Kerry "I Will Implement President Obama's Vision For The World" to sign ARMS TRADE TREATY this week.

Kerry "I Will Implement President Obama's Vision For The World" to sign ARMS TRADE TREATY this week.(AP).

UNITED NATIONS — American officials say Secretary of State John Kerry will sign a landmark treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar global arms trade during the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting this week.

The officials said Kerry will sign the Arms Trade Treaty on Wednesday, initiating an uncertain ratification process in the U.S. Senate. Some lawmakers have expressed strong opposition to the United States becoming a party to the treaty. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be identified as the source of information about Kerry's plans.

The U.S. is the world's largest arms dealer and its accession is seen as critical to the treaty's success, although many of the world's other top arms exporters and importers have not signed the document.

The treaty will require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country. It prohibits the transfer of conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

What impact the treaty will have in curbing the global arms trade — estimated at between $60 billion and $85 billion annually — remains to be seen. A lot will depend on which countries ratify it, and how stringently it is implemented once it comes into force.

More than 85 countries have signed the treaty to date, but it will not take effect until 50 nations have ratified it.

The Obama administration announced it would sign the treaty in June over the objections of critics who fear it will undermine constitutional rights.

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, a country must evaluate whether the weapons would be used to violate international human rights laws or be employed by terrorists or organized crime elements. A country must also determine whether the weapons would contribute to or undermine peace and security.

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market.Hmmmm.........

Under the ATT, Human rights accusations could easily be cited as an excuse for restricting U.S. arms sales to Israel.

Related:

Lets Abolish US Arms trade to Israel? Kerry voices conditional US support for UN arms trade treaty.

Related:  If the U.S. approves the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty it could be used to stop arms sales to Israel.

“Myth” #4: “Under the ATT, arm [sic] exports will only be limited where there are human-rights or genocide concerns.” Thus, the ATT will not “harm the U.S.’s relationships with Taiwan and Israel by eliminating foreign aid.”

Fact: This is not a question of “eliminating” aid to Taiwan and Israel. But anyone who follows the news will be aware that Israel is regularly (if spuriously) accused of human rights violations. Under the ATT, these accusations could easily be cited as an excuse for restricting U.S. arms sales to Israel. 

As for Taiwan, interested readers can refer to the Issue Brief I wrote with my colleague Dean Cheng. The State Department itself has acknowledged that these concerns are legitimate, and again, Congress is right to be concerned about this.

The Dear Colleagues letter concludes with the argument that “[i]f this treaty is ratified, the only groups who will not receive U.S. arms are human-rights abusers and perpetrators of genocide.” 

The U.S. does not need to ratify the ATT to achieve this aim, and the ATT does not simply ban all defense exports to human rights abusers. More broadly, this claim ignores the fact that the U.S. sometimes has to support poor governments against even worse ones.

For example, the U.S. backed South Korea against North Korea in 1950, even though South Korea was not, at that time, a democracy. An absolute ban on the U.S. supply of arms to all but the pure would prevent the U.S. from making the most elementary and necessary choices and put us in the position of taking, in practice, the side of the most evil and aggressive regimes and terrorist movements in the world. 

If the ATT did what the letter claims, that would be yet another reason for Congress to be concerned about it.