The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the ‘Gun Grab’

Mar. 5, 2013 3:43am

- Heritage Foundation

Ted R. Bromund studies and writes on British foreign and security policies and Anglo-American relations as senior research fellow in The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. He also explains why America must defend and advance its unique leadership role in the world.

Bromund joined Heritage in 2008 after a decade as Yale University’s associate director of International Security Studies, a research and teaching center dedicated to diplomatic, military and strategic history. Bromund also was a lecturer in history and, from 2004, in international affairs.

He has contributed essays and analysis to the American opinion monthly Commentary and to Great Britain’s Yorkshire Post as well as a variety of scholarly journals. Media outlets that have interviewed Bromund or cited his work include BBC News, CBS News, Fox News, One News Now and NewLedger.com.

He is the author of a chapter on former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the fall of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the book “The Blair Legacy: Politics, Policy, Governance, and Foreign Affairs” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

He received his doctorate in 1999 from Yale, writing his thesis on Britain’s first application to the European Economic Community. His adviser was noted British historian Paul Kennedy, director of International Security Studies.

Bromund holds a bachelor of arts degree from Iowa’s Grinnell College. A native of Wooster, Ohio, he currently resides in Washington, D.C.

Bromund: The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the ‘Gun Grab’

A Nigerian U.N. soldier stands guard next to a cache of weapons at the house of a former dictator in Paynesville near the Liberian capital Monrovia, Oct. 16, 2003. Britain, Japan, Australia and others are pushing for an unprecedented treaty regulating the arms trade worldwide, in a campaign sure to last years and to pit them against a determined American foe, the National Rifle Association. (Photo: AP/Ben Curtis) 

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a bad idea. But it’s not a bad idea because it’s a gun grab. It’s a bad idea because it will restrain the democracies, not the dictatorships. It’s a bad idea because it cannot work.

Above all, it’s a bad idea because, when it fails, its supporters are going to do what comes naturally to them: blame the United States and demand a new treaty that imposes even tighter, supranational controls.

The ATT, in other words, is not an event: it’s a process. That is one reason why calling it a gun grab is wrong and unhelpful. The U.N. is an incompetent organization, and many ATT supporters are remarkably naïve in their belief that a treaty will stop human rights abuses around the world.

But one thing the U.N. and the treaty supporters do have on their side is that they are persistent. Focusing on the risks of a gun grab actually discourages Americans from paying attention to the real problem, which is the slow exertion of pressure on the U.S. to remake its policies and practices. That has implications far beyond the Second Amendment.

The basic problem with the ATT — and not just the ATT — is that it embodies an approach to international law that departs profoundly from the approach embodied in the U.S. Constitution, which created the U.S. government as the agent and voice of the American people. In a recent speech, Harold Koh, the State Department’s Legal Adviser, summarized this new approach:

Make no mistake: this is not your grandfather’s international law, a . . . top-down process of treatymaking where international legal rules are negotiated at formal treaty conferences, to be handed down for domestic implementation in a top-down way. Instead, it is a classic tale of what I have long called “transnational legal process,” the dynamic interaction of private and public actors in a variety of national and international fora to generate norms and construct national and global interests. . . . Twenty-first century international lawmaking has become a swirling interactive process whereby norms get “uploaded” from one country into the international system, and then “downloaded” elsewhere into another country’s laws or even a private actor’s internal rules.

This approach obviously has implications for the Second Amendment. Many treaty advocates make no secret of this fact. Koh himself has argued that “the only meaningful mechanism to regulate illicit [international arms] transfers is stronger domestic regulation,” and that “[s]upply-side control measures within the United States” are essential.

The U.N. argues that the “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would … minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons” and that “advocacy efforts should be developed” to combat “the powerful cultural conditioning that equates masculinity with owning and using a gun.”

But the problem is bigger than the Second Amendment. Under this new approach, the U.S. government is not merely (or even not primarily) supposed to transmit the choices of the American people into the world at large: it is supposed to receive the views of the world at large and transmit them to (or enforce them upon) the American people. That “swirling interactive process” could just as easily be used to “download” norms that would seek to change the meaning of the First Amendment, or the laws of war.

The U.S. has what is commonly regarded as the most well-developed arms export control system in the world. But that will not stop the treaty advocates from arguing that U.S. arms sales to Israel — to take only one example — violate the norms supposedly established by the treaty.

And over time, unless the U.S. resists clearly and stoutly, Koh is right: this argument will end up changing U.S. policy. The changes will be subtle, and they will be slow, but the treaty advocates are always glad to take 10 percent, knowing that their persistence in pursuing the other 90 percent is their biggest advantage.

Any ATT that is likely to emerge from the negotiating process will offer any U.S. administration that wished to take them a number of justifications to impose further administrative controls on firearms. And it is certain to subject the U.S. to continual pressure at every future ATT review conference to move closer to the so-called international consensus on this issue, and on every other issue relevant to the ATT.

That is not a gun grab: it is the slow, steady exertion of administrative pressure at home and international pressure abroad.

What the ATT will not do is exert pressure on Iran, China, Russia or any of the bad actors responsible for the genuinely troubling parts of the international arms trade. It will leave them free to carry on, for the simple reason that the ATT, like any treaty, will be meaningless unless it is enforced. The world’s democracies will enforce it upon themselves, but the world’s dictatorships will not. And given the regularity with which U.N. arms embargoes are violated, there is certainly no reason to believe the ATT will be enforced by the U.N. Security Council.

The ATT represents exactly the kind of diplomacy that the U.S. should shun. It is driven by an intensively naïve community of NGOs and a transnationalist legal community, will do nothing to advance U.S. interests, and is bound to become a scourge for the backs of all future U.S. administrations. It is not just — or even primarily — Second Amendment activists who should oppose the ATT: it is anyone who believes that aspirational treaties are bad for American sovereignty, bad for American rights, and bad for American interests.

–Ted Bromund is senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

 

Related Contributions on Guns in America

Comments (58)

1 2
  • TheCalmOne
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 7:41pm

    Just another sign of the impending Rapture.

    Report this comment

    TheCalmOne  
    • mecanic
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:39pm

      I ain’t giving up my guns till I see Jesus and he tells me to. till then I’m a clinger just like the obomination, sorry, barry said.

      Report this comment

      mecanic  
    • Soulfire1975
      Mar. 6, 2013 at 11:15am

      Three words for the UN and this Dictator who would g a long with it.

      “BRING IT BITCHES”

      Report this comment

      Soulfire1975  
  • sawgnr249
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 7:12pm

    The U.S. Constitution trumps ANY treaty!! I hope the UN tries to get my guns. Those blue berets and helmets will be like target practice-lol!!

    Report this comment

    sawgnr249  
    • MarvinMr
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:26pm

      Actually the U.S. Constitution sets forth the nature in which we enter into treaties… Or Executive-Agreements.

      Report this comment

      MarvinMr  
    • Wolfgang the Gray
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:28pm

      It takes Obama & the Senate to ratify a UN Treaty. If they give away our sovereignty, then they best be watching out for the torches & pitchforks as the American People will not take kindly to such an act.

      Report this comment

      Wolfgang the Gray  
    • squirefld
      Mar. 6, 2013 at 11:34am

      Wolfgang is correct. There is no such thing as a Executive Order on a treaty. It must be approved by 2/3 of the senate, actually seven more then a filibuster.

      Report this comment

      squirefld  
    • mgh999
      Mar. 19, 2013 at 10:30pm

      Actually, once the President signs the treaty it has the full effect until the Senate votes. But if the Senate Majority leader never brings it to vote it stays in full effect. An cheap way around Senate ratification. Regardless the treaty can’t trump the US Constitution, but given how much the current administration tramples on it I wouldn’t put it past them.

      But to really get a foothold, the gun grabber have to pre-disarm most of America first.

      From a prior article (270 million guns, 35% of households) we have 70 million armed citizens. Our standing army is 1.4 million (only ~ 1 in10 have a combat role, and you have to discount the deep blue Navy and Strategic Nuclear Forces (I would hope)) – that means 70 million potential vs about 300,000 (even we pulled all troops in and they all fired on their brothers). Even if only 3% take arms that 2.1 million vs.300,000 (7:1 against).

      The only hope is Blue Helmets, under belief that we’d actually let them in. I still bet on the US citizen unless we continue our current trend to give up our freedoms for the false promise of security, and a piece of the Government dole.

      Report this comment

      mgh999  
  • JTX
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 6:47pm

    COLD DEAD fingers, then you can have my guns. And No I wont give them up peacefully.

    Report this comment

    JTX  
  • NO_MORE_OBAMA
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 6:24pm

    The UN can F!@k their self.

    Simple enough ;)

    Report this comment

    NO_MORE_OBAMA  
  • Larry E
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 6:19pm

    Maybe I’m just a wild eyed optimist, but I think that things are going to get REALLY ugly before they get any better. We can thank Glorious Leader and the UN for that.

    Report this comment

    Larry E  
  • nighttrainno9
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 6:15pm

    The first thing to do is un-invite the UN , get them off our land and
    tell them not to come back. Destroy their building if necessary, harass
    them personaly, drive them away. Then lets get washington handled,
    they work for us believe it or not. We have a constitution and the people
    in washington need to realize it. We don’t need washington dc, but they do need
    us. If we don’t pay taxes to washington and decide to set up a different site
    as our capitol what is washington going to try to do??? kill us all???
    Good luck on that, It’s time patriot Americans took the bull by the horns
    and make America free again.

    Report this comment

    nighttrainno9  
  • Azzman
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 5:51pm

    CORRECTION: gun control is a great idea for dictators.

    Report this comment

    Azzman  
  • The0bserver
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 5:42pm

    It violates the UN Charter, which says that the UN cannot get involved in internal affairs. Our gun rights are internal affairs, not international.

    Report this comment

    The0bserver  
  • SidneyDave
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 5:27pm

    Did the US not just give Egypt 16 F-16′s and 200 M1A1 tanks. The weapons being sold to rebels are not from Cabala’s or Wal-Mart, they are from the governments.

    Report this comment

    SidneyDave  
  • One of the Quiet Ones
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 5:18pm

    Can’t all of these countries just make it illegal to own firearms in their own country? I am sure there are a bunch of sincere sheep out there wanting to make the world a better place. I am sure there are a a bunch of manipulative wolves out there also working with the sheep to make the world a better place for wolves and sheep. I am sure it will work. It may not.

    Report this comment

    One of the Quiet Ones  
    • shogun459
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:27pm

      they do and they are,
      this is just an excuse to enslave America.

      The ONLY REASON other countries have ANY freedoms is to keep thier people from leaving to come here.

      ONCE America is no longer Free and the Constitution is Burned There will be NO SAFE HAVEN to run to.

      And the world can go back to being ruled by the few, the KINGS, the PRINCES, and the Dictators.

      They are tired of the little people voteing them out when they are caught lying and cheating and stealing. This will pave the way to end that. If the American people dont’ like the new rules they will be shot.

      Report this comment

      shogun459  
  • Big Texan
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 5:00pm

    It seems to me most of you have forgotten that we have already been placed under UN control , according to Obama’s former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

    http://worldundercontrol.com/2012/03/08/us-takes-orders-from-un-says-defense-secretary/

    Report this comment

    Big Texan  
  • team1blazer
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 4:14pm

    Time to ELIMINATE the UN.

    Report this comment

    team1blazer  
    • redfish52
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 4:37pm

      I don’t think we will be seeing UN Soldiers coming around collecting firearms anytime soon…but just incase aim for anyone in a baby blue helmet.

      Report this comment

      redfish52  
    • desertspeaks
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 5:22pm

      Here is why the U.S. government won’t sign the UN arms trade treaty!
      1. The inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defense;
      2. The settlement of international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;
      3. To refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent
      with the Purposes of the United Nations;
      4. Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any
      State;
      5. The duty to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to respect and
      ensure human rights;
      6. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfers of conventional arms, as
      well as the primary responsibility of all States in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems;

      The above was taken from the treaty itself! our warmongers in government won’t sign anything that would constrain or restrain their war machine!

      Report this comment

      desertspeaks  
  • flasho
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 4:06pm

    “Freedom From War” sound familiar?

    Report this comment

    flasho  
  • termyt
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 4:00pm

    If you believe the UN is incompetent, you do not understand its goals.

    Each nation gets one vote.

    How many free market countries are there? How many socialist ones?

    How many reflect the will of the majority while simultaneously protecting the rights of the minority?

    How many Israels are there? How man arab nations?

    No, the UN works perfectly. The majority of countries are abusive, crushing, murderous, socialistic tyrannies that hate anyone different from them, especially when those differences produce good results.

    So it is little wonder the UN is an apologist for bullies and madmen.

    Report this comment

    termyt  
  • KMHArms.com
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:56pm

    American’s have unalienable rights one being the 2nd Amendment; so step back.

    KMH Arms Team http://www.KMHArms.com
    - Keep your power dry

    Report this comment

    KMHArms.com  
    • Wolf
      Mar. 6, 2013 at 7:13am

      Every person in the world has the same inalienable rights, it’s just that the U.S. Constitution has enumerated a few of them for Americans and we are proactive in keeping them.

      Report this comment

      Wolf  
  • Arshloch
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:53pm

    The ATT is an attempt, by the churls of the U.N., to strip the means of self defense from free peoples so that they may form their ‘one world government’ and not have to worry about retaliation from the ‘little people’. Most of those at the U.N. are socialists, communists, religious fanatics and other undesirables, who wish to run the world for their own benefit but are afraid to be hurt in the process.
    The best solution is to get out of the U(gly)N(umbskulls).

    Report this comment

    Arshloch  
    • battles
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 4:16pm

      Our position today:
      1. Obamanation in constant campaign mode for the purpose of trying to win or steal the 2014 elections.
      2. If successful, full speed ahead to restrict, register, and confiscate all guns. Since there will be no one to resist such unconstitutional legislation, it will be implemented. The liberal courts may not be of any help.
      3. If Americans refuse to resist this illegal, unconstitutional confiscation, it is on to government genocide upon any perceived dissidents of the state.

      You are going to have to decide if you are going to stand, fight, and die for the Constitution and freedom, or simply lie down and be slaughtered like roaches by our deceitful, evil government.

      Report this comment

      battles  
  • zgomer
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:50pm

    The UN can go straight to heII! and no they will never get my guns…

    Report this comment

    zgomer  
  • dave88
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:46pm

    We need to get out of the UN and tell them to move their offices to Haiti.

    Report this comment

    dave88  
  • 2GodBeTheGlory
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:43pm

    It’s simple, I invite the U.N. to come into the U.S. to take our arms and regulate our arms dealers. Please.

    Report this comment

    2GodBeTheGlory  
    • stablepar
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:49pm

      not ours….yours

      Report this comment

      stablepar  
    • 2GodBeTheGlory
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 4:30pm

      @stablepar

      My post was slightly sarcastic, and another part dare. If the U.N. where to attempt such an act, then congress would have no choice by to declare war (as coming into the U.S. for ANY reason would be an infringement), or they would be aiding and abetting the enemy of the U.S. (not a good position to be in).

      Report this comment

      2GodBeTheGlory  
  • CLAYBLAISEDELL
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:17pm

    Attention NRA Voting Members!

    Nominate Glenn Beck to the 2013 NRA Board of Directors!

    “With president “That Guy” using his vast executive power to abuse our freedom, we are facing an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment and every other right enshrined in our Constitution. To withstand these attacks and hold the line to protect our rights, your vote is vital in the election of a strong, united, and effective NRA Board of Directors. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, remember what your vote means: It assures that the NRA remains an Association of the members, for the members and by the members.” ~ Wayne LaPierre

    If you haven’t done so already, please fill out your “2013 NRA Ballot Package” and nominate Glenn Beck, as a write-in candidate, to the NRA Board of Directors by adding his name to the back of the ballot.

    “In Addition to preserving the Second Amendment, the 2013 candidates will help build and expand NRA’s full mission: from molding public opinion, to promoting and governing shooting sports, to youth programs, to safety training, to preserving hunting rights, and to making sure Americans will always have a place to shoot.” ~ Wayne LaPierre

    Again, if you are a Lifetime or 5-year member of the NRA, please nominate Glenn Beck to the 2013 NRA Board of Directors!

    Ballots must be received no later than April 14, 2013.

    Report this comment

    CLAYBLAISEDELL  
    • All Pro
      Mar. 5, 2013 at 6:03pm

      Glenn Beck is the man that told all of his listeners to surrender their weapons to the government when they come for them!
      YA! I’d vote for him to be on the board of the NRA!
      Are you out of your mind!

      Report this comment

      All Pro  
  • TwoLazy
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:07pm

    Other reasons are that it came from the UN, and they’ve been pushing this under one name or another for 10 or 15 years. Really when was the last time anything good came out of the UN?

    As my daddy used to say … get the US outta the UN then get the UN outta the US .. did I mention that daddy was a pretty smart guy?

    Report this comment

    TwoLazy  
  • ginger100
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 3:00pm

    And next, steer the sheep into the cattle cars and transport them to the ovens. Survivors will be charged a tax for breathing co2 into the atmosphere.

    Report this comment

    ginger100  
  • flasho
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 2:58pm

    The UN is a worthless entity. We need to get out of it and move their gathering place out of the U.S.

    Report this comment

    flasho  
  • Daddy Hawg
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 2:56pm

    Too many progressives in the upper echelons of our government are now enforcing this upon us. We are seeing it now with the nationwide discourse on firearms ownership and yes it will only get worse. The best thing we could do with regard to the UN is withdraw and terminate the lease for the property in NY.

    Report this comment

    Daddy Hawg  
  • taintso
    Mar. 5, 2013 at 2:48pm

    Monday, March 4, 2013
    Homeland Security Has Purchased 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks
    The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.

    Forget whatever propaganda you hear, the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for civil unrest.
    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/homeland-security-has-purchased-2700.html
    There is the reason DHS is so broke they have release criminals.

    Report this comment

    taintso  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

TheBlaze

Channel Finder

Find TheBlaze on your TV

This zipcode is invalid, please try again

Channel Finder

TheBlaze is available on channel .

Spread the word!

If you can't find TheBlaze, please call to upgrade your package

Channel Finder

Unfortunately, TheBlaze is not available on .

But you can help! Call at or press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

But you can help! Press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

Continue

Request TheBlaze

Please complete the form

I would like to receive news and information from TheBlaze.
Skip

Thank you for supporting TheBlaze

Interested in doing more? Spread the word about TheBlaze to your friends and family.

Spread the word!

TheBlaze Magazine
Restoring Love