Serious Problems in ATT Final Draft

The Arms Trade Treaty: Reactions to the Final Draft, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 28, 2013. "This latest draft contains a substantial number of minor changes to the previous text. In reacting to this text, it is important to bear in mind that the treaty has underlying flaws that no amount of improved drafting can fix. The latest draft has also not remedied a substantial number of the problems in previous drafts. But the following deficiencies in the text are both new and particularly regrettable."

Against the ATT, Again

Treaty Binds the Hands of the Good as Evil Thrives, Yorkshire Post, March 28, 2013. "For the past two weeks I’ve been in New York, sitting in the back of a United Nations conference room as the world’s nations negotiate the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Before I starting watching these negotiations, I was sure I could not have any less respect for the UN. But actually, I had a lot of respect left to lose."

The ATT Demands of the Dictators and the Holier-Than-Thous

The Arms Trade Treaty, Week Two: The Ways It Might Fail, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 27, 2013. "In New York, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference is entering its final phase, and the ways in which the negotiations might fail are becoming clearer. large number of nations—mainly the Middle East but also Bangladesh, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and others—are not going to get much of what they want from this treaty. That is a good thing."

Should the ATT Contain A CIL Criterion?

U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the Customary International Law Standard, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3886, March 27, 2013. "One of the most important disputes in the negotiation of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) at the United Nations is the question of whether the treaty should include a customary international law (CIL) criterion. This is a complex question. It is also one fraught with considerable risks for the United States, which should firmly oppose the introduction of such a criterion into the treaty."

Sen. Moran's ATT Resolution Gains 34th Senate Co-Sponsor

The Arms Trade Treaty, Week Two: As the U.N. Talks, the Senate Acts, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 26, 2013. "The most important developments over the past few days have happened in Washington, not New York. On Monday, the concurrent resolution introduced two weeks ago by Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) and Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA) won its 34th Senate cosponsor, Senator Max Baucus (D–MT). This means that more than a third of the Senate is now committed to urging President Obama not to sign the ATT, opposing its ratification by the Senate, and rejecting any funding for or legal recognition of the ATT unless and until it passes fully through the ratification process."

The Unacceptable Knowledge Standard In The ATT

The Arms Trade Treaty, Week 2: The Treaty Is Getting Worse, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 25, 2013. "The most important change in the draft treaty is a major defeat for the U.S. As I foreshadowed in my report on Thursday, the draft now relies on a “knowledge” standard—i.e., before the U.S. sells conventional arms, it is supposed to assess whether it has “knowledge” that they will be used to commit human rights violations. This standard would be used to criticize U.S. sales retrospectively and would be the basis of investigations by the U.N. on the argument that, even if the U.S. did not in fact know about impending violations, it should have known. This standard is completely unacceptable and by itself demands a U.S. rejection of the treaty."

At the ATT, The Charge of the Dictatorships

The Arms Trade Treaty, Days Four and Five: As the Temperature Rises, the Doors Close, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 25, 2013. "The row between China and the European Union at the U.N. conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) got Thursday off to a heated start. By the time Friday came to a close, it seemed possible that the conference might collapse into the same acrimonious confusion that ended last July’s negotiations."

At the ATT, China Intervenes Against the EU

The Arms Trade Treaty, Day Four: As a New Draft Arrives, China Speaks and the EU Begs, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 22, 2013. "The fun began with an intervention on Wednesday by Germany, speaking on behalf of the EU, and asking—begging, really—for the EU to have the right to sign the treaty. Because the national interests in the EU are too diverse to allow it to settle on a common negotiating position, all the EU wants is the pathetic validation of its own existence that would derive from signing the treaty. It’s not in the room to achieve anything substantive."

U.S. Isolation at Arms Trade Treaty Conference

The Arms Trade Treaty, Day Three: Turning Up the Pressure on the U.S., Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 21, 2013. "As the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference moved through its third day, the isolation of the United States became ever clearer. The U.S. position is that the current text of the treaty, negotiated last July, needs to be better drafted but should not be substantially changed. Yesterday, it became increasingly obvious that most nations disagree."

How the Dictators Hang Together

A Falkland Islands Coda, Contentions, March 21, 2013. "Spurred on by James Kirchick’s superb piece on why the Falkland Islands matter, and by my on-going visit to the UN, it’s worth pointing out how the Falklands illustrate one more thing: how the autocracies, in hanging together at the UN, all too often organize around their shared hatred of Israel."

Ammunition's Not the Issue

Is Ammunition a Flash Point in the Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations?, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 20, 2013. "One of the most discussed issues at the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference is whether ammunition should be fully included in the scope of the treaty. Predictably, opinion at the conference is strongly (though not universally) in favor of full inclusion. This mistake illustrates the broader fallacies of the ATT."

A Fog of UN Code Words

On the Rhetoric of the United Nations and the United States, Contentions, March 20, 2013. "Sitting in the back of the room as the UN’s member states negotiate the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a disorientating experience. That’s partly because it’s not a negotiation as Americans understand the term: it’s a series of more or less unconnected national interventions on particular points of interest, while the actual drafting happens out of sight. It’s also because Iran and North Korea are treated with at least as much formal respect as the United States and South Korea."

Embarrassing U.S. Policy on the Falklands

After the Falklands Referendum, U.S. Must Back Britain, Forward, Conservative Way Forward, March 20, 2013. "The policy of the United States towards the Falkland Islands is an embarrassment. It is past time for the U.S. to recognize that the sovereignty of the Islands has been settled by history, by Britain’s victory in 1982, and by the voice of the Islanders themselves."

The Underlying Tension in the ATT Negotiations

Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Human Rights and Non-State Actors, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 19, 2013. "In the clash between the autocracies and the sanctimonious, the U.S. can find no comfort. The autocracies aren’t aiming at the Second Amendment, but a treaty that focuses on non-state actors raises the specter of bans on the import of firearms by anyone but the government—because what the autocracies really mean by “non-state actors” is 'private citizens.'"

The Opposing Factions at the ATT

The Arms Trade Treaty, Day One: Potential Roadblocks to Agreement, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 19, 2013. "As we have explained, we believe the ATT is a bad idea, will not work, and poses numerous prudential risks to U.S. interests. But now that the conference has started, it is time to assess the main controversies, which have become clear as the opening statements by national delegations concluded."

John Stuart Mill, the ATT, and Syria

Multilateralism and the Arms Trade Treaty, Contentions, March 18, 2013. "The negotiation of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which I am observing at the U.N., offers a wonderful environment in which to observe the various species of hypocrisy. But like any zoo, you pretty well know what’s in the cage. Iran will be smoothly menacing, Syria will spit venom, and every developing nation will demand “implementation assistance,” i.e. more foreign aid. In the U.N., the dangers and the silliness are somewhat mitigated by their predictability."

Kerry on Treaties as "Encouragement"

Kerry Signals Conditional U.S. Commitment to U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 18, 2013. "On Friday afternoon—the traditional time to issue unpopular statements—U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signaled the conditional commitment of the U.S. to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The conditions were as important as the commitment: According to Kerry, the U.S. wants a “strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty” that “recognizes that each nation must tailor and enforce its own national export and import control mechanisms,” “does not impose any new requirements on the U.S. domestic trade in firearms or on U.S. exporters,” and 'bring[s] all countries closer to existing international best practices.' "

The ATT and the ABA: Part 4

The Arms Trade Treaty and the Second Amendment: Too Risky to Ratify, with John G. Malcolm, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 18, 2013. "The U.S. is sensitive to allegations that it is failing to fulfill treaty commitments, and it rightly takes its treaty obligations seriously. Because the ATT is a process that is designed to evolve and grow, it is impossible to know where it will lead."

The ATT and the ABA: Part 3

The Arms Trade Treaty and the Second Amendment: The Dangers of Transnationalism, with John G. Malcolm, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 16, 2013. "The ABA paper neglects another fundamental point. Though the ATT is a treaty, it is fundamentally a process, not an event. It envisages a secretariat (Article 12(1)) charged with assisting “effective implementation” of the treaty and (Article 21) regular conferences of nations party to the treaty that will 'consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation and operation of this Treaty.'"

On the Moran-Kelly Resolution

Congress Shows Leadership on U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 15, 2013. "A powerful group of Senators and Representatives came together on Wednesday to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing concerns with the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This effort was led by Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) and Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA), who united 28 colleagues in the Senate and 121 in the House."

The ATT and the ABA: Part 2

The Arms Trade Treaty and the Second Amendment: Encouraging Executive Actions, with John G. Malcolm, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 14, 2013. "In the first part of the series, we noted our concerns with the implications of the treaty for the import of firearms and as they relate to the federal structure of the U.S. In this second part, we look at how the treaty’s requirements may invite further executive actions by the United States."

Debunking the Debunkers

Debunked: ‘Myths’ of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 14, 2013. "The office of Representative Raul M. Grijalva (D–AZ) distributed a “Dear Colleagues” letter to House Republicans on March 1 that seeks to debunk what it describes as four “myths” about the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The truth is more complex than the letter allows."

The ATT and the ABA

The Arms Trade Treaty and the Second Amendment: Answering the American Bar Association, with John Malcolm, Heritage Foundation Foundry, March 13, 2013. "On February 26, the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which concludes that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” This conclusion neglects important facts about the treaty and the processes surrounding it, which we will explore in this four-part blog series."

A Review of the ATT Text and Process

The U.S. Cannot Fix the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2774, March 13, 2013. "The failure of the initial negotiating conference for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has been wrongly blamed on the U.S. This false accusation and the conference’s lack of seriousness illustrate the fundamental flaws of any global treaty on the conventional arms trade. While improving the currently unacceptable treaty text may be possible, the treaty would still fail to achieve its purported aim and would pose irremediable risks to U.S. national interests. Yet if the U.S. blocks the adoption of a consensus text at the March conference, a significant number of states will likely negotiate a treaty outside the U.N. system. Participation in this conference is therefore a no-win game that the U.S. should decline to play on the grounds that it already has, and will continue to operate and reform, a world-class export control system that substantially achieves the supposed object and purpose of the proposed treaty."

Puzzling U.S. Policy on The Falkland Islands

US Should Stop Playing Games with the Freedom of the Falkland Islands, Yorkshire Post (UK), March 12, 2013. "It is hard to understand what the US thinks it is achieving by encouraging Britain to negotiate away the rights of the Falkland Islanders. Yet that is exactly what Washington is doing. Starting with the notorious 2010 press conference with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a string of US officials have urged Britain to negotiate with Argentina."

The ATT Cannot Work

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the ‘Gun Grab’, The Blaze, March 5, 2013. "The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a bad idea. But it’s not a bad idea because it’s a gun grab. It’s a bad idea because it will restrain the democracies, not the dictatorships. It’s a bad idea because it cannot work."

The Falklands Are British

The United States Should Recognize British Sovereignty Over the Falkland Islands, with Nile Gardiner and Luke Coffey, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2771, March 4, 2013. "In order to assert their inherent right to choose their own form of government, the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands will hold a referendum on March 10–11, 2013, to decide whether they wish to maintain their allegiance to Great Britain. Britain has administered the Islands peacefully and continuously since 1833, with the exception of the two months in 1982 when the Islands were invaded and illegally occupied by Argentine forces. The Obama Administration has backed Argentina’s calls for a U.N.-brokered settlement for the Islands and so far has refused to recognize the outcome of the referendum. This policy poses serious risks to U.S. interests and is an insult both to Britain—the U.S.’s closest ally—and to the rights of the Islanders."