On Wednesday this week the UK and six other nations will seek agreement at the UN General Assembly to launch formal negotiations of a new Arms Trade Treaty after 3 years of discussion.

It will be a defining moment, but the last few weeks debate on the Resolution that contains the decision have shown that the ATT remains a contentious issue that can stir up  strong emotions. Even after 3 years there are still those who argue that its too soon or the conditions are not right to agree to start negotiating a new treaty.

The human and economic cost of armed conflict is calculated as 2000 people killed each day across the world and  $18 billion a year in Africa alone. Conflicts fuelled by weapons that get into the hands of  criminals, terrorists and insurgents because we have still not established effective regulation of the international arms trade. Not for nothing did the last UN Secretary General describe conventional weapons proliferation as “The real Weapons of Mass Destruction”

Hilary Clinton’s announcement 10 days ago that the US would “actively pursue a strong and robust treaty” was a step change in the American attitude and a very welcome one.

Some have argued that the US terms for coming on board are too high; others are concerned about creating new precedents in UN rules and procedures. One can only hope that when we gather to vote everyone will remember those who are outside the room, whose loved ones have been killed or abused, whose livelihood and hopes for the future rest on what the "men in suits" in New York decide one Wednesday afternoon.



Link to original post