Question: Why are the largest producers and exporters of Arms and munitions in the world also the five permanent members of the UN with veto rights?
Is there not a certain hiprocracy, and perhaps disingenuity, about such an enterprise...on one hand promoting peace and internationalism and human rights (some of principles on which the UN was founded and as veto countries these countries have arguably a greater responsibility to uphold these principles), on the other hand being the beneficiary of war and continued human rights violations? How can we expect any significant arms trading treaty to be honoured and upheld, when the most powerful countries in the world stand to lose the most as a result. Its simply not in their interests.
But perhaps this is the reason why they have veto rights and others dont. They have the most to gain and lose in any turn of world events/populace. Peace would be a financial loss...a significant one. War ensures economic growth....ensures votes.
Why is there such a media concentration on 'weapons of mass destruction' when small arms kill more people every day than nuclear weapons ever have. The only country to have actually used such a weapon is also the largest arms trader in the world by a huge amount. The French arent much better. Chirac and his Subjects, so lauded by many for refusing to let his country support the Iraq war, are responsible for a large quantity of the arms floating around in African civil wars now. I guess if it wasnt the French, the English, the Chinese, the Americans etc. would have been there.
This world, we are currently in, is the rainbow that arms dealers have been looking for since the fall of the USSR. They had to diversify back then....find new battlegrounds...like Africa, Asia, Latin America, etc. They found some pots of gold along the way already....the vast unguarded (or guarded by corrupt/poor military men) stockpiles of weapons in former USSR states.
If thought of in this context , it may be in these countries interests NOT to catch Bin Laden and co. The longer he is out there, the longer such illegal wars like Iraq can go on in his name....the anti-terror wars that make gun-runner very happy...as their merchandise is very curious for all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Oh very good post! There is, as you say, a great deal of hypocracy in the policies of the 'veto 5'. But theire argument will be that these arms dealing companies are private and not a part of government policy.
Nice blog...I will bookmark!
Who do you propose to be as 'veto' countries instead of these 5?
You must surely see the need for veto rights for some countries, like the USA? Otherwise, other countries would seek to undermine its superpower position, causing the world economy to suffer and balance of power in the world to shift to more unsteady and volatile countries.
There are problems with the UN system, granted. And also with the availability and distribution of arms to terrorists and war lords. However Im not sure if the governments of these veto countries are to blame for this.
Trading in weaponry is different from using it, surely?
RW
Thanks Emily. Do you have a blog?
Richard, I will post something about the who the security council should be comprised of and comment on who (if any) should be 'veto' nations soon. As for the other points, I will reply to your email.
Briefly, i do not identify with 'balance of power' rhetoric...a defusion and decentralisation of power would be welcome...the dilution of the power of one dominant country to unduly influence the realities of other countries is not surely a bad thing?
Post a Comment