UN Arms Trade Treaty: It is about control
On June 3, 2013 Secretary of State, Kerry said the United States, meaning Obama, would sign the UN Small Arms Treaty. Kerry making this statement and Obama actually signing are two different things. However it can not be ignored as a probable.
My suspicion is Obama may sign after he sends more weapons to Syria. For Obama to sign its hypocrisy. Will these weapons be used to kill civilians as well? Of course they will. The U.S. knows ‘not’ which faction of fighters are the worst of Islam. Most likely they will pick one group or more they deem less Jihadist in nature.
The United States as a supplier of arms, of course we do supply lethal large weapons, we rank at 44% of the market as of 2012. The 5 UN Security Council permanent members are generally the largest arms dealers (though others such as Germany often feature quite high – higher than China for example). There are over 1000 manufacturers in 98 countries that produce weapons. Weapons sales is a huge business globally.
The recent Fast and Furious is an example of the United States supplying weapons that were used to kill civilians as well. Our so-called embassy compound it has been reported in Benghazi was covertly sending arms to Syria which may very well be the reason for the attack which resulted in the deaths of the Americans.
To me its not about stopping the flow of weapons. Its about disarming American citizens in order to keep them less likely to resist our government.
Note: The treaty, which has taken seven years to negotiate, won’t be in effect for years and has no enforcement mechanism as of yet.
On Jan 03, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015) introduced H.R. 75: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2013. This act is languishing in the Foreign Relations Committee. The passage of this act would basically end the U.S. involvement in the U.N. and end all appropriations to the institution.
Earlier this year, Congressman Rehberg successfully included language in the Fiscal Year 2013 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to block funding to advocate for or agree to any provision of a United Nations (UN) small arms treaty that would restrict the Second Amendment rights of American citizens or further regulate U.S. firearms users or manufacturers. However, that provision is part of a larger package that is not likely to pass in time to prevent the US from agreeing to this treaty.
On March 23, 2013, 04:30 AM the Senate passed a resolution to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The vote was 53 YEAs, 46 NAYs, Not voting 1.
The UN General Assembly of 2 April 2013 (71st Plenary Meeting) adopted the Arms Trade Treaty as a resolution by a 154-to-3 vote with 23 abstentions. North Korea, Iran and Syria voted in opposition. China and Russia, among the world’s leaders i_ weapon exports, were among the 23 nations that abstained. Cuba, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and Sudan also abstained. Armenia, Dominican Republic, Venezuela and Vietnam did not vote. It was opened for formal signature on 3 June 2013.
- June 3, 2013 Kerry states the U.S. will sign.
How many States have signed the Treaty? 72
How many States have ratified the Treaty 0
General Assembly vote to Adopt the Treaty: 154-3-23
To be enforce it must be ratified by 50 States.
In short the treaty is said to cover
Battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.”
What is the Danger of U.S. Signing the UN Small Arms Trade Agreement?
The following represents my take
Foremost in my mind is Obama signaling that he will sign without consent of the Senate. This is unconstitutional. If Obama signs it is a clear signal that he believes the power of government lies in the Executive Branch. This is a clear danger to this Republic in fact it may very well mean the Republics death.
The treaty will evolve into overarching ‘global’ standards constructed by the UN that all member countries would be required to use as a blueprint for enacting laws within their sovereign country.
The most serious is it the fear that this is Obama’s backdoor to gutting the 2nd Amendment.
The Arms Trade Agreement would provide a global set of standards for sending arms to another country. Hear the operative word is “would”.
The U.S. would be turning over to a global entity her sovereign rights.
The treaty is yet another notch towards the creation of a global government.
By signing the treaty Obama would be adding to the already wide division in America
Would signing the treaty without consent of the Senate be an impeachable offense?
Yes I am of the belief that it would constitute an impeachable offense. The Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. See Senate,gov.
Senate,gov also states “In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic .
Using my own common sense since the UN clearly calls it a treaty begs the question if Obama believes he can usurp the advice and consent of the Senate by classifying his actions as an ‘executive agreement’? I think this is where it is heading.
Senate,gov also states “The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States “freed and exonerated.” In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.”
The above paragraph says to me that the Senate would have to “have a pair” to free and exonerate the United States from the treaty. This is quite iffy indeed.
“The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” who may be impeached and removed only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Although precedence does exist that Congress can decide what constitutes “high crime or misdemeanor”. Again it would take “a pair”.
“The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been “impeached”. Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings.”
The current House has the balls but the Senate well clearly a battle. Perhaps a tad of testosterone medication in advance would help.
The Supreme Court affirmed that “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” For that reason, the Supreme Court “has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.”
An aside: I dislike the use of ‘State’ employed by the U.N. as a replacement term for sovereign country. Why? The term has evolved to be common place. Because it is now common the use I fear takes the bite out of resistance to a one world government.
Conservatives are the peoples who recognize the fallacy and hypocrisy. We understand the tyranny that our government is engaged in. The bleeding heart left-progressive naively stumbles along.
It is not new to attempt internationally to stop arms supplying. It happened for example after WWI and what did that bring us but WWII.
Since it has taken seven years for the UN to reach a consensus and for member countries to vote for approval in fact signing has not occurred means it will take longer. The standards writing may very well be underway but I predict this will eat up a number more years. Then to enact legislation within each members country more years. For some countries internally like Europe small arms ownership is highly restricted. In the United States restrictions are occurring fast and furiously.
Like free trade or fair trade neither being free or fair gun running will remain a viable business for many countries. While treaties are supposed to be binding countries renege on the spirit of the instrument.
While we do not hear of multinational corporations publicly expressing their views I think we must recognize that they desire in order that that they can operate more freely. It is a false sense of security.
However the WTO “agreement includes arms within its scope. In fact, Article XXI of the GATT exempts “the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment.” Therefore again its not about restricting arms it is about unrestricted sale of arms when it suits a government while at the sametime picking and choosing what citizens to disarm.
It is right for conservatives to be “up-in-arms” on this issue. Again conservatives are the last line of defense against tyranny.