Originally published on the CGS blog on February 8, 2008.
This afternoon I chaired part one of a panel on “Reduction of Conventional Weapons and National Forces.” GlobalSolutions.org just signed onto a letter supporting a House resolution urging President Bush to engage in the new Arms Trade treaty that negotiations will begin on next week. Unfortunately the United States was the only nation to oppose a U.N. resolution examining the parameters and feasibility of an Arms Trade Treaty.
A draft of the House resolution (which should be introduced next week) notes that the U.S. as the:
“world’s largest exporter of conventional” weapons, has a special obligation to promote responsible practices in the global arms trade and should actively work to prevent arms from being used to perpetrate:
- breaches of the UN Charter relating to the use of force;
- gross violations of international human rights;
- serious violations of international humanitarian law;
- acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;?á
- acts of terrorism. destabilizing buildups of military forces and weapons
While I am not well versed on conventional weapons (and was drafted into the chairmanship) my panelists, Ambassador Jonathan Dean and Dr. Marianne Hanson were.
Ambassador Dean presented a paper on “Negotiating Conventional Reductions” which calls for a phased draw down of conventional forces on a regional basis. He sees this prerequisite for a shift to a system of “UN-controlled multilateral forces.” Clearly this is a tall order, but it was an interesting presentation.
Professor Hanson gave a status update on the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. Not good news here. This is a cold war treaty that did ground breaking work on confidence building measures to prevent war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It called for transparency, reduction of conventional weapons and for military maneuvers to be announced in advance.
Although Russia ratified the treaty the U.S. and NATO never did. As a result, Russia has suspended its participation in the treaty as of December 2007. One of the contentious issues involved is the U.S desire to deploy a missile defense system in Poland.
The treaty enabled a draw down of weapons on both sides. The cost of letting it fall by the way side is that these levels cannot be reduced further; Russia can now build up forces on the border, and an overall loss of trust.
More later.
