Strange 'allies' in gun rights fight
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:32 pm
http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis ... gun-rights
What a strange place we have come to, when Russia, China, and Zimbabwe are, on one issue, anyway, the defenders of liberty. I refer to Russia's and China's abstention, and Zimbabwe's "No" vote, on the drafting of a new United Nations arms trade treaty.
U.N. members on Friday overwhelmingly backed negotiations on a global treaty to regulate the world's $55 billion weapons trade, but two big arms suppliers, Russia and China, refused to support the measure.
Most top arms suppliers -- the United States, Britain, France and Germany -- backed a resolution in the disarmament committee of the U.N. General Assembly that will guide negotiations on a treaty.
Only Zimbabwe voted against it, and 19 countries abstained, including major arms producers Russia, China, India and Pakistan. The resolution gained 153 votes in favour.
So what's the problem with a U.N. arms treaty--wouldn't it be a good thing for the international community to be able to outlaw arms sales to terrorists, and other unsavory types? Sure, as far as that goes--but consider the fact that one nation's "terrorist" is another nation's freedom fighter. If there had been a U.N. in 1776, George Washington would very likely have been considered a "terrorist" in international circles.
Another problem is the extreme unlikelihood of such a treaty effectively thwarting the arming of terrorists and other human rights violators.
Conventional arms control, United Nations-style, won't stem the proliferation of guns that get into the wrong hands. More likely, it will only make bad situations worse.
The United States was one of only two nations that voted against the U.N. resolution last year. Its support among member states could advance a legally binding U.N. treaty creating "common international standards" for the import and export of small arms and light weapons.
The trouble is, rogue nations and thugs don't subscribe to "international standards." Worse, a "right-to-buy" provision would enable despots to acquire arms freely and inhibit U.S. enforcement of its own arms embargoes against 26 states and/or entities.
And how would a U.N. gun treaty keep weapons away from world terrorists when, as yet, U.N. members haven't defined exactly what constitutes terrorism?
Worst of all by far, though, is the very real threat that such a treaty could be used domestically in furtherance of a forcible citizen disarmament policy that could not get the votes to be passed through the legislative process.
Currently, the United Nations is working on a new Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty’s purported goal is to prohibit arms sales to human rights violators. But with the support of a U.S. delegation under the control of Mrs. Clinton, the international gun-ban lobbies could get the treaty they want--written in broad enough terms to ban all arms sales to the United States.
The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the gun-ban lobby funded by George Soros. An official U.N. report, written by IANSA member Barbara Frey and adopted in 2006 by the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, declares that it is a human rights violation for governments to allow the use of defensive firearms against anything other than an immediate lethal threat. In other words, it is a human rights violation that the laws of all 50 American states allow police officers, crime victims or anyone else to shoot rapists, arsonists or armed robbers. Control Arms (an anti-gun organization run by IANSA, Amnesty International and Oxfam) has written its own report stating that Israel (but not dictatorships such as Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism) is one of the top targets for the arms embargo that would be imposed by the Arms Trade Treaty.
I am not fooling myself--I know that Zimbabwe's vote against the U.N. resolution, and Russia's, China's (among others) abstention, has nothing to do with the preservation of liberty, and everything to do with cynical self-interest. Still, as David Codrea often says, "Any chair in a bar fight."
What a strange place we have come to, when Russia, China, and Zimbabwe are, on one issue, anyway, the defenders of liberty. I refer to Russia's and China's abstention, and Zimbabwe's "No" vote, on the drafting of a new United Nations arms trade treaty.
U.N. members on Friday overwhelmingly backed negotiations on a global treaty to regulate the world's $55 billion weapons trade, but two big arms suppliers, Russia and China, refused to support the measure.
Most top arms suppliers -- the United States, Britain, France and Germany -- backed a resolution in the disarmament committee of the U.N. General Assembly that will guide negotiations on a treaty.
Only Zimbabwe voted against it, and 19 countries abstained, including major arms producers Russia, China, India and Pakistan. The resolution gained 153 votes in favour.
So what's the problem with a U.N. arms treaty--wouldn't it be a good thing for the international community to be able to outlaw arms sales to terrorists, and other unsavory types? Sure, as far as that goes--but consider the fact that one nation's "terrorist" is another nation's freedom fighter. If there had been a U.N. in 1776, George Washington would very likely have been considered a "terrorist" in international circles.
Another problem is the extreme unlikelihood of such a treaty effectively thwarting the arming of terrorists and other human rights violators.
Conventional arms control, United Nations-style, won't stem the proliferation of guns that get into the wrong hands. More likely, it will only make bad situations worse.
The United States was one of only two nations that voted against the U.N. resolution last year. Its support among member states could advance a legally binding U.N. treaty creating "common international standards" for the import and export of small arms and light weapons.
The trouble is, rogue nations and thugs don't subscribe to "international standards." Worse, a "right-to-buy" provision would enable despots to acquire arms freely and inhibit U.S. enforcement of its own arms embargoes against 26 states and/or entities.
And how would a U.N. gun treaty keep weapons away from world terrorists when, as yet, U.N. members haven't defined exactly what constitutes terrorism?
Worst of all by far, though, is the very real threat that such a treaty could be used domestically in furtherance of a forcible citizen disarmament policy that could not get the votes to be passed through the legislative process.
Currently, the United Nations is working on a new Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty’s purported goal is to prohibit arms sales to human rights violators. But with the support of a U.S. delegation under the control of Mrs. Clinton, the international gun-ban lobbies could get the treaty they want--written in broad enough terms to ban all arms sales to the United States.
The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the gun-ban lobby funded by George Soros. An official U.N. report, written by IANSA member Barbara Frey and adopted in 2006 by the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, declares that it is a human rights violation for governments to allow the use of defensive firearms against anything other than an immediate lethal threat. In other words, it is a human rights violation that the laws of all 50 American states allow police officers, crime victims or anyone else to shoot rapists, arsonists or armed robbers. Control Arms (an anti-gun organization run by IANSA, Amnesty International and Oxfam) has written its own report stating that Israel (but not dictatorships such as Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism) is one of the top targets for the arms embargo that would be imposed by the Arms Trade Treaty.
I am not fooling myself--I know that Zimbabwe's vote against the U.N. resolution, and Russia's, China's (among others) abstention, has nothing to do with the preservation of liberty, and everything to do with cynical self-interest. Still, as David Codrea often says, "Any chair in a bar fight."
