The Law of the Sea Treaty. The Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women. When it comes to international agreements
that may seem harmless until you read the fine print, the United Nations‘
Arms Trade Treaty has plenty of company. Like the aforementioned pacts,
this treaty has been signed by the United States, but not ratified by
the Senate.
Nor is it likely to be. That doesn’t mean, though, it won’t prove damaging to the United States and its interests.
The
Arms Trade Treaty has numerous flaws. Start with the most obvious: the
fact that it won’t do what it sets out to do — regulate the flow of arms
to and from rogue states. Major arms exporters such as China and Russia don’t support it, and the idea that it will stop, say, Cuba from continuing to arm North Korea, to name two other notable nonsigners, is a joke.
“Like gun-control laws, even with the Arms Trade Treaty, bad actors will continue to act accordingly,” write Republican Sens. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jerry Moran of Kansas in a recent op-ed for The Washington Times.
Three years ago, the Obama administration
made it quite clear that unanimous global adoption of the Arms Trade
Treaty was crucial, going so far as to say that “not getting a universal
agreement would make any agreement less than useless.”
Sounds pretty damning. Yet fast forward to today, and we have Secretary of State John F. Kerry
telling us — as he signs this very agreement — that it will “lift other
countries up to the highest standards.” Not a bad trick for a “less
than useless” document.
“The inanity of the idea that a mere treaty will be able to do what U.N. Security Council sanctions have been unable to achieve,” the Heritage Foundation’s Ted Bromund writes, “would be laughable were the subject not so serious.”
However, wishful thinking seems to be the order of the day among the treaty’s supporters. As Mr. Kerry
signed it, for example, he claimed that the treaty “recognizes the
freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess and use arms
for legitimate purposes.”
Actually, it recognizes only that
nations have this freedom. When it comes to individuals, the Arms Trade
Treaty notes merely that it is “mindful of legitimate trade and lawful
ownership” where it is “permitted or protected by law.”
Yes, “mindful.” Not exactly the firm endorsement that Mr. Kerry
implied in his remarks — that of the right of individuals to purchase
and own guns. Small wonder that Second Amendment groups are alarmed. All
Americans should be.
The fact that the Senate
hasn’t ratified it, and likely never will, should comfort no one. The
State Department will argue that we’re bound not to violate the “object
and purpose” of any agreement we’ve signed — and now that includes the
Arms Trade Treaty. The administration can argue that Senate action isn’t required to implement the treaty in the United States.
That’s
a disturbing prospect for a treaty that Assistant Secretary of State
Thomas Countryman has described as “ambiguous,” and rightfully so. The
treaty doesn’t define its terms. Writes Mr. Bromund:
“The treaty is a conveyor belt that will pull along its signatories —
including, potentially, the U.S. — as the meanings of its terms are
defined.”
Moreover, the treaty may compromise the ability of the
United States to arm the opponents of tyrannical regimes worldwide. When
the violence in Syria broke out, for example, some (including President
Obama) called for arming certain groups among the Syrian rebels.
However, Arms Trade Treaty supporters were quick to argue that such
activity is “arguably unlawful” under the treaty.
As Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Moran
write: “Our constitutional rights are too important to be entrusted to a
dangerous treaty drafted by nations hostile to the ownership of
firearms by private citizens.” Let’s hope the next administration “unsigns” this pernicious pact.
No comments:
Post a Comment