As you and I prepared to celebrate America’s Independence from Britain and the totalitarian rule of King George III, the U.N. began a month-long “Diplomatic Conference” to draft the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which the U.S. has said it will sign. The Conservative component of Congress is suspicious, as well they should be. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), via letter, reminded Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that any treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. Congressman Mike Kelly (R-PA) and 130 others in the U.S. House have sent a letter to Obama, and Secretary Clinton, expressing those suspicions.
As you read the following, remember that the United Nations has refused to define “terrorism,” although part of the purpose of the ATT as stated by the UN is to “reduce the ability of terrorists to acquire conventional weapons.”
(NOTE: I have shortened paragraph lengths by separating pertinent statements in Rep. Kelly’s letter. I have not changed text, or the order in which they appear in the letter.)
…Your administration has voted in the U.N. general Assembly to participate in the negotiation of this treaty. Yet the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights. The U.S. must establish firm red lines for the ATT and state unequivocally that it will oppose the ATT if it infringes on our rights or threatens our ability to defend our interests.
The U.S. must not accept an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights, particularly the fundamental, individual rights to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second amendment is based.
Accordingly, the ATT should not cover small arms, light weapons, or related material, such as firearms ammunition.
Further, the ATT should expressly recognize the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials.
The U.S must also not accept an ATT that would interfere with our nation’s national security and foreign policy interests. 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.
Moreover, the ATT must not impose criteria for determining the permissibility of arms transfers that are vague, easily politicized, and readily manipulated.
Specifically, the ATT must not hinder the U.S. from fulfilling strategic, legal and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel. Indeed, the State Department acknowledged in June 2010 that the ATT negotiations are expected to introduce such regional, country-specific challenges.
Finally, the ATT should not contain any language that legitimizes the arming of terrorists – for example, by recognizing any right of resistance to “foreign occupation” – or implies that signatories must recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Furthermore, the U.S. must not agree to an ATT that would damage U.S. Economic interests. The ATT must not create costly regulatory burdens on law-abiding American businesses, for example, by creating new onerous reporting requirements that could damage the domestic defense manufacturing base and related firms.
Furthermore, the ATT must not pressure the U.S. to alter either the criteria or the decision-making system of its current arms export control system, which Secretary Clinton has called the “gold standard” of export controls.
The ATT should not in any way skew domestic debate on export control reforms as the U.S. continues to modernize export controls to increase U.S. global competitiveness, create jobs for American workers, and strengthen our allies.
Lastly, regardless of negotiated text, the Administration must make clear in its reservations, understandings, and declarations that the ATT places no new requirements for action on the U.S., because U.S. law is already compliant with the treaty regime or that the treaty cannot change the Bill of Rights or the constitutional allocation of power between the federal and state governments.
Moreover, the U.S. must not accept the creation of any international agency to federal legal authority to a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the American people.
…Further, the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone, and the ATT will be considered non-self-executing until Congress enacts any legislation to implement the agreement. As members of the House of Representatives, we reserve and will maintain the power to oppose the appropriation or authorization of any taxpayer funds to implement a flawed ATT, or to conduct activities relevant to any ATT that has been signed by the President but has not received the advice and consent of the Senate. Read the entire letter here.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is heavily involved with thwarting this treaty, and reporting on it’s progress:
Every year about this time, the warmer weather gives every manner of fast-growing weed the opportunity to appear out of nowhere and begin consuming people’s lawns. Deny it an environment in which it can thrive, by spreading a grass fertilizer and weed killer mix from your home and garden store, and it somehow finds its way to your neighbor’s grass.
The same is true about international activists and representatives of various countries’ governments who periodically gather under the umbrella of the United Nations, intent on changing the world. Deluded with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and obsessed with controlling the planet and everyone who inhabits it, this arrogant gaggle periodically checks in to five star hotels in the West’s most cosmopolitan cities–with left-wing foundations or the taxpayers of first-world countries picking up the tab–to attend conferences during which they discuss curtailing national sovereignty and individual rights that offend their sensibilities…
In my opening paragraph, I said Congress should be suspicious of this Treaty. You’ll find the following “goals” in United Nations Millennium Development Goal (UNMDG):
1] Abolishing war through a worldwide freeze on militaries and achieving global disarmament:”
To initiate a worldwide freeze on armed forces
…the prohibition of the use of force,…must not be undermined
To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty,…To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means,…the United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament
2] Prohibiting advanced weapons technology
…devise ways of stopping the technological development of new and more advanced weapons that create new imbalances in global power relationships.
3] Monitoring small arms
4] Controlling the world’s immigration to allow for:
…the global principle of freedom of circulation for all
5] Controlling the world’s finances:
…To move towards democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision.
…Sustainable funds could be raised through a currency transfer tax…and a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.
6] Controlling the world:
Globalization needs defining [and then they define it].…it is transforming our world into a global village…
7] Prohibiting “sanctions” against rogue countries:
…Stop imposing economic sanctions…
I have not located a full list of the 153 member states involved in the drafting of the treaty, but I do see that Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, Syria, Egypt, the UAE, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, and Algeria have issued statements on the goals of the Treaty. Read NRA’s Wayne LaPierre’s Surrendering Our Sovereignty. Graphic Credit: Infidel Bloggers Alliance