United nations Arms Trade Treaty, Letter from Portman to Obama

[Gump]

Dear Gump,

 

As a supporter of the Second Amendment, I wanted to update you on a recent development in the U.S. Senate. Recently, I joined with some of my Senate colleagues in sending an important letter to President Obama regarding the ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

 

The letter expressed my strong disappointment that the Obama Administration has chosen to sign the U.N. Arms Treaty.  It makes the point that the treaty will weaken the United States' ability to conduct our own foreign policy while potentially violating the rights of law-abiding Americans.  The letter also says that all of us who signed it oppose the ratification of the treaty.

 

Most importantly, the letter was signed by not just me but by 49 other colleagues.  In other words, we now have 50 Senators on record opposing ratification.  As you know, under the Constitution, ratification of a treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

 

The letter appears below and can also be found here.

 

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. For more information I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please stay in touch.

 

 

 

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

 

Dear President Obama:

 

We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:

 

First, the treaty was adopted by a procedure which violates a red line laid down by your own administration. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported the negotiation of the treaty only by "the rule of consensus decision-making." But in April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. We fear that this reversal has done grave damage to the diplomatic credibility of the United States.

 

Second, the treaty allows amendments by a three-quarters majority vote. As the treaty is amended, it will become a source of political and legal pressure on the U.S. to comply in practice with amendments it was unwilling to accept. This would circumvent the power and duty of the Senate to provide its advice and consent on treaty commitments before they are assumed by the United States.

 

Third, the treaty includes only a weak non-binding reference to the lawful ownership and use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. It encourages governments to collect the identities of individual end users of imported firearms at the national level, which would constitute the core of a national gun registry, and it creates a national "responsibility" to "prevent . . . [the] diversion" of firearms, which could be used to justify the imposition of controls within the U.S. that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment and infringe on the rights protected therein.

 

Fourth, the State Department has acknowledged that the treaty is "ambiguous." By becoming party to the treaty, the U.S. would therefore be accepting commitments that are inherently unclear. The Senate cannot effectively provide advice on an ambiguous treaty, and it should never provide its consent to such a treaty.

 

Fifth, the criteria at the heart of the treaty are vague and easily politicized. They will restrict the ability of the U.S. to conduct our own foreign policy, and will steadily subject the U.S. to the influence of internationally-defined norms, a process that would impinge on our national sovereignty.  We believe that treaties which allow foreign sources of authority to impose judgment or control upon the US, as this one does, violate the right of the American people, under the Constitution, to freely govern themselves.

 

Sixth, the State Department has acknowledged that "specific . . .  country concerns, including Taiwan, China, and the Middle East, create challenges for establishing [treaty] criteria that can be applied without exception and fit U.S. national security interests. These concerns would make Senate ratification difficult." We are indeed deeply concerned that the treaty criteria as established could hinder the United States in fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.  

 

We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations. As members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the U.S. as bound to uphold its object and purpose.

 

We appreciate your consideration on this issue and look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

 

 

[smccrory]

IMHO, there could be grounds for opposition to the treaty based on procedural objections, but not so much on its substance, which is why Portman spends so much time in his letter discussing the treaty's ambiguity and "potential."  Put simply, the treaty has little to no binding value in either direction other than a political one of acknowledging arms trade as having global context.  The rest of Portman's reasons for objection are conjecture at best, and reminiscent of no-compromise "cold dead hands" ethos.

 

But worse, the NRA itself (I'm a long-time member but don't always toe the party line) is doing an incredible disservice to truth with the way they're spinning its implications.  Their robocalling fund drivers (who I've heard from several times this month already) aren't even crafting their words as deftly as Portman and are outright saying that this treaty subjugates US gun owners to UN new world order tracking and control, which is nothing but a bold-faced lie.  The treaty is little more than feel-good oatmeal for the diplomats.

 

Which brings me to my position - I really can't come to care if this specific treaty is ratified or not.  I has no bearing on my rights as a US citizen - the thing is mush.  Could it lay the groundwork for a global registry or UN agreement to ban all citizen gun ownership?  Yea, I suppose, but so could having a ham sandwich with mustard - both of which would be about the same stretch, but ham sandwiches can't be used as NRA fund raising fodder (though they are more delicious).

 

I propose that it would be better to spend time and political capital not sounding like a paranoid freak show every time arms are discussed at the national or global level.  It weakens our credibility at those discussions and strengthens our opposition.  It's a foreign concept to NRA hard-liners, but it's how I feel.

 

Just my 2 cents.  If I know OR's readership, I'll soon be attacked as a heretical, liberal pansy boi.  Whatever! 

 

Payback starting in T minus 10... 9... 8...

[magley64]

well written...