Lawrence Auster
Thursday, July 12, 2001

Though the Program of Action that the delegates are writing – in closed session – is a non-binding agreement, many delegates have stated in the strongest terms that it must be followed by a legally binding instrument.

And though the conference's official materials speak only of stopping the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, many speakers have declared that the real goal is to outlaw all small arms and light weapons except those owned by governments. As the delegate from the Republic of Ireland told the conference on July 11:

"States must stop exporting of small arms and light weapons to all except other governments. All states must suppress private ownership of small arms and light weapons."

The Irish delegate didn't even bother to cover up these totalitarian intentions by saying that the aim was to suppress only "illicit" arms. Instead, he made it plain that Ireland – once the land of poets and saints, now a land of political correctness – wants no private weapons of self-defense to exist anywhere in the world.

So blatant has this statist agenda become that the U.N. unembarrassedly admits that it wants to strip small arms from all non-government individuals because the possession of such weapons allows people to oppose the U.N. itself. According to an introductory article on the conference's Web site:

"Closer to home, the easy availability of small arms and light weapons has led to the targeting of U.N. peacekeeping and humanitarian field staff as well as its non-governmental partners on the ground. 'Blue Helmet' peacekeepers are unable to completely disarm warring factions because these groups sometimes hide their best weapons or only turn in old, unusable ones, as 'insurance' if hostilities resume ... "

The British government in April 1775 doubtless felt the same kind of exasperation toward those pesky colonial militias that were stockpiling small arms and light weapons in the Massachusetts countryside.

We must understand that if a system of gun control such as the U.N. envisions had been in existence in 1775, the American Revolution could never have occurred. Indeed, if such a system were ever put into effect, it would become impossible for people anywhere in the world to resist a tyrannical or genocidal government.

U.S. delegate Faith Whittlesey, America's ambassador to Switzerland under President Reagan, stated the problem pungently: "This document by the U.N. freezes the last coup. It favors established governments, while taking away rights from individuals. It does not recognize any value higher than peace, such as liberty."

The U.S. Stands Alone

With every U.N. member nation except the United States supporting the draft Program of Action, what is the best result that lovers of freedom can expect from this conference? As a source on the U.S. delegation told me, there is no good solution. The best outcome would be for the whole conference to blow up and produce no Program of Action. The second best would be that the U.S. walks away from the conference, which, while arousing much hostility toward America, would leave the global gun-abolition agenda in tatters. Both scenarios are highly unlikely.

The third best scenario is somewhat more achievable. It is that the American delegates persuade other delegations to make the document conform to the principles laid down by Undersecretary of State John Bolton in his magnificent speech to the conference on Monday.

This is not as impossible as it sounds. The Program of Action is a non-binding consensus agreement, which means that if the United States holds out, the document will be deprived of legitimacy. This gives the U.S. a certain amount of leverage in the proceedings.

The problem is that just as the U.S. is isolated at the U.N., John Bolton with his principled stand against global gun control is isolated in the U.S. State department. Most of the American delegates are career diplomats appointed by the Clinton administration and are either sympathetic or not particularly opposed to the anti-gun agenda.

So, even though the U.S. will of course follow Bolton's position, the final result of the conference depends very much on how the American delegates present Bolton's argument to the other delegates.

If they do it with enthusiasm and seriousness, other countries may go along with America in order to preserve consensus. But if the other countries sense that the U.S. delegation is merely going through motions in order to appease the U.S. gun rights lobby, then they may vote against the U.S. position. Everything, therefore, depends on the U.S. delegation holding firm.

This is a moment when public pressure on the White House could make a real difference to the future of America and the world. President Bush can be reached at (202) 456-1414.

Lawrence Auster can be reached at lawrence.auster@att.net.

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Guns/Gun Control
United Nations