• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • In Unreal Session, U.N. Promises to Press Ahead with Arms Trade Treaty

    The First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which focuses on disarmament and international security, has for the past month been hearing statements from U.N. member states, U.N. officials, and NGOs on a wide range of subjects, from outer space to chemical and biological weapons.

    But a central focus of many statements is the U.N.’s proposed Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The supposed purpose of this treaty is to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” The U.S. agreed to participate in the negotiations on the ATT on October 14, 2009, but only if the negotiations were conducted on the basis of consensus. The Administration hopes this will “ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation.”

    The ATT as it is currently envisioned is deeply flawed, as illustrated by the speakers, and the statements made on the ATT’s behalf, in the First Committee. The High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte, kicked things off by quoting a statement by Dag Hammarskjöld, a past Secretary General of the United Nations, that if the U.N. tried to do too much, it would be weakened “as if we were to permit the growth of a tree to be weakened by the development of too many branches, finally sapping its strength so that it breaks down under its own weight.” As illustrated by the First Committee’s extensive agenda and the ATT’s overreach, that is an excellent point. Sadly, it is one to which the U.N.—as Czech President Vaclav Klaus pointed out in September—has paid no attention.

    The Chair of the First ATT Preparatory Committee, Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina, then got down to brass tacks. One of his proudest claims was that the negotiation of the Arms Trade Treaty would be “undertaken in an open and transparent manner.” The U.N. is so open and transparent that Amb. Moritán’s statement, made on October 19, is not available online from the United Nations. The meeting of the Preparatory Committee that he chaired was distinguished by Amb. Moritán’s ruling that NGOs should be excluded from the plenary sessions, a decision that outraged the vociferous ATT lobby. Since NGOs have no place in such negotiations, the Ambassador’s ruling was sensible on its merits, but it is a measure of the U.N.’s hypocrisy that the self-proclaimed defender of transparency was the one who shoveled the observers out the door.

    But the most interesting part of the Ambassador’s remarks was his statement that “there is consensus on the fact that the [ATT] treaty must be feasible, have clear parameters and definitions, be immune from political abuse on its interpretation and be objective, balanced, and non-discriminatory.” No one can quarrel with the idea that treaties should be feasible, or have clear definitions. But the idea that a treaty can be “immune from political abuse on its interpretation” is nonsensical. If a state signs a treaty and wants to cheat on it, no clever wording will stop it from interpreting the treaty as it sees fit, or simply ignoring it.

    And as for the goal of “non-discrimination,” the whole idea of the ATT is, in theory, to force nations to be more discriminating in their arms exports. The U.N. pretends that all its member states—except, all too frequently, Israel—are honest and of good will, and that common international standards will therefore only affect criminals and terrorists. But any serious standards would end up affecting many U.N. member states, because it is those member states that supply arms to criminals and terrorists.

    For example, they would affect Iran, which supplies arms to terrorist groups across the Middle East, and which used its floor time in the First Committee to proclaim that any state that supplied weapons to Israel was an accomplice to war crimes. They would affect Kenya, which spoke out in favor of the ATT, but which in October 2008 was credibly accused of assisting the smuggling of weapons and tanks to South Sudan. And they would affect China, which stated it was “ready to enhance coordination and cooperation with all parties to eliminate the illicit trade of SALW [small arms and light weapons] at an early time,” but which in 2008 defended the supply of 77 tons of small arms to the criminal regime of Zimbabwe as “normal” and “prudent and responsible.”

    The NGO statements to the First Committee on the ATT illustrate this gulf between reality and aspiration. The Defense Small Arms Advisory Council, an association of mostly U.S.-based manufacturers of small arms, expressed support for the ATT, but pointed out that while the ATT’s partisan supporters “have been clearly heard on many occasions,” the same “cannot be said for those elements of civil society that have actual experience and expertise as members of industry engaged in the international arms trade.” By coincidence, the next presentation was made on behalf of the Control Arms Coalition—the lead NGO coalition that campaigns for an ATT. Its speaker made a nod towards the need for “appropriate technical experts,” but spent most of her time demanding a comprehensive treaty as rapidly as possible, even if it was not universal.

    Make no mistake about it: these NGOs matter. They are driving the ATT process, and even if the U.S. does not sign and ratify the ATT, the NGOs can and will continue to campaign toward the treaty’s goals inside the U.S. And there will be an ATT: the only question is what will be in it. The goal of its supporters—including many member states—is to go for a treaty that will be unacceptable to the U.S. (likely on Second Amendment grounds), while not worrying much about the actual practices of states like China and Iran. With the treaty established, in place, and ineffective, they will then devote themselves to their favorite cause of harrying the U.S. and Israel for failing to sign on.

    The Obama Administration believes that its demand for consensus-based negotiations will protect it against such an outcome. But in the end, its demand for consensus will be used against it, as the U.S. is the state that is most likely to object to any consensus that results from the negotiations. The crunch will come when the negotiations cross a U.S. red line. Given the pace at which the U.N. and its supporters are driving the ATT along, that will happen soon enough.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to In Unreal Session, U.N. Promises to Press Ahead with Arms Trade Treaty

    1. Richard Popovich says:

      The United Nations is the single biggest threat to the sovereignty of the United States and all other nations. Everything that it does favors the enemies of America and favors totalitarianism. It is an extremely dangerous organization.

      It is time for The United States to work on the radical transformation of its charter, or better yet, get out of it altogether. It is a money pit that we cannot afford because we are financing our own destruction. It is time to get the United States out of the UN and the UN out of the United States.

    2. tina,ca says:

      SCRAP THE UN!!!!!

    3. Buck Crosby Hubert , says:

      Nothing this phoney organization doe's can overide our constitutional rights granted to us by God and reafirmed by our founding fathers . I will always exersize this God given right and no government will stop me while I live , and the U.N. is even more irrevelent in this instance .

    4. AN says:

      Bring it on UN. We are waiting in America for you to come.

    5. Wayne says:


    6. John , Philadelphia, says:

      If we want to protect the U.S. Constitution and U.S. sovereignty we have to stand against the U.N. A good place to start is at the voting booth on 2 Oct 2010!

    7. ThomNJ says:

      While what they do and say is of concern only because of obama's and the left's embrace of same; I do not plan on abiding by anything that comes out of the UN. I pray for the day that the USA gets out of the UN and gets the UN out of the USA. I am not and do not wish to be a "citizen of the world", unlike dear leader.

    8. Jeanne Stotler, Wood says:

      United Nations should go the same way the Legue of Nations went. Other countries want it so that they can use U.S. dollars when ever they have a emergency, they never paid back debts in the past, those of WWI and WWII, now all the members thumb their nose at the laws of NYC and have thousands of dollars in traffic and parking fines, we don't need any more freeloaders.

    9. Samson says:

      Your remarks are spot on, GET THE USA OUT OF THE UN !! This hack organization is nothing more than a tool of the NWO ! You will recall why Yamamoto didn't envade the USA and why the British bailed out ! If you come to the USA looking for a fight, you WILL find it !! Nov 2nd can't get here soon enough ! God Bless America

    10. Richard Popovich says:

      Folks: Some of you don't understand what U.N. treatys can do to the United States Constitution. Every time the Senate approves one of these monsters and the Executive sign a treaty, it technically supercedes the constitution. Our best course of action is to pressure the Senate not to approve of these treatys in the first place. With the new House, we need to begin supporting Ron Paul's resolution to get us out of this monster.

      The U.N. is poised to become a one-world government and that time is coming closer with every treaty we sign onto. If you have any doubt that the UN is not a government, consider the treaty process in our constitution. The constitution states that our government can only sign on to treatys with other governments and that after signing, we are bound to those agreements. Also consider that the United States has never broken a treaty.

      If; God forbid; our military is ever placed under UN command, the people wiould never be able to resist. Even a 30-06, a 50 caliber, or a stock of grenades would be much of a match against the firepower of the modern military. If you think that this is impossible, write one of the members of The Joint Chiefs and ask if their loyalty lies with the constitution, or with the President. I did and I have yet to get an answer.

      After a treaty becomes law, it is law and we are stuck with it, even if it is unconstitutional. And if the military is ordered to fire on American citizens, they will follow orders. Many may not like doing it, but military protocol teaches their duty to following orders and the constitution is not part of military training any more.

      We have to prevent it from happening in the first place.

    11. Daniel Weatherman (L says:

      From one conservative to another you might think to look at history for examples of systems of international politics breaking down. The U.S's refusal to join the league of Nations was a major factor in allowing Germany, Japan and Italy to undermine any resolution it made, particuarly to Germany rearming. A sound structure for international law although occasionaly undermining individual state sovereignty is the the best way to deal with oppressive dictators across the world. The U.N may be corrupt and it may at times work against U.S interests but at the end of the day the U.S has never been capable, willing or interested in policing the world or creating any stable system of international politics. Cold War Brinksmanship is not the same thing as the fragile yet

      Perhpas more importantly to Americans much of the U.N charter and guiding principals is borrowed from the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. In my humble opinion abandoning the U.N would be the equivalent of abandoning the liberal ethos that America was founded on and replacing it with a Hobbesian rule of one dictatorial power in conflict with everyone else.

      I agree with the author though, arms control legislation is going to a waste of time especially while the permanent security council members are the 5 biggest arms exporting nations in the history of mankind. More importantly human nature seems to invevitably into the hands of developing and procuring newer,better weapons(even if their useless or never used).

    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.