• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Administration Gets It Wrong on Arms Control, Again

    On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. would seek a “strong international standard” in the control of the conventional arms trade by “seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations.” But the participation comes with a caveat: the U.S. will actively support negotiations only if the conference “operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation.”

    As we have noted before, the arms trade treaty is a dangerous multilateral mistake in the making. But the Secretary’s announcement adds a new layer of error. The U.S., as the Secretary noted, has the highest standards on arms exports in the world. In any negotiations on the arms trade, the U.S. is therefore the state most likely to disrupt the consensus. Far from being a weapon for the U.S. to use against states with low standards, the demand for consensus – which the U.S. has no power to enforce – will in the negotiations be turned against the U.S., and will be used to exert pressure on America to lower its own standards for the sake of concluding a weak treaty.

    The treaty’s supporters pretend that it will prevent guns from flowing to terrorists and insurgents. That is a laudable goal. But the reality is that terrorists and insurgents have guns because they receive them from governments of UN member states. Indeed, the head of the Pretoria Office of the U.N. Mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo acknowledges that, “It is not about so-called diversion of arms into the hands or armed groups . . . . Most arms enter the country legally and are purposefully made illegal by complicity of national and regional authorities.”

    Those are the same national authorities that are negotiating the arms trade treaty, and the same ones with which the U.S. will now seek consensus. That is a recipe for a negotiation that will leave the U.S. isolated, and under pressure to sign on, for the sake of the precious consensus, to another ineffective treaty that threatens to clash with the Constitution while giving dictator states new rights and more cover from the U.N. for their abuses.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    18 Responses to The Administration Gets It Wrong on Arms Control, Again

    1. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      There is not an international law or treaty that should ever be alowed to usurp the U.S. Constitution. This is common sense, again, sadly lacking in Washington.

      More importantly, it is the sworn duty of the President. This is not just "lip service".

      A reply should automatic when negotiating any treaty, "We cannot (will not) sign onto this, it violates our Constitution".

      We are not protecting the Constitution by trying to find "loopholes" or arguing over what "is, is".

      If the Constitution is not held sacrosinct then what good are laws?

    2. Pingback: The Administration Gets It Wrong on Arms Control, Again « HOME – Other Right Links and Posts

    3. Ham Lake MN says:

      When our Constitution has been assigned to the dust bin of History as often as it has in the past nine months, one can assume that we have experienced a bloodless coup. Writing commments on Blogs will not change this situation.

      It should be obvious by now that all the Tea Parties will not have an effect on the Marxist's agenda. They have no moral code, why should they?

      American used to be the "Land of the Free and the home of the Brave". I'm waiting for "The Brave" to emerge again before it's too late.

    4. Normca says:

      And Hillary was almost the president. Another feel good – looks good deal where the USA is the only one to abide by its precepts. Obama and Hillary do not believe in the Constitution. It says what it cannot do to Americans; not what is can do – that's Obama interpretation. Once again this bunch emphasizes the wrong priority. The Congo will not give up its arms, the Taliban will not give up their arms. They want to give our nukes and Obama won the peace price for that sentiment made in a campaign speach. But no one else in the UN will. This treaty will sound good in a re-election campaign add, while it further weakens our defenses. Like "The Gipper" said – Peace through Strength [not weakness].

    5. Jerry from Chicago says:

      Hillary Clinton and her husband have been opposed to the private ownership of guns by the public from their first venture into politics. They both took oaths to uphold the Constitution (which includes all of the Amendments). They lied, as did any other politician who swore to uphold the Constitution and then went out and tried to legislate the protection of the Second Amendment out of existence.

      What is truly disgusting is that we have a President and Secretary of State who feel it more important to comply with what the United Nations says, than what the Constitution says.

      The U.N. can't wait until the United States is as weak and crippled as the other members of the U.N. They wish to increase their own importance by bringing the U.S. down to their level. And we are stuck with a President and a Secretary of State that can't wait to do just that. They ought to be tried for treason.

    6. Louis L Cesar F Levy says:

      What do you want? An aphorism says that "the ship of the fool never stops" unless it is stopped. The same single AIM of WEAKENING US will continue, however unconscious from most of officials.

      In fact Einsteins' friend, the mathematician Godel, found in the constitution some flaw that could lead to tyranny.(See Walter Isaacson:Einsteins, his life and universe p510). It would be interesting to investigate this subject but the result itself is here.

    7. Jeanne Stotler, Wood says:

      Too bad these elected officials didn't listen to the words the swore to uphold. Do they think this was just a formality, I took an oath as a Nurse to not do harm to my patients, I take it seriously, they should also take seriously the oath to "UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" Time for the next Revolution, we can start with Virginia and New Jersey Gov.s and next year as we clean up the House, Adios Queen Pelosi

    8. Cathy Amelio, New Je says:

      This administration has no regard for the Constitution! We are heading full speed ahead to third world order in this country! This administration is running us into the ground post haste! No one in Washington seems to have any common sense at all.

      Following the UN? Are you kidding me? We should be kicking them out of this country and not give them a dime of our hard earned money ever again! Oh, that's right this Administration and Congress think our money is their ATM, silly me.

      Vote them all out! Every last one of these mindless twits! Hopefully some honesty will rain again in Washington!

      Go Glenn Beck, Rush, Sean we need you!

      Flip the House in 2010!

    9. Ross writes in Brade says:

      I don't know what anyone expected from this crowd.

      They were predictable! Democrats(liberals, progressives, middle of the road, or whatever they call themselves today)have not changed since they were embarassed by LBJ losing the Viet Nam war through his idiotic policies and the undermining of the confidence of the American people(Of course Hanoi Jane didn't help) by the North Vietnamese.

      Democrats have always been the weaker of the two political parties when it came to any foreign policies or diplomacy, especially anything to do with safeguarding America and the American people. They have the track record to prove it. On foreign policy the USA is consistently inconsistent…ask our friends; UK, Israel, or even Poland. Another sad situation for the American people.

    10. Brinley Salzmann, UK says:

      It must be clarified that this proposed Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is NOT about in any way about anyone trying to amend the US Constitution, in general, or the Second Amendment, in particular. People across the USA will retain the inalienable right to bear arms. The ATT is focused exclusively on the "arms trade" – international sales of military equipment, and NOT on internal sales within a country's borders.

      The international "arms trade" is widely perceived to be out of control specifically because of those irresponsible countries who do not implement effective export controls which might prevent "undesirables" from obtaining the weapons and capabilities that they want. You only have to see the mess that is currently the norm in many parts of the World to see that the "arms trade" is out of control, thus endangering the lives of Armed Forces personnel from other nations, who do have effective export controls and have not contributed to the chaos (such as the USA, Australia, Canada and the UK), trying to clear up the mess that has resulted from the inexcusable and irresponsible arms sales policies of other nations. By instilling some greater ideals of responsibility into the Governments of these other nations, we, ourselves, may benefit, in that our own troops may have to be put in harm's way less frequently.

      If the ATT isn't potentially at least part of the solution to this global problem, then what is??

    11. Freedom of Speech TX says:

      Dear Hamm Lake MN,

      I disagree with your premise that "writing blogs will not change this situation."

      Never underestimate the importance of ALL communications medium. Why do you think there are efforts to control "blogs = internet" and talk radio.

      There are millions who know they made a huge mistake with Obama. Many still do not want to acknowledge this. However, many have admitted they made a mistake – check the polls.

      Blogs are monitored by liberals and conservatives and by moderates. They are also monitored by talking head pundits as well as the DNC and RNC. They are monitored by the White House and congressional staffers.

      Blogs help educate the misinformed and the ignorant. Many of us are probably on an enemies list. I would put nothing past these people.

      So, keep blogging HAMM MN. It does matter.

    12. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      If the United States truely wishes to stop the flow of U.S. Arms from falling into Terrorist hands, then stop giving them to Mexico, and to all the other Countries run by Dictators.

      No one can get a gun and ammo in Mexico except from the Mexican Army. This includes the Drug Cartels. We, America, do not sell Mexico these arms and ammo, we give it to them! They sell them!

      Same with all the other Nations we do arms with! They want money, they sell the stuff we give them. Simple!

      Anyone who does not believe this, shouldn't be allowed to own a slingshot!

      Never let the Government take away any of our rights under the Second Amendment to our Constituition! There will be no coming back from that.

    13. John, Colorado says:

      Speaking of arms, if it's okay for North Korea and Iran to have the capacity to build hundreds if not thousands of them;

      then Poland and Chzechoslovakia should have them, too. They ought to start building breeder reactors. Then they should also build ICMB's, capable of reaching all of Russia and China, not to mention Iran and North Korea.

    14. John, Colorado says:

      Speaking of arms, if it’s okay for North Korea and Iran to have the capacity to build hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons;

      then Poland and Czechoslovakia should have them, too. They ought to start building breeder reactors. Then they should also build ICMB’s, capable of reaching all of Russia and China, not to mention Iran and North Korea.

    15. Ham Lake MN says:

      Dear Tx,

      You are making the assumption that the Domestic Enemies in charge can some how be effected by our collective outrage.

      It's a simple fact, Marxists are experts on infiltrating countries, causing them to become unstable, grabbing power and keeping the population captive. The Russians have done it since 1917 and the Chinese since 1947.

      Passive Resistance will not work against a foe who has no moral base. They are souless.

      As Mao said, "Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun". That, my brother, is the sad truth we face as Americans.

    16. Linda Carlsbad, CA says:

      Hillary, said she is a modern day progressive. We didn't like her decisions when she was first lady.China got our secrets then, now Russia gets to look at our nuclear sites and count our missles. Does it ever end?

      I agree, Hillary and the rest of this administration should be tried for treason! They are giving our soveignty away to these corrupt dictators, how dare them!

      President Obama has been traving all over the world telling everyone about all the mistakes America has made. And how sorry we are, and we will make it up to them, here is our country on a silver platter. I don't think so! We are not going to put up with this much longer. The American people will stand up!

    17. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear Ham Lake, MN,

      I understand your points but you leave out the most important.

      Americans do not share (thank God) the same history as the Russian and Chinese peoples.

      They have NEVER known true freedom throughout their history. Both have been dominated by Czars, Emperors, Tyrannical Killers, and Communists.

      Americans do not like authoritarian power; yes, we do tolerate it in certain professions.

      Secondly, Americans will never willingly give up their right to bear arms (self-defense). They will hide them first – count on it.

      Lastly, it takes a lot to get Americans to work together in mass numbers. But, there is a breaking point where it will happen.

      Let freedom loving Americans NOT instigate anything. WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS.

    18. 3percentofdoom says:

      if these fools think they can disarm us citizens they are sadly mistaken.real americans will not give up their constitutional rights because some commies say we dont need them.

      molon labe!!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×