U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by 45nut, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,455
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Article here

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

    The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

    "Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

    While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

    "The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

    However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

    "Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

    The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

    Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

    Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

    The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

    Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

    The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

    The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.


    A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.


    Here we go. Lock and load boys. :mad: :mad:
  2. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    They know they can't get any new gun control passed the normal way, so they want to try this end run. The problem they have with this, is that ANY treaty signed by POTUS requires 2/3 approval (67 votes) of the Senate to ratify. Slick Willy signed that stinking CIFTA arms reduction trety in the 90s, but the Senate wouldn't touch it, so it was never ratified by the US. I'm betting the same thing will happen with this, unless MORE liberals get "elected" to the Senate next year:rolleyes:

    Of course, I'm also half expecting Barry to sign this POS treaty, and then get on TV and say that it becomes law the instant he signs it just because he's King-Emperor Barak I His Great Awesomeness and All-Knowing Teleprompter.:mad::rolleyes:
  3. zkovach

    zkovach Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,011
    Location:
    Michigan
    is it 2010 yet. I have an itchy trigger and voting finger.
  4. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    SO.... if I'm reading this correctly, Ms Hillarious would condone the rest of the world in dictating our rights of exporting stuff?:eek:
  5. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Yep. But not only that, the treaty has language in it that could be used by the UN to outlaw all civilian ownership of firearms.:mad: The GOA has warned of this treaty before.
  6. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    471
    Location:
    Smack dab in da middle
    Gosh, I am so shocked at this revelation. I think I'll write my congressman for the hundredth or so time. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
  7. Oldeyes

    Oldeyes Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    251
    Location:
    Ohio
    bcj1755 is correct. AFAIR the aforementioned UN world arms proliferation reduction treaty contains language which positions its legal 'treaty' authority superior to our US Constitution. So, essentially the Constitutional argument against it ran that if it gets approved and signed by all participating nations you can pretty much kiss the 2nd Amendment (and perhaps several others) goodbye. It is classic back door gun control (read as another attempt at gun elimination).
  8. user

    user New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, We
    The Constitution clearly states that it, and all other law, is subordinate to international treaties. So my thinking is that we need an amendment, NOW, that provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any international treaty. NOW!!!
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Day of Resistance Feb 22, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum I Have Recanted My Previous Stance on the NRA Aug 5, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Disney's gun stance draws fire Jul 11, 2008
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 21 Ways Illuminati are Smashing Americans Resistance to the Globalist Agenda... Apr 20, 2004
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Reversed assault weapons stance? Apr 29, 2003