EDITORIAL - Arms control and America's moral obligation

This newspaper, as a matter of principle, welcomes this week's passage by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly of the long-awaited UN treaty on trade in arms.

We would have preferred a more robust document, with specific language against the transfer of weapons to non-state actors, and would have liked the treaty to apply also to domestic dealings in arms. It would have been good if there was a tough verification mechanism and clear sanctions against those who violate the treaty. We, however, prefer to have something rather than nothing at all. Our hope, in any event, is that this is a beginning - a mere first step towards a more comprehensive treaty.

In the meantime, though, our focus is on the positives of the agreement, believing that they can help to mitigate some of the horrors that flow from the mostly loosely regulated trade in conventional weapons, which is worth over US$70 billion annually.

FAR-REACHING EFFECTS

Violence perpetrated with conventional weapons, mostly small arms, account for, by UN estimates, the loss of more than half a million lives a year. Indeed, these weapons are staples in some of the world's nastiest conflicts, often used by tyrannical regimes to murder and maim their own people.

But countries like Jamaica, even though they are not party to such conflicts, understand only too well the potential consequences of the too loose flow of weapons. For instance, while there are no arms manufacturers in Jamaica, this country's constabulary seizes around 600 illegal guns annually. And the flow continues. Firearms are used to kill upwards of 80 per cent of the more than 1,000 persons who are murdered here each year. We, therefore, have a substantial stake in the UN treaty, whose critical foundation is the moral standards it establishes for those who export arms.

Such exporters, once the treaty is ratified, are obligated to ensure that the arms they sell won't be the tools of genocide or war crimes for the breach of humanitarian norms. Nor should such weapons be available to terrorists or agents of organised crime.

Indeed, the requirement for annual reports by arms exporters should bring transparency to the process and provide an opportunity to track, with greater certainty, the sources of the weapons used in the world's many little and bloody wars. Light is also likely to be shed on how these weapons of war sometimes seep into the hands of terrorists and criminals of other countries.

AGGRESSIVE MEASURES

Hopefully, countries won't feel themselves confined to the specific obligations of the treaty, but will be inclined to be expansive and aggressive in domestic arms control. In this respect, we look particularly to the United States, the source of most of the illegal weapons in Jamaica.

We congratulate the Obama administration for bringing America back to the treaty negotiations, which was important to its conclusion. We appreciate the difficulty the administration faces against the gun lobby and their insistence on the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms.

Even at that, we urge the administration to be more aggressive in the pursuance of domestic arms control and the strengthening of its porous outward borders against illegal guns, which kill and maim Jamaicans - and others. America - its president, its Congress and its people - have a moral obligation to act on this front.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.