please see. below and welcome to cross talk were all things we considered i'm peter lavelle global gun control the un has passed the arms trade treaty to regulate the international conventional weapons business supporters of the treaty claim it is a positive first step to tame an industry because over a half a million people a year opponents are dismissive they say the treaty is not balanced in favor is the interest of arms exporting states. across not the arms trade treaty i'm joined by geoffrey ingersoll in new york he is a defense reporter with business insider in washington we have daryl kimball he is

the executive director of the arms control association and in london we cross to quito maki she is an associate fellow at chatham house in an expert in conventional arms and disarmament and if you can jump in anytime you want jeffery in new york are you happy with this treaty because there it passed overwhelmingly with a lot of abstentions though important abstentions yeah there were a lot of abstentions but i really honestly think that regulating a seventy billion dollars business with several actors both government and private running arms through convoluted means some of them over the table some of them under the table is just ridiculous to do with twelve or fifteen page treaty i mean i think the idea. is laughable tell you the truth ok darrell. laughable treaty go ahead well this is this is an effective strong first step toward some common sense in the international arms trade which currently doesn't have any standards

governments are not required to report on their arms transfers they are not required even to have national regulations on weapons exports imports or ammunition why is that does not take a sterile ok why is that the case why is that the case yeah well first of all to today there are no standards ok russia can sell weapons to the assad regime in syria even though it's quite obvious that the assad regime is targeting civilians it's likely there if russia were to sell that would still be legal under international law. which it's not it today is legal today it is illegal ok if you this treaty will put in there. would this treaty would end. like arms sales to break and you know it's makes it clear it makes it clear that such purpose such transfers would be prohibited if they if the state has knowledge that it could

violate human rights lead to war crimes or be used to target civilians so i mean this is a common sense first step it's not going to solve all the problems but it is a very important step in the right direction to tip the balance in favor of civilian protection and human rights in london jump in. you like this treaty. i do and i completely agree with what he just said i think it's a landmark first step in controlling the trade in conventional arms i also wouldn't be too concerned about the number of the tensions. on the on the contrary i think it was actually maybe even good that we could pause the treaty in the general assembly as you may know as background the treaty was originally blocked in a conference in march when the three countries objected to it and it would have

there it would have had to be adopted by consensus now. too many times i think in the history of the un these sort of landmark. processing is have been blocked just by less than a handful of countries and in that sense i thought it was really good that we could well insulated it's a very good policy with a landslide is to feel good thing but you know jeffrey does it make any difference . no it doesn't i mean look call it a good first step is like you know complimenting your mother in law's bad. it's not going to do anything and there's no enforcement mechanism it's going to take two years to put in place and then we're counting on the united states and russia and all these state actors and private actors to sort of police themselves i mean let's be honest you think that they're going to. give you the reports on what

they're trading what they're not trading i mean we're talking about very powerful people with lots of money involved and the idea that the u.n. can step in and take a good first step is you know it's kind of like an alcohol get or alcoholic getting close to admitting that alcohol is a problem and you know we still have a long way to go and to tell you the truth i feel like it's just what lives in the gun control debate in the u.s. i think we'll get to that we're going to be going to adapt. jeff those are those are nice quips jeff but i mean look the countries that approve this treaty one hundred fifty five are deadly serious about putting in place regulations that for the first time make sure that governments report on what they're transferring that establish clear regulations for policing in enforcing those regulations and also this would apply to arms dealers the people who are operating the black market who

are who have sold weapons to your responsible rebel groups in the past so you can say that this won't make a big difference but if you're a person in congo if you're a person in sierra leone and or your person in syria ok it makes a difference if certain people don't get a k forty seven s and ammunition or attack helicopters it makes a difference to real people on the ground who's data from going to make a difference tomorrow to know how i can make a difference tomorrow because this case this is going this is going to take time to take effect and the big suppliers the big exporters have all signed on russia has said that it's going to go back and study the treaty that the three countries who blocked the the conclusion of the treaty were iran syria and nor are there are you know playing ok these countries are or are under arms embargoes it's no surprise that they've blocked this is against their interest because they are

they're trying to get weapons cases they're also i mean they're also enemies of the united states all right now we go ahead jump in this is crossed on i had it just maybe to take comments about that that. i would say that they arms trade treaty again ones it will come to for us hopefully in the next two years and so we'll have an effect not only to the countries that will sign up to it but also those countries who might choose to opt out just because they as. a historical treaty will start changing the norm of how we see acceptable arms transfers and. thereby also those guys who might not want to join are de facto going to be affected by it as well jeff you want to reply. well you know i think that all these countries of who are who have signed on who are deadly serious have been deadly serious about other things before like palestinian statehood and it's been

twenty years they've been thirty years they've been you know deadly serious about that and what's happened you know i think at the bottom line is where there is demand there's going to be supply you can call it what you want to call you can call it assault rifle you can call what assad's doing in syria killing civilians but to him there combatants i mean there's all sorts of legal problems here and it's just not clear enough and you know also what are they going to do but let's be honest the u.s. and some of these these major countries they pretty much control the u.n. as they demonstrated in two thousand and three so with the invasion of iraq so you know i just i can't help but ask what exactly are they going to do if they're deadly serious give me an example of what they're going to do and you go ahead. i think where comparing sort of the. mother in law's lesson you haven't been as i mean we do have to remember that we're talking here about an arms trade treaty. gets put into the same basket with say treaties on land mines or cluster munitions

that are aimed to for example preventing the use and production of sets and types of weapons now they say is not that go of the arms trade treaty what we often hear is to improve and to improve the regulations on illegal trade in arms and recognizing that these arms will be produced in the future they will be traded but what we want is more responsible trade and more transparency over the guns that are transferred don't you want to jump in there. yeah i feel that one example of where this is going to help five years down the road ok is when there is the next victor boot the russian arms dealer who was involved in selling weapons to the some of the west african conflicts in the ninety's. these arms dealers today can operate because half the nations in the world don't have national regulations that govern arms transfers so arms dealers who want to sell to the wrong people can

evade those countries they cover the governments can do the same thing they do have to remain the same thing can't they well claim against it doubly racial injustice a minute peter i'm talking talking about the illicit arms trade for the second book and this treaty has specific provisions to bar against diversion it also requires all countries to establish regulations so what that means is that law enforcement authorities can cooperate when one of these arms dealers is operating in their countries and is is pursuing weapon sales that contravene the criteria and the guidelines in the prohibitions in this treaty that can make an important difference in shutting down the pipeline for some of these rebel groups terrorist organizations that threaten small countries medium sized countries and large countries and you know that can make a huge difference in the years ahead as this treaty becomes more universally

applied or jeff jump in i mean that's assuming that it's going to become more universally applied and i just don't think that that's realistic. you know there's going to be war and there's going to be people who need weapons for war and there's going to be suppliers and really that's you know i think it's wishful thinking. they were going to come your easily you're going to be wanted this is really going forward it will have brought it's not the first time a hundred and i think there's a lot of montresor agreed on anything and we last word before the break well that's true and the last word before we go to break that's. not absolutely on again to just repeat what i said i don't think we should be even with this arms trade treaty alone be aiming at total prevention a war or elimination of all human suffering this is a step that he's a first step towards more responsible legal trade in weapons ok i'm going to jump in here we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the

haunch treaty state. legal. the civilized world produces more food than it needs. well people die of hunger in other countries. millions of victims every year. where a meal is the most about nutrition. is flood or droughts to blame. it was a bad year without

a train. we couldn't plods anything. but there was great hunger. is a good help comes too late and without good intentions. charity diplomacy and business honesty. we speak your language. school music programs and documentaries and spanish more matters to you breaking news a little turn to tip angles couldn't stories. you hear. all teach spanish find out more visit. download the official up location to your cell phone choose your language stream

quality and enjoy your favorite. if you're away from your television or it just doesn't gossip about what your mobile device you can watch on t.v. any time anyway.

welcome back to cross talk we're all things are considered i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing the arms trade treaty. ok jeff do you think the senate the u.s. senate will pass this. with the n.r.a.

in the background and that's that's a whole other topic you know and it's very important. there's no way they're going to pass this if it is put in they need sixty seven votes they're not going to do it most of these major companies a lot of these major companies are they operate and manufacture from within the u.s. you know it's just not going to happen they have their teeth to deep into into the senate. so to be brief no no it's not going to pass darrell jump in what do you think. well this treaty was just concluded this treaty was just include a few days ago in the senate which has a hard time making any decisions need to take a little bit of time to actually analyze what this treaty don't be and not realize already analyzed it the n.r.a. has already well no they haven't analyzed it if they've been demagogue you for something agree with iraq ok go ahead with iran and north korea iran north korea

and about thirty five senators right now oppose this treaty everybody else supports it but let me just get to the key point the united states already has a system of export control laws that's quite good that is consistent with this treaty as do a lot of the european countries and some other major exporters so the united states ratification of the treaty is not so important as having president obama signed the treaty and signature by obama does not require senate advice and consent the treaty will enter into force when fifty countries ratify and i think that is a quite easy bar to achieve within the next one to two years and then the treaty will begin to have full effect on the states that have saren signed the treaty so in my view the senate's views on this are actually not so important for the overall effect of this treaty on the international arms trade and we how important not so important except they're the ones who write the laws and jumping in london even if

anyone's going to have also i mean what i think it's so easy important here and should. be mentioned is that if we look at the beginning of the process of the u.n. some years ago two thousand and six two thousand and eight the first resolutions the us voted against them since then they two thousand and nine altered their view and voted what what they want why did they change their views why any of the code why did the us change its views. yeah that's probably the administration administration after obama's election that's when two thousand and nine changed and i think that is an encouraging sign also when we look at the signature of the u.s. to the treaty but then again as was already said earlier it is not actually the u.s. is not the real sort of target country for these treaty if you want because yes they have one of the most sophisticated export control. systems and legislations in

place already what they have been are doing and have been doing for years is to support that sort of of the development of similar systems in other countries of the world and in that i think the arms trade treaty will just be a sort of a continuation of the goals that the u.s. and i mean way jeff do you think anything will stop the united states selling arms to israel no not at all i mean that's a no no of course not. you know and that's that's another big reason why i don't expect to see any any moves out of congress and maybe obama will sign it but in the end you know the way there maybe one hundred fifty five countries put the weight behind arms exports is way every year than those countries to include russia and other other major powers so you know i don't i don't see. really again i just don't see any any changes occurring and if they do if there are new laws then you know

these companies and these countries will just circumvent them somehow you know i mean if you have to go covert then you have to go seen that in the past. so i mean you know i ninety nine see any. sort of a treaty it would have been impossible and now we are here we actually have a treaty how many people believe that that would have been possible in ten years and now do we have a lot of people still i think it should lock a possible if still just talk. well it's not it is it's real all right and it's easy it's easy to be cynical about the world we live in and change does not occur overnight ok this is not a twitter. speed process ok this is going to take time to be put in place and the global arms market is going to change over the next ten to twenty years the united states is not always going to be the world's largest arms supplier necessarily other arms makers are going to come into the market it's important that they have higher standards for their transfers that we have more

transparency about it there will be new arms buyers and it's important that they are part of the systems too so we can't just be looking at today's issues tomorrow's issues we need to be looking down the road because there are hundreds of thousands and millions of lives at stake if we don't put some common sense rules in place in this treaty begins to do that in. l.a. said no one could have imagined fifteen years ago that we would have this treaty but this was accomplished despite the obstacles and it's now in place and it's going to become a reality in the next one to two years and we'll see how effective it is the effectiveness in my view depends on governments acting on the principles on publics and journalists also paying attention to what the rules of the treaty say and what would governments and companies are doing are they meeting the commitments of the arms trade treaty. you can apply to any of the. yeah

well you know i think fifteen years ago twenty years ago thirty years ago i mean we can talk about the past but i think that really the treaty is a reflection of the present in terms of conventional warfare and these these major superpower sort of tilting away from conventional warfare so the need for these these weapons is sort of. you know it's sort of not as necessary anymore but so yeah i can see them talking about it that great but still again i just don't think that i don't think that it has any real teeth i think if anything it's a reflection of our you know pumping the brakes a little bit on the on conventional wars going more towards korean and counterinsurgency which doesn't require such a large weapons so i mean yeah really i don't i don't i think it's just a reflection of what we are right now today militarily and we want to jump in there in london it's irrelevant well obviously it's sort of

a to repeat what was said earlier but again this is a treaty on conventional arms so it is about conventional arms we can talk about the importance of those in in future warfare of course and probably once we move to the future we will need new types of treaties to to. counter and to deal with those situations however given that we are here now and these weapons do cost hundreds of thousands of lives every year and they do link to the illicit market and we as was said so many countries have non-existent or really poor regulations over their arms transfer controls i don't see why they split anything but absolutely positive a needed development darrell who's going to punish the people that break this law countries that break this law he's going to do it. the countries themselves are

going to police their own laws all right that's what you got a number of peters that half the country israel dog has regulations regarding well it does work ok some countries do in force or laws they've got different capacity to do that but this is a start. the second way in which this tree's going to be enforced is that. countries are going to be reporting on their arms imports and exports that's going to allow other countries non-governmental organizations human rights organizations on the ground and elsewhere and reporters and journalists to identify where there are anomalies where there are people do you trust going to them instead of the treasure on those countries do you trust governments to tell the truth i mean that's not really that's the main point they're going to want to they have to report on themselves are they going to tell the truth probably not i mean it's not the way they're going to they're going out to verify their ways to verify the truth

one of the ways is television programs news reporters n.g.o.s that are also providing information that are fact checking what governments are saying no i don't trust every government to tell the truth and so we can verify what we see happening on the ground against what governments are reporting if russia says they're selling weapons to five countries by then the damage is already done weapons right i mean it internationally are going to six country now and if they're showing up in a six country then we know there is a problem ok then pressure can be on russia or other countries that are along the supply chain jeff you want to jump in go ahead. yeah i like i said i just think that it's way too convoluted it's way too bureaucratic and it's just it's not going to work i mean so we're relying on journalists to report on these areas little did they do that in two thousand and three and i just don't feel you do that if you're in three and and the. did they do that in two

thousand and three report on w m d's yeah on w m d's it didn't matter if they did that's the point everyone knew that there wasn't w m d's there and we still we went anyway we did what we want to do anyway so even if they do know that we're we're arming or or arms of our worse through five or six degrees or ending up somewhere in central africa you know we're still going to do what we're doing any oh ok and i mean that's what i think i'm not saying i agree with it i'm just saying that that's the reality and that and that this treaty is everyone gets a trophy pat on the back and it's really not going to do anything yes or we acknowledge and there's a problem yes but ok well you know i want i want is a program to talk you know action is i want to end the program in a positive note go ahead you got thirty seven thirty seconds you know. i think we have to remember that we do not have this treaty at it's just a couple of days saying spend the whole trading paused and it will only open in

signature later these here so just to say that it's not going to work now is. premature maternal that's what it's what we have to do is all right we've had a fascinating conversation maybe something nice and many thanks and i can send you into your to washington and in london and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.t. so you next time and remember. these . yes souter simply disappearing if he's alone with the civilian you.

so you know so you. really lose when you move the mission even if you didn't you know who was the one who was. real damage and complexity of this oil spill was not something you can grasp just by looking at dirty birds we have between four to five million people in this

directly affected area of the coast and it's pretty clear why it's not being reported because b.p. can't afford to have a reported all along the gulf coast are clean they are safe and they're open for business if b.p. is the single largest oil contributor to the pentagon the u.s. war machine is heavily reliant upon b.p. and their oil this is a huge step backwards for the mocker sea it's a step forward for oligarchy carex it is toxic is a look a lot like spraying in vietnam it was a it was not a picture that either the government or b.p. really wanted to have out there i don't want dispersants to be the agent on. this. live

live live. live live. live .

coming up on our t.v. protest against months and so will soon become global activists have announced plans to host demonstrations in dozens of countries to voice their concerns over monsanto's genetically modified food we'll give you a preview of things to come and u.s. representative eliot engel has introduced a bill that would blacklist all stolen electronic devices from service could this actually happen well look at this in his efforts to secure online data out later in the show. the people of pakistan are experiencing a hectic election season with a series of attacks taking place around their country we'll have a report from the ground on this violence on the election eve.