Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




Alert to the political sensitivity of the issue as the election looms, the Obama Administration says it has clear red lines that it will not allow to be crossed. But in the wake of their dishonesty in pursuing Obamacare, can they be trusted to tell the truth?
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
UN Finalizes Arms Trade Treaty,
Opponents Warn of Global Gun Grab

CNS News
Amid energetic lobbying from both sides, the Obama administration is taking part in month-long negotiations at United Nations headquarters aimed at finalizing a conventional arms trade treaty, which supporters say will save millions of lives but opponents fear threatens to restrict Second Amendment rights at home and US arms sales policies abroad.

UN bureaucrats insist that the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will have no impact on civilian gun ownership, saying that it will deal only with the arms trade across borders. They also stress that its outcome will not be imposed on any country, noting it will only be binding on countries that ratify it.

In a letter to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the eve of the conference, 130 Republican lawmakers outlined their concerns that the treaty being negotiated could negatively affect US security, foreign policy and economic interests -- as well as Americans’ constitutional rights.

“The ATT must not accept that free democracies and totalitarian regimes have the same right to conduct arms transfers: this is a dangerous piece of moral equivalence,” the letter stated.

“Moreover, the ATT must not impose criteria for determining the permissibility of arms transfers that are vague, easily politicized, and readily manipulated,” it continued, referring in particular to US arms sales to Taiwan and Israel.

The lawmakers warned that they would oppose the appropriation or authorization of any taxpayer money to implement a “flawed” treaty.

The Bush administration in 2006 cast the lone negative vote when 153 nations passed a UN General Assembly resolution that began the treaty-drafting process, which is now in its final phase in New York. President Obama reversed that position in 2009, backing the initiative but making its support conditional on consensus decision-making.

Alert to the political sensitivity of the issue as the election looms, the administration says it has clear red lines that it will not allow to be crossed.

At home, it says, the Second Amendment must be upheld: “There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.”

Abroad, the US will oppose any provisions that would “unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests,” it says.

Further, the administration pledges not to accept a treaty that covers ammunition or explosives, or one that establishes an international enforcement body.

Some of Washington’s closest allies differ with at least some of those positions.

For example the British, French, German and Swedish governments in a joint position published this week said, “We believe that an arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies.”

Britain, France and Germany are among the world’s top six arms suppliers, along with the United States -- the leader by far -- as well as China and Russia.

A powerful coalition of non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International and Oxfam says the negotiated treaty must be workable and enforceable, with international reporting of sales and a mechanism for monitoring compliance.

On the issue of consensus, the Control Arms coalition also wants the conference to follow usual UN practice, requiring “wide agreement” on a final text but not giving countries veto power.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE

Editor's Note: The United Nations -- as it the case with the Obama Administration -- has proved, beyond doubt, that they have a problem with telling the truth and, therefore, can no longer be trusted with any authority that limits anything.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server