UN Arms Treaty Riles US Gun Lobby
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 9:38PMBy Gregory Chalfin
The debate surrounding gun rights and the Second Amendment remains one of the most politically sensitive issues in the country.
After much delay, now entering its fifth year of negotiations, the global Arms Trade Treaty seems to be picking up a little speed despite opposition from the US gun lobby.
The treaty is a potential global agreement that would monitor the international trade and transfer of conventional firearms. States would still be responsible for regulating gun ownership laws and export controls, but would have to comply with new standards to assess if transfers comply with international human rights and security commitments.
In 2006 and 2008, the US was the only country to vote against the ATT at the UN General Assembly, although several other member states abstained or simply did not vote. However US policy towards a global arms treaty has changed since the Obama administration has taken office.
In 2009, the US along with 153 other countries voted in favor of an Arms Trade Treaty, what some say could be a significant reversal for the world’s biggest exporter of weapons ($55 billion per year, 40% of the global total).
Diplomats met last month at UN headquarters and US officials are continuing their consultations with experts ahead of the final negotiation conference scheduled for 2012.
Although the resolution has enjoyed overwhelming support from most NGOs and rights groups, the Obama administration will have to contend with significant opposition to the treaty from US gun ownership groups and lobbyists. American officials have already voiced concern about the inclusion of small arms and light weapons ammunitions into any agreement.
While countries like the UK and other supporters argue there is nothing in the treaty that specifically threatens the Second Amendment to the Constitution or other national gun ownership policies, the NRA has predictably taken up the fight against the ATT.
In a statement addressed to the United Nations in June, Executive Vice President of the NRA Wayne Lapierre said his organization:” rejects the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.”
NRA-ILA spokeswoman Rachel Parsons argues that the international community hasn’t given her organizations enough guarantees the treaty won’t affect civilian gun ownership in the United States.
“It’s said that the ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms, but there are proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership that have not been rejected in the treaty.” she told Talk Radio News Service “They have said that the ATT will not interfere with state regulation of domestic firearms, yet there are still constant calls for just that.”
Parsons also believes the Obama administration is greatly over- estimating American public support for an arms treaty and claims that even the Senate is concerned it could infringe on US gun laws.
“Even before being submitted, [the ATT] has more opposition than any treaty in history. There has been a majority of the Senate that has come out opposing any treaty that would regulate or require reporting of civilian firearms ownership.”
Private security companies (PSCs) have also been fighting this legislation to protect their booming businesses. PSCs reportedly control 1.7 to 3.7 million firearms and employ 19.5 to 25.5 million people globally, according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. The report contends that increased transparency requirements would drastically improve the United Nations’ ability to hold the private security sector to more stringent international standards.
Scott Stedjan, a senior policy advisor at Oxfam America and strong advocate of the treaty, is realistic but hopeful about what the treaty could achieve.
“In truth there isn’t going to be any global mechanism that is there to enforce the treaty. The treaty is going to have to be enforced by states themselves in their own national law, which will take some time to implement, so it’s not going to be right away.” he told Talk Radio News. “I don’t think its day one, the treaty starts and there’s a big difference. But over the long run, even the medium run, you’ll start seeing an impact. You’ll start seeing the pipeline of weapons start to slow down. You’ll start seeing countries acting more responsibly in who they sell weapons to and looking at the record of that country before they transfer weapons and then hold them accountable afterwards.”