The UN General Assembly approved an arms treaty today that was opposed only by Iran, Syria and North Korea. Given that lineup of opponenets, I should be in favor of the treaty, but I am not so sure. Most of the discussion about opposition talks of the NRA and the possibility that the treaty would impinge upon the second amendment rights of Americans. That is not my greatest concern. I worry about how the Arms Trade Treaty creates binding requirements for states to
review all cross-border arms contracts to ensure that arms will not be used in
human rights abuses, terrorism or violations of humanitarian law. Taken at face value, that sounds like a salutary measure. No arms for terrorism, no arms for human rights abuses, etc. But who decides what is a human rights abuse?
In the last few decades, the United Nations General Assembly voted that Zionism was racism. Without a doubt, a resolution in the General Assembly that declared Zionism to be a human rights abuse would surely pass. Similarly, a resolution that declared Hamas a terror group would likely fail. Even the European Union has not declared Hezbollah to be a terror organization despite proof of various terror attacks carried out by the group in Europe. At the UN, terrorism is not what we all think of when the word is used. The alliance of despotic states, militant Islamists and leftist regimes controls the votes in the General Assembly and redefines all words as they see fit. If the treaty is adopted, will the General Assembly then vote that no arms trade can be had with Israel or with Taiwan? In such case, would the rogue nations then seek some sort of ruling from the International Court of Justice in the Hague? Surely, such a ruling would be of no force or effect, but it would nevertheless serve as a major obstacle to the security of nations opposed by the leftist/Islamic alliance around the world.
I have not read the text of the treaty, so I cannot be sure if it contains clear protection from that sort of manipulation. I hope that the US Senate will make sure that there is adequate clarity to prevent such a perversion before any vote is take for approval.
In the last few decades, the United Nations General Assembly voted that Zionism was racism. Without a doubt, a resolution in the General Assembly that declared Zionism to be a human rights abuse would surely pass. Similarly, a resolution that declared Hamas a terror group would likely fail. Even the European Union has not declared Hezbollah to be a terror organization despite proof of various terror attacks carried out by the group in Europe. At the UN, terrorism is not what we all think of when the word is used. The alliance of despotic states, militant Islamists and leftist regimes controls the votes in the General Assembly and redefines all words as they see fit. If the treaty is adopted, will the General Assembly then vote that no arms trade can be had with Israel or with Taiwan? In such case, would the rogue nations then seek some sort of ruling from the International Court of Justice in the Hague? Surely, such a ruling would be of no force or effect, but it would nevertheless serve as a major obstacle to the security of nations opposed by the leftist/Islamic alliance around the world.
I have not read the text of the treaty, so I cannot be sure if it contains clear protection from that sort of manipulation. I hope that the US Senate will make sure that there is adequate clarity to prevent such a perversion before any vote is take for approval.
No comments:
Post a Comment