, there was a draft of an international treaty that would regulate the $70 billion world wide arms trade. The expectation was that the matter would be resolved before the election, but it was delayed due to Sandy. Once the Obama's knew their spot in government housing was safe for another four years, Obama through his weight behind the treaty. United States support for this treaty initially fell apart in July when the United states claimed, along with Russia, that they had issues with it and wanted more time. Definitely had nothing to do with Obama's campaign...
What the US support did was call for a new round of talks, March 18-28 so while it is not officially in effect yet, this is a step in the direction of making this treaty a reality. This treaty seeks to rectify the rampant illicit trading and proliferation of illegal arms while protecting the sovereign rights of states to trade arms. The Obama administration stressed this treaty would not effect Americans' right to bear arms in anyway.
This wouldn't even be an issue had the Untied States, who is responsible for 40% of the world's arms trade, not done a complete 180 on its stance on the matter in 2009 following Obama coming to office. countries that did not participate in the vote included Russia, Saudi arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. While china would be expected to not support the treaty, in a shocking turn of events China chose to back it. 
Why does this make me LOL? Because as previously stated, the United States is responsible for "40%" of arms trade in the world. Why the quotes? That number is comprised of the legal arms trade the Untied States engages in. Even with that number alone, Barack Obama is currently the top arms dealer in the entire world as the President of the United States. However, the United States is also a huge contributor to te illicit arms trade.
There are certain countries the United States canot be seen providing arms to but who it is advantageous to deal to. A prime example of this would be a variety of countries in Africa to be sure, but the United States involvement with the Soviet Cold War in Afghanistan is perhaps the most well known. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan  terrorizing the people and causing an obscene number to flee their homes lest they be killed. The United States took a good long while to get involved as they had their own problems with the Soviets. Once the scope of the human rights violations was made aware to Congressman Charlie Wilson, he made sure that the United States intervened, but on a clandestine basis. Were the United States to be seen as contributing to the Afghans, it is all too likely that the Cold War would have been quickly thawed by a nuclear bomb. Because of this, the United States was tasked with convincing Israeli arms dealers to arm those fighting against the Soviets. The issue? Those fighting against the Soviets were partly Afghanis, partly Palestinian as the Mujahideen (Soviet fighters) were located in Palestine. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows how popular fo an idea this was. Long story short, the United States bankrolled this, the Israelis gave arms to Mujahideen, they fought back against the Soviets and eventually the Soviets retreated. This would be an example of arms trade not counted in that 40%. (In one fiscal year the United States spent $300 million on this covert operation.)
Also on a side note, the top arms traders in the world are the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China. They are also the only permanent members of the UN Security Council.
I understand that there is a great deal of violence in the world that could be absolved in the absence of weapons, but there is no way to not have weapons. Making them illegal or restricting the trade on any scope is only applicable to those who follow the law. African warlords won't feel obligated to adhere to this treaty, they'll find the guns from somewhere with or without it and the United States will I am sure play a significant role in them getting their hands on them. Additionally, the UN has really no legitimate way of enforcing its rules unless a member country or countries takes it upon themselves to enforce it. This treaty is yet another step in a long line of Obama's disarmament goals, but in the end all it is is a feel like a good person while actually doing nothing measure. LOL.