In the vibrant setting of a bustling New York City café, I had the opportunity to engage in a thought-provoking discussion with Dr. Emily Carter, a distinguished public health expert and keen observer of United Nations policies. Our conversation centred on the critical issue of gun violence and how it is framed—or more accurately, misframed—at the United Nations. Dr. Carter’s insights shed light on the complexities and missed opportunities in addressing gun violence as a global public health crisis.
Dr. Carter began by highlighting the predominant discourse at the United Nations, which revolves around disarmament, security, and human rights. These approaches, she acknowledged, have been instrumental in tackling issues such as the illicit arms trade and armed conflict. However, they fall short when it comes to recognising the broader public health implications of firearms. The conversation took a deeper turn as Dr. Carter pointed out the gaps in UN frameworks, which often overlook the health-related impacts of gun violence, including trauma, injury, and the immense burden placed on healthcare systems. Despite abundant evidence underscoring these concerns, the UN has largely focused on conventional narratives of security and disarmament, leaving a significant aspect of the issue unaddressed.
According to Dr. Carter, this oversight is not just a conceptual gap but rather a reflection of deeper power dynamics within the UN. She pointed to the considerable influence of the United States, a nation with deeply ingrained gun rights and powerful firearms lobbying groups, which has consistently resisted global efforts to regulate civilian firearm ownership. This resistance is particularly evident in the U.S.’s use of veto power in the UN Security Council and its diplomatic leverage in the UN General Assembly. As the dialogue continued, Dr. Carter underscored the role various UN bodies play in perpetuating this narrow framing. The Security Council, for example, primarily examines the role of firearms in conflict, often overlooking the fact that the majority of firearm-related deaths occur in non-conflict settings.
Dr. Carter expressed her frustration with the Security Council’s inability to frame gun violence in public health terms, despite possessing the authority to address health crises, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. She lamented this as a missed opportunity to incorporate the health-related costs of firearms, such as trauma and emergency healthcare, into the discourse—an inclusion that could lead to more effective humanitarian responses. Our conversation then shifted to the UN General Assembly, which, although more democratic, still falls short in addressing the issue holistically. Dr. Carter acknowledged the significance of initiatives like the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument but noted their failure to address the legal civilian ownership of firearms, a crucial gap given the role of legally owned guns in domestic violence and suicides.
Dr. Carter recounted instances where U.S. influence was instrumental in blocking references to civilian firearm ownership during UN negotiations, effectively sidelining any health-oriented language. This exclusion underscores a critical dimension of the debate that remains unaddressed. Even the Human Rights Council, which has been more vocal in addressing the non-conflict impacts of firearms, has not explicitly recognised gun violence as a public health crisis. Dr. Carter commended efforts by individuals like Barbara Frey, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Small Arms, for their contributions to highlighting the health burdens of firearms. However, she noted a persistent reluctance to align this issue with the language used by health organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO).
Our conversation concluded on a note of urgency and optimism. Dr. Carter called for the integration of a public health perspective into UN policies, emphasising the need to focus on civilian harm and incorporate public health principles to enhance the UN’s response to global firearm violence. She stressed the importance of civil society, public health advocates, and UN member states in pushing for a shift in the discourse. Without such a shift, she warned, the world will continue to endure the devastating health consequences of gun violence.
As I departed the café, Dr. Carter’s words lingered in my mind, painting a vivid picture of the intricate web of politics and policy at the UN. Her insights served as a compelling reminder that while progress has been made, substantial work remains in reframing gun violence as the public health crisis it unequivocally is. The conversation left me with a deeper understanding of the urgent need for a paradigm shift in addressing this pressing issue on the global stage.
Be the first to comment