AFTER initially failing at rallying the support of its members, the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday ratifies a global arms trade treaty.
The resolution containing the text of the treaty, which regulates the international trade in conventional arms, received 154 votes in favor.
At least three member states of the Assembly, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iran and Syria opposed the treaty, while 23 countries abstained.
Today’s action followed the failure of the Final UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) last Thursday to reach an agreement among all 193 Member States on a treaty text at the conclusion of its two-week session.
Speaking ahead of the vote, the president of the General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic, called the text “groundbreaking’’ as well as “robust and actionable’’.
He recalled that in 2006, Member States had pledged, in the same General Assembly, to engage in a multilateral effort to produce a legally binding instrument establishing common standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.
According to Jeremic, these include warships and battle tanks, combat aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as
small arms and light weapons.
“I personally believe that the final text of this conference meets those commitments to a great extent,’’ Jeremic said.
He added that the lack of a regulatory framework for such activities had made a “daunting’’ contribution to on-going conflicts, regional instabilities, displacement of peoples, terrorism and transnational organised crime.
Jeremic explained that the text drew a link with the presence of weapons across the developing world, especially in
conflict areas, with the challenge of sustainable development and safeguarding human rights.
The President of the ATT conference, Amb.Peter Woolcott of Australia, noted that the conference “came very close to success’’.
He praised all delegations for “working hard and negotiating in a constructive manner and looking for success,’’ adding that the different interests and perspectives in the conference room required working through complex issues.
Woolcott said that each version of the text built on previous ones represented “a fair expression of negotiation, compromise between many different interests in the room, and ultimately what might command consensus at the end of the final conference’’.