Good news for liberty lovers. The parochial interests of other nation states is leading to the disintegration of the progressive dream for gun control through international law. It was planned as a work-around to circumvent Americans’ rigid adherence to the 2nd amendment, but the nature of the treaty is causing many nations, including, now, even the United States, to back away from the treaty.
SPONSORIf you like this content, be sure you click here and support iState's ability to deliver to you news for the iStater, the state of one.
Frustrated and fatigued with failure, NGOs, like the Control Arms Coalition, began to pressure the approximately 200 countries of Earth into accepting an ATT which would be legally binding. It would be a new global law, and so, it would force global obedience.
However, this treaty is not in the best interest of any nation. The road to disarmament runs through a phase of partial disarmament, which is not wise for nations or their civilians.
……The first problem began with lack of ‘universalization,’ which means in UN lingo, a lack of unanimous global participation, as only 92 nations have been bullied into the ratification of the agreement.
So it should not be surprising that even those nations who believe in the ATT process are loathed to follow its program, like the requirement of reporting all arms transfers in detail.The second problem is the treaty’s reporting requirements. The agreement includes yearly reports regarding the manufacture and transfer of arms, which is termed ‘transparency,’ and few, if any, nations want to disclose what weapons they have. Nations want and need, to protect their borders and their sovereignty, and this often requires secrecy regarding their capabilities. There are very positive financial benefits of arms sales for many nations, as tyrants require weapons to control their civilians, who often begin to fight their oppressors. And lastly, disrupting nations need weapons to, well, disrupt.
According to Ted Bromund, who has been following the ATT discussions for years, the reporting is very uneven. He wrote, “Only seven nations from the developing world … reported in 2016. Whatever the treaty is doing, it’s not doing much of anything in the Third World.”
Allison Pytlak of Reaching Critical Will warned, “It has been said that a lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity, a very dangerous combination for such a young treaty.”
Another serious crack that appeared at September’s meeting, was that total NGO obedience was expected, but even there, there was outright rebellion, too. The NGO Amnesty International called out the transfer of arms to the Philippines over their use of weapons against “alleged drug offenders that appear to be systematic, planned and organized by the authorities.“
The Philippines’ representative said that the information was FALSE, while the response by Control Arms was that the information was TRUE. The veiled threat of damage to the progress of universalization was used. And other governments remained silent.
Ray Acheson of Reaching Critical Will later complained, “They speak not a word when the Philippines says civil society must not bring up certain issues … it should be at least clear that telling civil society or international organizations that they cannot bring issues forward for discussion or present evidence for consideration is not an acceptable response to hearing information that you do not necessarily want to hear.”