- Gentlemen, start your drones: Judge’s ruling opens door for commercial use
- Soldier who hid, bragged about not saluting flag to be punished — in secret
- ‘Maverick’ of the seas: ‘Top Gun’ school for U.S. ship officers to launch
- Putin declares Sochi Paralympics open amid Ukrainian protest
- ‘In Jesus name, we pray’ sparks ire at Ohio council meeting
- Navy’s first laser weapon ready for prime time; drone killer to deploy this summer
- Billionaire backer: Rick Santorum ‘needs to be heard’ in 2016
- Obamacare fallout: 49 percent pessimistic; 45 percent ‘scared’
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
FEULNER: Letting the U.N. target our guns
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.
Ed Feulner is founder of the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
Get Breaking Alerts
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Rand Paul wins 2014 CPAC straw poll, Ted Cruz finishes a distant second
- Vietnam says it may have found door of missing Malaysian jet as intel look into stolen passports
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- CARSON: Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?
- Bill Clinton cashes in on struggling nonprofit hospital
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Russias Putin nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
- CPAC 2014 straw poll results
- FIELDS: Oscars' fantasy on the Left Coast
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Time for feckless president to show resolve
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama reserves 'Chicago way' for GOP
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Public education would wither in free market
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Turkey not committed to Cyprus peace
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Spoiled-kid culture creates greedy adults