Opinion by Alan J Chwick & Joanne D Eisen
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The fourth annual meeting of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) occurred in August 2018, in Tokyo, Japan. It continues to fail, haunted by its original foundational lies that place the blame for violence on the tools of violence, but not on poor governance.
The new lies designed, and intended, to create a functioning treaty, as envisioned by anti-weapon proponents, is now dissolving into a chaos of deception, as exemplified by a single word CHANGE in paragraph 23 of the final ATT document.
But first, before we examine ‘that’ word change, let's take a look at recent, shocking, disclosures of UN failures to follow their teachings.
For decades now, the UN has lectured the globe, and specifically U.S. civilian firearms possessors, about the peaceful world order, that would magically occur, only after arms were entirely controlled from manufacture to destruction.
Individuals and nations alike were scolded, and blamed, for the existence of world, and local, violence. We were told, over and over, that the violence was caused by our failure to control the presence of feverishly propagating weapons.
Gun owners were lectured that it was our moral duty to agree with the UN and to disarm quickly. We were additionally scolded and advised that our weapons were diverted into the Black Market because we owned too many, or because we owned any at all.
Gun control proponent Allison Pytlak explains that a benefit of the ‘new’ ATT would be, “the closing of legal loopholes to prevent diversion of arms to illicit markets … stopping diversion should result in fewer arms finding their ways to militias, criminal, and terrorists.” Though Pytlak argues this nicely, the fact that U.S. citizens privately hold approximately 320 million firearms, that rarely enter the Black Market arena, seems to eludes her thought process.
Behind all the pompous critiques, was the knowledge that they could not control their weapons, let alone ours. UN peacekeepers themselves are/were fueling the local Black Markets with firearms diverted from UN stockpiles. This is an important point that is rarely brought to light.
The ATT proponent’s failures are massive. It became so apparent, to so many, that the lie could no longer be covered up. The diversion of weapons, including real assault rifles, pistols, armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and heavy mortars, among other things, became such a routine occurrence that there was no other choice but for them to fully and openly disclose the fact.
Eric Berman, director of Small Arms Survey, an anti-weapons group, said in October of 2017, “what was once seen as not a problem or as too sensitive to discuss, is now viewed as something that needs to be addressed and is no longer taboo.”
Berman wrote a report, ‘Making a Tough Job More Difficult,’ which attempted to minimize the problem. He explained that the UN was, “Hindered by numerous budgetary, logistical, and infrastructure constraints; shortages in staffing and expertise; and gaps in UN policies and procedures.” Additional reports can be expected.
We suggest that you download this report for a more thorough read and send it around to your friends and family, to publicize it. It is the epitome of the incompetence and hypocrisy of the UN, and the proponents of the ATT. It is an example of their past failures and failures still to come in the future.
If the UN is not able to control its weapons, how can they expect others to do so? If the UN does not have the expertise, nor the will, to prevent diversion of its weapons, how can they expect to guide the world to a successful arms treaty?
It is essential, here, to explain that leaders of nations are now trapped in an ATT for which they have only themselves to blame. They accepted the ‘politicaly correct’ lie that an ATT is needed because of the lack of weapons control that causes violence. They sought a moral acceptance from the ATT proponents. But few realized they had walked into a trap.
Ted Bromund, of the Heritage Foundation, and our ATT go-to guy, explains that the ATT, “imposes a lot of tedious reporting requirements and it promises to do nothing but make life harder for the majority of governments that import most of their arms. In the circumstances, it is no surprise that, now that the flush of its novelty has worn off, governments are willing to do no more than to pay lip service to it.” We suggest reading Bromund's article in full for a complete understanding of events in Japan, and finding out why, “the ATT is settling, in only its fourth year, into senescence.”
The ATT compliance is and will become, haphazard and cumbersome, for member states. ATT proponents complain that greater compliance, with transparency, that is the reporting of weapons ‘cradle to grave,’ is a requirement for success. But by demanding such ‘transparency' they run the risk of affecting the “universalization,” that is the participation rates, also a requirement for success. It is not surprising that a schism would form and the demands of proponents would be virtually ignored. Nation members DO NOT wish to give up their weapons, nor do they want to let other members know what weapons they have.
If these problems persist, the proponents note, “the entire instrument is in jeopardy.” And that, IS AN OBVIOUS TRUTH. Like previous UN arms control schemes, the ATT is failing. But there is nowhere on this fake path, of weapons control, for the proponents to take. There is NO next step.
The use of the duplicitous tactic used in paragraph 23 was born of the desperate need of ATT proponents to ‘steal control of global weapons’ from the member states, and from individuals. Though rogue nations want individual ownership to end, the nations, themselves, prefer to keep their arms.
So now we can finally return, and report on the single word change in paragraph 23, of the Final Report, of the Fourth Conference of States Parties, which begins,
“Furthermore, the Conference welcomed the documents listed below …”.
The word ‘welcomed‘ in the final draft was originally the word ‘endorses.'
According to Ted Bromund, “Some read paragraph 23 as endorsing the idea of having a list of documents on how to implement the treaty. But the more plausible interpretation is that it allows someone – someone who is not identified – to rewrite those documents, and thereby to re-interpret the treaty at will….in other words, they would be approved before they were read, or even written. That's an approach custom-made for mischief.” Simply stated, the signers sign a Treaty, which the ATT proponents can change/modify later, without any approval, at a later date, and the signers cannot do anything about it, nor have any say in the matter.
The Treaty’s demands could easily be changed by failing, frantic proponents. Suddenly, national leaders would find themselves deeply trapped by their signatures, into a legally binding treaty, to which they had not agreed. Sweet for those who want to ban guns, a nightmare for the nations.
As the UN attempts to steal a bit more of the sovereignty of nations, some of our independence also leaches into the corrupt abyss of global power.
So again, we suggest a complete read of this second Bromund article – ‘This Arms Treaty is a Pathetic Waste of US Cash.’
Knowledge is the great weapon we can use.
Our Second Amendment is assailed both from WITHIN and WITHOUT by deceptive liars. We have our work laid out for us. We can never trust them, and we must never, ever compromise with them.
About the Authors:
Alan J Chwick has been involved with firearms much of his life and is the Retired Managing Coach of the Freeport NY Junior (Marksmanship) Club, Division of the Freeport NY Revolver & Rifle Association, Freeport, NY. He has escaped from New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL (Everything22andMore.com). – [email protected] | TWITTER: @iNCNF
Joanne D Eisen, DDS (Ret.) practiced dentistry on Long Island, NY. She has collaborated and written on firearm politics for the past 30+ years. She has also escaped from New York State but to Virginia. – [email protected]