- As NewsMax readers were warned in a previous article,
the regular U.S. delegates to the United Nations small arms conference
are failing to provide firm support for Undersecretary of State John Bolton's
principled position against global gun control. Instead, according to observer
sources at the U.N., the U.S. delegation is looking for compromise language
with the enemies of freedom.
-
- Bolton's powerful speech on Monday is thus turning out
to be, not America's bottom line against a U.N. grab for power, but only
the opening bid in negotiations that could result in a radical Program
of Action directly threatening gun owners' rights in the United States.
-
- Behind Closed Doors
-
- At issue is a document with the incredible title "Draft
Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in
Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects." Delegates are meeting
this week and next - in closed-door sessions - to hammer out a final agreement.
-
- Section II, Paragraph 20 of this remarkable document
states that the member nations undertake "[t]o seriously consider
the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms
and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes."
-
- Let us understand first of all that the phrase "designed
for military purposes" is a mere fig leaf. According to the definitions
provided in the foundational reports for the conference, weapons of military
design would cover 90 percent of hunting rifles as well as handguns.
-
- We should also take no comfort from the fact that the
signatories are agreeing only to "consider" a prohibition on
private weapons. As Undersecretary Bolton pointed out to the press on Monday,
you start with an agreement to "consider" something, and the
next thing you know, you find yourself in a binding treaty.
-
- Accordingly, Bolton declared that the United States would
not sign any Program of Action containing such language, or any other language
that would violate America's own Constitution.
-
- In his Monday speech in the General Assembly chamber,
Bolton also rejected Section II, Paragraph 13 of the Draft Program of Action,
which says that the member nations undertake "[t]o supply small arms
and light weapons only to governments, either directly or through entities
authorized to procure arms on behalf of governments."
-
- The undersecretary insisted on America's right to transfer
weapons to non-state actors resisting tyrannical governments, such as the
Nicaraguan Contras or domestic opponents of Saddam Hussein. Because such
freedom fighters by definition are not part of the government, Paragraph
13 would forbid America's giving arms to them, just as it would have prohibited
France's support to George Washington's rebel army during the American
War of Independence.
-
- Clinton Appointees Take Over
-
- Though Bolton was crystal clear on these fundamental
points, one of the problems is that after he gave his speech he went back
to Washington, leaving the regular U.S. State Department delegates - who
were appointed during the Clinton administration - to act on their own.
-
- Another problem is that even Bolton's courageous and
articulate stand left a lot to be desired. For example, he did not object
to Section II, paragraph 7, which commits the signatory nations "[t]o
ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as
possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light
weapons within their jurisdiction."
-
- The language "transfer of small arms" could
easily be interpreted to cover the sale of handguns, meaning that the U.S.
would be required to keep permanent records on every handgun purchase in
the United States. This would go directly against Attorney General John
Ashcroft's assurance that information resulting from background checks
on gun purchasers would not be kept on file.
-
- While Bolton's position is less than perfect, the line
he has drawn against an international regime of gun control is the only
thing the lovers of freedom have going for them at the moment. The White
House needs to be warned against a possible sell-out by the U.S. delegation.
-
- Lawrence Auster can be reached at lawrence.auster@att.net.
___
-
-
- America to White House - 'George, This Is Not the Time
to Go Wobbly!'
-
- By Lawrence Auster Posted by permission of NewsMax.com
7-12-1
-
- To anyone who attends the speeches and reads the documents
of the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons
in All Its Aspects, one thing becomes abundantly clear: The ultimate aim
of this conference is nothing less than a global system of gun control.
-
- Though the Program of Action that the delegates are writing
- in closed session - is a non-binding agreement, many delegates have stated
in the strongest terms that it must be followed by a legally binding instrument.
-
- And though the conference's official materials speak
only of stopping the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, many
speakers have declared that the real goal is to outlaw all small arms and
light weapons except those owned by governments. As the delegate from the
Republic of Ireland told the conference on July 11:
-
- "States must stop exporting of small arms and light
weapons to all except other governments. All states must suppress private
ownership of small arms and light weapons."
-
- The Irish delegate didn't even bother to cover up these
totalitarian intentions by saying that the aim was to suppress only "illicit"
arms. Instead, he made it plain that Ireland - once the land of poets and
saints, now a land of political correctness - wants no private weapons
of self-defense to exist anywhere in the world.
-
- So blatant has this statist agenda become that the U.N.
unembarrassedly admits that it wants to strip small arms from all non-government
individuals because the possession of such weapons allows people to oppose
the U.N. itself. According to an introductory article on the conference's
Web site:
-
- "Closer to home, the easy availability of small
arms and light weapons has led to the targeting of U.N. peacekeeping and
humanitarian field staff as well as its non-governmental partners on the
ground. 'Blue Helmet' peacekeepers are unable to completely disarm warring
factions because these groups sometimes hide their best weapons or only
turn in old, unusable ones, as 'insurance' if hostilities resume ... "
-
- The British government in April 1775 doubtless felt the
same kind of exasperation toward those pesky colonial militias that were
stockpiling small arms and light weapons in the Massachusetts countryside.
-
- We must understand that if a system of gun control such
as the U.N. envisions had been in existence in 1775, the American Revolution
could never have occurred. Indeed, if such a system were ever put into
effect, it would become impossible for people anywhere in the world to
resist a tyrannical or genocidal government.
-
- U.S. delegate Faith Whittlesey, America's ambassador
to Switzerland under President Reagan, stated the problem pungently: "This
document by the U.N. freezes the last coup. It favors established governments,
while taking away rights from individuals. It does not recognize any value
higher than peace, such as liberty."
-
- The U.S. Stands Alone
-
- With every U.N. member nation except the United States
supporting the draft Program of Action, what is the best result that lovers
of freedom can expect from this conference? As a source on the U.S. delegation
told me, there is no good solution. The best outcome would be for the whole
conference to blow up and produce no Program of Action. The second best
would be that the U.S. walks away from the conference, which, while arousing
much hostility toward America, would leave the global gun-abolition agenda
in tatters. Both scenarios are highly unlikely.
-
- The third best scenario is somewhat more achievable.
It is that the American delegates persuade other delegations to make the
document conform to the principles laid down by Undersecretary of State
John Bolton in his magnificent speech to the conference on Monday.
-
- This is not as impossible as it sounds. The Program of
Action is a non-binding consensus agreement, which means that if the United
States holds out, the document will be deprived of legitimacy. This gives
the U.S. a certain amount of leverage in the proceedings.
-
- The problem is that just as the U.S. is isolated at the
U.N., John Bolton with his principled stand against global gun control
is isolated in the U.S. State department. Most of the American delegates
are career diplomats appointed by the Clinton administration and are either
sympathetic or not particularly opposed to the anti-gun agenda.
-
- So, even though the U.S. will of course follow Bolton's
position, the final result of the conference depends very much on how the
American delegates present Bolton's argument to the other delegates.
-
- If they do it with enthusiasm and seriousness, other
countries may go along with America in order to preserve consensus. But
if the other countries sense that the U.S. delegation is merely going through
motions in order to appease the U.S. gun rights lobby, then they may vote
against the U.S. position. Everything, therefore, depends on the U.S. delegation
holding firm.
-
- This is a moment when public pressure on the White House
could make a real difference to the future of America and the world. President
Bush can be reached at (202) 456-1414.
-
- Lawrence Auster can be reached at lawrence.auster@att.net.
|
