Anti-gun Efforts
to Expand U.N. Regulations to Ammunition Continue
NRA-ILA
Friday, July 6, 2018
Shortly before 4:00am last Saturday morning, the two week
long Third Review Conference (RevCon3) on the Programme of Action to Prevent,
Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All
Its Aspects (PoA) finally came to end.
Entering into the meeting several critical issues were on
the agenda, none of which was more significant than attempts to include
ammunition into the fold of the PoA. Getting ammunition into the PoA has
been at the top of the anti-firearms agenda since the PoA’s inception in 2001,
as it opens the door for calls to mark, trace, limit and require global
register of its users. To understand this, you must recognize that
everything at the U.N. must be viewed not in the present, but in the future,
and just like the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) it is never about what is in the
document when it is initially adopted, but what that language will allow it to
become. Ammunition was the real issue at RevCon3, as including it in the
PoA would mark an even more significant step forward in the anti-firearm agenda
of the U.N. than the adoption of the ATT.
It is for this reason that the United States’ policy has
always been to object to attempts to include ammunition, and why this meeting,
more so than any other on the PoA in the past, was so critical. Review
conferences provide a forum for enacting change, and while RevCon3 was the
third time such a review had taken place, it was the first time a united front
had been assembled to push for ammunition’s inclusion. Regrettably, even with a strong U.S. delegation
staying true to the original red lines established by former U.S.
Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs
John Bolton, nothing could have been done to stop the final outcome.
For the United States, trouble began during the first
week of the conference. While the meeting started with the U.S. position
receiving support from roughly half a dozen nations, the tide began to shift as
the President of the Conference, French Ambassador Jean-Claude Brunet, emerged
from the shadows of supposed impartiality to openly encourage the anti-firearms
agenda represented by the majority in the room.
The critical turning point occurred mid-week, following
statements from anti-gun group Civil Society, when the supposedly neutral
President stopped the meeting and left his podium under the purported purpose
of thanking those from Civil Society for their attendance. But instead of
thanking everyone he pushed past the pro-firearm groups to have his picture taken
with only those representatives supporting his shared anti-firearm agenda, a
picture he proudly posted to his
official Twitter account.
Brunet was sending a message, I am on your side and will
do what I can to help. This message was clear and repeated throughout the
remainder of the meeting, with his official Twitter account retweeting the messages of the
anti-firearm groups in attendance and even carrying his own messages of
support, including a picture celebrating wearing
orange against "gun violence" and publicizing his closed meeting
with the groups. Had his actions been limited to Twitter they
might have been easier to swallow, but instead they carried onto the floor and
began to impact and influence the course of the meeting. Brunet was
supporting their calls to include ammunition in the PoA, and he was going to do
whatever he could to help them achieve that goal.
As the body worked through five draft outcome documents,
it was clear that the objections being noted on the floor were not being
reflected in the progressive drafts. By the time the meeting had advanced
to draft three, explicit calls to exclude ammunition from half a dozen
countries, including the United States, had failed to be reflected.
Picking up on the President’s unwillingness to adhere to
the objections from the floor, a coordinated effort focused on the most
outspoken of the ammunition opponents, the United States, began to take
hold. Challenges that should have been directed at all those who opposed
the inclusion of ammunition instead became directed attacks, and while others
remained in opposition it became far too easy for them to go silent and allow
the United States to become the punching bag.
Round after round the onslaught continued, with the United
States defending its position countless times. But the United States
would not bend. At no point was this more clear then when the delegation
took the floor to make three short, succinct points; ammunition was
specifically not a part of the PoA when it was adopted in 2001, there has never
been consensus on ammunition in any subsequent meeting of the PoA, and, as far
as the United States was concerned, there never will be. As bold and
direct as this was, the two paragraphs in every draft outcome document pushing
for its inclusion remained, and it was clear the fight was going to go the
distance.
By the second to last day Brunet and his cohorts were
beginning to panic. The United States had not budged on the issue and was
showing no signs that it would. This was not a delegation operating under
the marching orders of our past administration, but instead a firm and solid
team holding line.
Attempting to use the clock to his advantage, Brunet took
the meeting late into the night on Thursday, hoping exhaustion might encourage
compromise. But by 11:00pm he finally called the meeting, providing him
with just enough time to strategize with his minions, and by Friday, the last
day of the meeting, a plan was in place.
Working alongside Ghana and over 60 other countries
pushing for the inclusion of ammunition, and utilizing the German delegation to
work the floor to garner support, a coordinated attack was launched.
Ammunition would be mentioned, requiring the United States to object, at which
time the President would call for a break. During the break, proposals
for alternate language would be quietly negotiated throughout the room, and
then the meeting would reconvene for open discussions on the new
language. Every time the result would be the same; no compromise.
But this was expected. Brunet was trying to wear out the United States.
As the circus continued, by around 2:00am frustration
started to set in with the President. Brunet had made the United States
out to be a villain, the only country holding up consensus on the document and
preventing everyone from going home, but the only way to end it was for the
U.S. to call for a vote, which the United States was holding out on. In
an effort to expedite the process he attempted to pass a motion by bringing the
gavel down at almost the exact moment he finished speaking. The meeting
had now gone from bad to ugly, and the United States was not having any of it.
In the U.N., it is never looked upon fondly to be the one
to break consensus, after all, delegates are trained to compromise, but knowing
the United States would not back down from this issue allowed Brunet to use it
to his advantage. Finally, the United States made the call for the vote,
and Brunet and his staff could implement their plan.
Up for vote were two paragraphs. The first, and
less controversial of the two, called from the regulation of surplus ammunition
stockpiles. The second, and far more significant, acknowledged States
apply the PoA and other, undefined “relevant international standards” to
ammunition. Again, a seemingly innocuous statement, but one that opens
the door to full incorporation of ammunition into the PoA and its associated
International Tracing Instrument, providing justification for later calls to
globally regulate ammunition through such requirements as marking, tracing,
stockpile limitations and registration.
Even before the votes were cast, it was clear the United
States would not win, but it was a matter of principle. Majority rule
does not apply to a consensus document, and the United States had to break
consensus to keep ammunition out.
The results of the vote read like something out of the
Human Rights Council (before our withdrawal); the United States and Israel on
one side, 63 third world and Latin-American countries on the other, and 28 who
supported our position but abstained nonetheless.
On to the second paragraph, or what would better between
described as the second act of Brunet’s circus, but not before a two hour
strategy session. When the meeting resumed, and before the vote could be
cast, a motion was made and Brunet’s gavel was struck. No time for
discussion, no opportunity to object. In what was clearly a
coordinated effort, the original language on ammunition was reinserted into the
document and passed at almost the exact moment the reading of it finished,
forcing the vote to now be on language even more pervasive on the issue than
that with which the U.S. had called to a vote. In other words, Brunet had
got the ammunition language he wanted in, knowing full well that the voting
results would be the same.
As the clock inched towards 3:00am the votes were cast
and the results were are almost identical as the first. The United States
and Israel on one side, 62 on the other, and 29 abstentions. Ammunition
was in the final draft. All that was left now was for the remainder of
the document to be adopted and the meeting to adjourn, but the show was not
over. The circus had an encore.
In the push to get ammunition in the outcome document, a
lingering issue with Syria remained. Syria had objected to the inclusion
of references to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, and
specifically any in excess of target 16.4 since day one. The SDG’s are a
collection of 17 global goals encompassing 169 targets the U.N. established in
2015 in order to promote their agenda of sustainable development, ranging from
gender equality to significantly reducing illicit arms flows. They are
used to push agendas far outside the scope of specific meetings.
Regrettably, the hour was late and the room was
exhausted, so when voting was finally opened most were half asleep or too busy
celebrating their “win” on ammunition to take note. Even Syria itself
failed to object, but that was not the end of it for them.
Syria continued to express their issues with the
document, noting that it could not be adopted because there was no
consensus. But in a bizarre twist, they failed to express their own
objection to it or call for a final vote. When all was said and done,
Madagascar took the floor, called for a vote, and the final draft outcome
document was adopted, albeit with the U.S. reinforcing its objection to the two
paragraphs including ammunition.
What we were left with as the hour approached 4:00am and
the meeting came to a close was a very dangerous document and even worse
precedent having been set. The requirement for consensus had been set
aside, and a document containing references to ammunition was adopted; a
document that will form the backbone of future calls by anti-gun proponents to
regulate and restrict ammunition globally.
While there are others out there reporting on this
meeting, a lot of what they take issue with in the outcome document is simply
the reassertion of language contained in the PoA. Furthermore, they have
selectively excluded any limiting language included, such as that contained in
the introductory language to each section. Make no mistake, ammunition
was the real issue at RevCon3. They would have also recognized that the
United States’ objection to ammunition resulted in a document that does not
conform to the PoA’s consensus requirement, and for this we sincerely applaud
their efforts. The attacks they faced were ugly and while they held firm
and kept true to their red lines, nothing more could have been done to stop the
U.N.’s anti-gun agenda from moving forward short of withdrawing from another
U.N. farce incapable of adhering its own requirements.
No comments:
Post a Comment