Kerry signs U.N. arms treaty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

We do for, say, US exports of high cryptography from US companies. What Kilkrazy means is, how is the US going to "do it ourselves without the UN" and compel, say, France from selling whatever to say, Ghana?

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
We do for, say, US exports of high cryptography from US companies. What Kilkrazy means is, how is the US going to "do it ourselves without the UN" and compel, say, France from selling whatever to say, Ghana?

Ah... I see.

Direct diplomacy to said countries and lead by example.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
and lead by example.

The "feth any other country, nobody tells us what we can and cannot do" example?

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
and lead by example.

The "feth any other country, nobody tells us what we can and cannot do" example?

Right!

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Guys... on the surface, this treaty seems honky-dory, feel good common sense.

The issue that some of us have is incrementalism... what's to say that the next treaty, act, or whathaveyou uses this treaty as justification or use it as a foothold... and does attempt to infringe on the 2nd amendment.

Ultimately, that argument boils down to saying 'we have to be stupid now, or else we might possibly be stupid in some different way in the future'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
I give it 90% chance it will be ratified actually. After all its just "common sense" legislation, and the Senators never actually read what they are voting on any more.

No chance. The OMG UN treaty freak out is so considerable that you guys actually failed to ratify a UN treaty on disability... that was based on current US law. So the odds that something that actually touches on a contraversial issue will get ratified is basically 0%.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Ah... I see.

Direct diplomacy to said countries and lead by example.

So maybe we should get them all to agree to the same set of principles. And maybe once they've all agreed we could all, I don't know, sign something to that effect...

**Jihadin**

No chance. The OMG UN treaty freak out is so considerable that you guys actually failed to ratify a UN treaty on disability... that was based on current US law. So the odds that something that actually touches on a contraversial issue will get ratified is basically 0%.

Not to challenge or debunk you Seb but at times I like to see a reason "why" we did not sign. I'm guilty of it to. Believe the reason why we didn't signed was we already have a law for Disable individuals that pretty much covers all the bases.

Supporters of the treaty argued that the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities would simply require the rest of the world to meet the standards that Americans already enjoy under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.

Brief why

The treaty, backed by President Obama and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), fell five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for confirmation as dozens of Senate Republicans objected that it would create new abortion rights and impede the ability of people to homeschool disabled children.

Inhofe pretty much summed it up

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued the treaty would infringe on U.S. sovereignty, an argument echoed by other opponents.

“This unelected bureaucratic body would pass recommendations that would be forced upon the United States if we were a signatory,” he said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/270831-senate-rejects-un-treaty-for-disabled-rights-in-vote#ixzz2fxtElPVC

**Ouze**

Well - now we're getting a little offtopic here, but briefly - I don't think we should have ratified it either, presuming we're talking about the "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"? Section 4a and 4b along seem pretty clearly to present an undue influence of the UN on our legislation. The proposed treaty in the OP clearly distinguishes our domestic lawmaking as sovereign, this other one we're briefly discussing as an aside does not do that at all.

I don't know where the F abortion rights came from, nor the remonal of homeschooling, though - but I think Inhofe was in fact pretty on the money.

But perhaps, even probably, I'm missing something.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Guys... on the surface, this treaty seems honky-dory, feel good common sense.

The issue that some of us have is incrementalism... what's to say that the next treaty, act, or whathaveyou uses this treaty as justification or use it as a foothold... and does attempt to infringe on the 2nd amendment.

Ultimately, that argument boils down to saying 'we have to be stupid now, or else we might possibly be stupid in some different way in the future'.

That's assuming if it was stupid in the first place...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
I give it 90% chance it will be ratified actually. After all its just "common sense" legislation, and the Senators never actually read what they are voting on any more.

No chance. The OMG UN treaty freak out is so considerable that you guys actually failed to ratify a UN treaty on disability... that was based on current US law. So the odds that something that actually touches on a contraversial issue will get ratified is basically 0%.

Why ratify it if we currently have those same laws on the book? We don't need to sign anything... jeez.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Ah... I see.

Direct diplomacy to said countries and lead by example.

So maybe we should get them all to agree to the same set of principles. And maybe once they've all agreed we could all, I don't know, sign something to that effect...

We can agree on some things between nation-states... don't need it to be under the UN umbrella.

**Jihadin**

I'm a bit bias about the UN. We do not need UN resolutions to undermined/fade away our Constitutional rights over time. Spacemaniac posted a good one on this

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
Inhofe pretty much summed it up

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued the treaty would infringe on U.S. sovereignty, an argument echoed by other opponents.

“This unelected bureaucratic body would pass recommendations that would be forced upon the United States if we were a signatory,” he said.

Yeah, it would have forced recommendations that you already met. Which seems to me to be really not a problem.

whembly wrote:
That's assuming if it was stupid in the first place...

If it's stupid, then you argue why its stupid. But if the reason to reject something is because some unknown future people might go too far with the same concept, you're basically arguing for doing the wrong thing now, to prevent someone maybe doing the wrong thing at some unknown point in the future.

Why ratify it if we currently have those same laws on the book? We don't need to sign anything... jeez.

To get others to do the same. It's like arguing that there's no point in nuclear disarmament treaties, because if you want to own less nukes, you could just dismantle some... but the whole point is to get the other guy to agree to dismantle some of his nukes as well.

We can agree on some things between nation-states... don't need it to be under the UN umbrella.

Yeah, plenty of treaties are outside of the UN. Anything bilateral (most trade agreements), or multi-party but deliberately not all inclusive (NATO). But if something is meant to be signed by the whole world, why not do it through the UN, other than "OMG UN the blue helmets are taking over"?

**Seaward**

A toothless treaty that will have no practical effect, written and signed for form's sake, that its most important signatories will ignore with impunity whenever it's convenient for them to do so.

Keep on truckin', UN.

**Da Boss**

America is the most militarily powerful, economically advanced and culturally influential country in the world.

Quite a lot of the reason the UN "doesn't work" is because the US does not want to allow it to.

When I see americans being so vociferous about their rights and how the UN can go jump, and then talking blithely about attacking other countries for doing things they don't agree with (in other threads, not referencing this one), it makes me sad and angry.

Whembly, I thought your snappy one word reply with smiley to the point that the US sets a poor example by refusing to co operate with these treaties was not very becoming of an honest debate.

**Kilkrazy**

whembly wrote:

...
...

We can agree on some things between nation-states... don't need it to be under the UN umbrella.

If you are trying to agree something that will be applicable for the whole world it makes no sense to do it by a series of country to country treaties (200 squared treaties?).

It is much cleverer to set up an umbrella organisation that can thrash out one comprehensive treaty for everyone to sign up to.

**whitedragon**

Did I really read somebody complaining about not being able to buy foreign made guns?

What happened to "Buy American"? I saw a couple other folks touch on it too in response, but seriously, I read that and spit my coffee out all over my laptop.

**Seaward**

whitedragon wrote:
Did I really read somebody complaining about not being able to buy foreign made guns?

What happened to "Buy American"? I saw a couple other folks touch on it too in response, but seriously, I read that and spit my coffee out all over my laptop.

I prefer Glocks and HKs.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whitedragon wrote:
Did I really read somebody complaining about not being able to buy foreign made guns?

What happened to "Buy American"? I saw a couple other folks touch on it too in response, but seriously, I read that and spit my coffee out all over my laptop.

It really doesnt make sense to make that distinction with firearms because many of the biggest, and not so big companies that make firearms make theirs in part or whole in foreign lands.

For instance, STI make a good number of their parts for pistols and whatnot in Mexico (IIRC), but all final fitting and assembly is done in Texas... From others who say they work at gun shops and whatnot, this seems to be a fairly common practice for "American" gun manufacturers.

**Kilkrazy**

The point remains that if Americans could not import guns or parts thereof, it would simply create an opportunity for American home manufacturing. In case of a strong demand for foreign designed guns they could be licensed by domestic companies.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The point remains that if Americans could not import guns or parts thereof, it would simply create an opportunity for American home manufacturing. In case of a strong demand for foreign designed guns they could be licensed by domestic companies.

Or we could just not ratify the treaty, which is, I suspect, what we'll opt for.

**Kilkrazy**

Yes, but that isn't the point at issue. The complaint was that signing the treaty would violate 2nd amendment rights.

Interestingly, if the US fails to ratify the treaty and everyone else does, it raises the possibility that Austria, Belgium, etc will refuse to sell their weapons to the US domestic market or to issue licenses for local production.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Interestingly, if the US fails to ratify the treaty and everyone else does, it raises the possibility that Austria, Belgium, etc will refuse to sell their weapons to the US domestic market or to issue licenses for local production.

As I am no expert on UN shenanigans, would our failure to ratify the treaty actually mean much? I believe it was brought up earlier that when the anti-landmine treaty was sent round for ratification, we passed, yet we still follow it... Would that not also be the case here, should enough countries sign on?

**Kilkrazy**

Who knows what passes for thought in the minds of international diplomats.

My point is that even if the US doesn't sign, the signatories are not required to sell their weapons to the US anyway.

**Spacemanvic**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, but that isn't the point at issue. The complaint was that signing the treaty would violate 2nd amendment rights.

Interestingly, if the US fails to ratify the treaty and everyone else does, it raises the possibility that Austria, Belgium, etc will refuse to sell their weapons to the US domestic market or to issue licenses for local production.

"Everyone" else hasnt ratified. Canada, for one told the UN to take a hike. Russia is another....

JESSICA MURPHY | QMI AGENCY

UNITED NATIONS - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Canada is in the "early stages" of consulting on a controversial UN arms treaty.

Pressure on Canada to sign the treaty ramped up after Secretary of State John Kerry signed the U.S. on to the document on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday.

But the document still needs to be ratified in the U.S. Senate - a hurdle that Baird noted it's unlikely to pass.

U.S. lawmakers have expressed concern the treaty would infringe on Second Amendment rights south of the border.

In Canada, gun owners saw in the treaty the spectre of the scrapped long-gun registry.

The treaty requires countries ratifying it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, ammunition and components, and to regulate arm brokers.

"Canada has some of the strongest arms export controls and regime than any country in the world that are already equal to or greater than this," Baird said.

The Conservative government came under fire for failing to sign on to the treaty Wednesday.

"Why is Canada withholding its signature on a treaty that aims to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and mercenaries? It is incomprehensible," Oxfam Quebec's Lina Holguin said in a statement.

So far, 108 countries have signed the treaty and seven have ratified it. Its goal is to halt the destabilizing flow of arms into global conflict regions.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2013/09/20130925-192855.html

As of Wednesday, the total number of signatures stood at 107. At least 50 of the member states that have signed the treaty must ratify it in order for it to take effect, and so far only six[u] have done so.............Although the treaty was adopted 154 to 3 in a General Assembly vote five months ago, 23 nations abstained, including China and Russia, which are also leading arms sellers. Those abstentions, coupled with its uncertain ratification prospects in the United States, have raised concerns about how many countries would ultimately ratify the treaty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/world/arms-treaty-now-signed-by-majority-of-un-members.html?_r=0

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
My point is that even if the US doesn't sign, the signatories are not required to sell their weapons to the US anyway.

That's certainly true, if remarkably unlikely. Are you familiar with any other industries that would willingly give up their biggest client, their biggest client likely by a factor of at least 10?

Anyway, this has been on the radar for a while. It's why Glock has a factory in Georgia, Heckler & Koch and SIG Sauer factores in New Hampshire, etc.

**easysauce**

this treaty is bunk, more power grabbing by an unelected, unaccountable, group of the "cool kids" in power so to speak.

so glad canada didnt sign on, I hope the states pulls out of this one*

*insert pulls out joke here*

*insert joke about inserting a pull out joke*

**whembly**

Da Boss wrote:

Whembly, I thought your snappy one word reply with smiley to the point that the US sets a poor example by refusing to co operate with these treaties was not very becoming of an honest debate.

A) The US does a fething lot for the rest of the world.

B) We can't make everyone happy.

C) I don't believe in signing anything if it doesn't do anything. It's bad policy.

D) We are good people and try our best... and in addition, we'll exhibit that "Zero feth Given" mentality that rubs alot folks at home and abroad raw. *shrugs*

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
My point is that even if the US doesn't sign, the signatories are not required to sell their weapons to the US anyway.

That's certainly true, if remarkably unlikely. Are you familiar with any other industries that would willingly give up their biggest client, their biggest client likely by a factor of at least 10?

Anyway, this has been on the radar for a while. It's why Glock has a factory in Georgia, Heckler & Koch and SIG Sauer factores in New Hampshire, etc.

There is of course the possibility that the governments involved would refuse an export licence for the weapons, to a country that had not signed.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Who knows what passes for thought in the minds of international diplomats.

My point is that even if the US doesn't sign, the signatories are not required to sell their weapons to the US anyway.

And lose out probably the largest consumer? Nah... they'll keep selling.

**sebster**

easysauce wrote:
this treaty is bunk, more power grabbing by an unelected, unaccountable, group of the "cool kids" in power so to speak.

I've never understood this complaint. The people who've worked on this are diplomats and government officials who were appointed by the democratically elected government of the day, and working under the instruction of that government.

How is that 'unelected'?

**Jihadin**

Not elected by us. As in US citizens. UN is not in any shape or form in any of our branches of gov't that govern us.

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
Not elected by us. As in US citizens. UN is not in any shape or form in any of our branches of gov't that govern us.

The US envoy to the UN is appointed by the president, in the same way as, well, the entirety of his cabinet.

Saying that they're unelected and what they commit to on behalf of your country is like saying the speeding fine you just got doesn't count, because you didn't vote for the deputy who caught you. It's absurd.