The ATT's Fundamental Flaws

Five Fundamental Flaws in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 23, 2012. "The overwhelming majority of commentary in the United States on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has focused on the possible risks it poses to rights protected under the Second Amendment. There is nothing wrong with being watchful on this front, but the ATT raises broader concerns for U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, the ATT is inherently flawed simply because of the beliefs on which it is based and the process by which it is being drafted. Here are five reasons why."

The US, Britain, and the Security of the 2012 Olympic Games

U.S. Should Assist Britain in Meeting Security Threats to the 2012 London Olympic Games, with Steven Bucci, Luke Coffey, Jessica Zuckerman, and Robin Simcox, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2711, July 16, 2012. "The 2012 Summer Olympic Games and the Paralympics will be held from late July through early September in London. They are an obvious target for attacks by radical Islamist terrorists, as well as anti-capitalist anarchists, supporters of various national causes, and other groups. Britain is one of the world’s most experienced and capable practitioners of counterterrorism, and though the threats to the Summer Games are serious, Britain is well-placed to cope with them. But the scale of the threat and the strain that they will place on Britain’s armed forces mean that the U.S. can and should provide supporting assistance to British authorities."

The UN, Gun-Grabber?

Can the U.N. Grab Americans’ Guns?, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 13, 2012. "For much of the past two weeks, I’ve been attending the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty conference in New York and blogging on the craziness of Turtle Bay. A number of comments on my blog—and of course many external commentators—have raised the question of whether the ATT is, pure and simple, a “gun grab” treaty."

My Statement to the UN ATT Conference

Heritage Analyst Speaks to U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Conference, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 11, 2012. "I hope the democracies at this conference will reject the naive beliefs on which the ATT is founded and instead craft a treaty that recognizes that abuses in the arms trade stem ultimately from the member states of the United Nations itself."

The Administration Is Wrong: ATT's Criteria Are Not Ours

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty’s Criteria for Transfers Pose Problems for the U.S., Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2706, July 9, 2012. "The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is being negotiated in July. The framework on which the ATT is likely to be based is clear: it will set out criteria that signatories must apply to proposed arms transfers, and require them to decide if the proposed transfer poses a risk under any of the criteria. This approach is troubling in part because the criteria are likely to be ill-defined. It is also troubling because the ATT’s ‘checklist’ model differs fundamentally from the ‘guidance’ model the U.S. currently employs. Worst of all, though, is the fact that the ATT will enumerate criteria that will be easy to expand in ways that the U.S. cannot control. If the ATT is to exist, it should be based on a commitment by willing and democratic signatories to develop effective systems of border and export control."

UN ATT Conference: First Week Roundup

A First-Week Roundup from the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty Conference, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 9, 2012. "My own view is that the conference is likely to produce a treaty. But it’s quite clear that all the treaties in the world cannot come close to making up for the insincerity, the incapacity, and a few actually honest differences of opinion on display daily at the United Nations."

UN ATT Conference, Day Four: Venezuela Wins!

Day Four: As ATT Conference Work Begins, Venezuela Wins the Crazy Prize, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 6, 2012. "In previous sessions, Cuba, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia had all put in strong showings with speeches that were unprincipled and autocrat-friendly, but when it came to crazy, Venezuela lapped the field with a speech that will be tough to beat. In a lengthy rant attacking the “maturity” of the assembled nations, it denounced the “imperial powers” for arming the Libyan rebels who overthrew Muammar Qadhafi, demanded that the world look seriously at controlling the “imperialists” (i.e., the U.S.) who had nuclear weapons, condemned foreign aid providers for insisting on the “downsizing” of governments, and stated that it needed arms to deal with internal threats (i.e., to continue to oppress its own population."

UN ATT Conference, Day Three, Part Two: The US Speaks

Day Three: At the Arms Trade Treaty Conference, the U.S. Speaks, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 6, 2012. "The U.S. and the rest of the P5 want an ATT that is based fundamentally on “effective systems [of national control] based on common international standards,” with authority for approving transfers remaining the right and responsibility of sovereign nations. The scope of the treaty should be as broad as possible—so long as it is practical. An Implementation Support Unit in the U.N. “could” be created to facilitate information exchange, match needs for foreign aid with those supplying it, and “promote the value” of the ATT."

UN ATT Conference, Day Three: The Supervillains Attack!

Day Three: At the ATT, the International League of Supervillains Speaks, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 5, 2012. "Immediately, the objections from the International League of Supervillains came fast and furious: from Iran (which complained about visa issues and opposed having meetings in parallel), Algeria (which argued that the purpose of the treaty was unclear and could not understand why so many draft treaty texts were circulating), Cuba (which wanted agreement on treaty objectives but objected to having any meetings in parallel), and Syria (which, in distracted and rambling remarks, said the same thing)."

UN ATT Conference, Day Two: More Palestinians

Day Two: Palestinian Issue Continues to Vex Arms Trade Treaty Conference, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 5, 2012. "By agreeing to treat the Holy See and the Palestinians as equivalents at the ATT conference, the U.S. has given tacit support to a future Palestinian bid for non-member state observer status. It is unlikely that maintaining a U.S. presence in the room is worth giving the Palestinians this benefit, especially since the final treaty is almost certainly to be ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst."

UN ATT Conference, Day One: Palestinians

Day One: At Arms Trade Treaty Conference, U.S. Opposes Palestinian Inclusion, Heritage Foundry Foundry, July 3, 3012. "The much-heralded United Nations conference to negotiate the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) launched with a media and propaganda blitz, but the reality on the ground was less impressive. Not only did the conference achieve nothing in its first day, but it never got started. By closing time at 6 p.m.—U.N. translators don’t do overtime, so U.N. events end on time—the best the assembled nations could do was to agree to meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday in an effort to get the conference launched."

The UN Steps on Its Shoelaces

The U.N. Speaks: The Arms Trade Treaty Will Affect ‘Legally Owned Weapons', Heritage Foundation Foundry, June, 22, 2012. "Yesterday, the U.N. released its press kit for the July conference that will finalize the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The most interesting item in the kit is a lengthy paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN.” This paper perpetuates the belief, on which much of the ATT is based, that the big problem the world faces is a lack of agreed standards on arms transfers. That’s wrong: The big problem the world faces in this regard is that many U.N. member states are dictatorships, supporters of terrorists, or simply incapable of controlling their own borders."

Sen. Moran's Leadership on ATT

Senator Moran Speaks at Heritage on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Heritage Foundation Foundry, June 21, 2012. "Yesterday, Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) gave an important speech at The Heritage Foundation on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), negotiations on which will open on July 2 in New York. Through letters to the Administration, legislation, and amendments, Moran has played the leading role in seeking to ensure, with his colleagues in both parties, that the ATT does not infringe on rights protected under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Moran made a valuable contribution by pointing out that concerns about the ATT should not focus only on the Second Amendment. As he noted, the ATT will apply equally to dictatorships and democracies, a dangerous idea that implies that dictatorships have the same right to buy and sell weapons that democracies do. But in the context of the Second Amendment, the Senator noted that we should not be content with the Administration’s pledge not to negotiate a treaty that infringes on our rights. That is a step forward, but it is not enough. The Senator then set out four criteria that would put flesh on the bones of that pledge."

Thirty Year On, Lessons from the Falklands

Falklands War: Lessons of Liberation Ring True for U.S. Today, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3639, June 14, 2012. "The Falklands War illustrates the fundamental point that, in international affairs, one should always treat one’s friends better than anyone else. But it also offers a number of lessons for America as it struggles to avoid the devastating effects of defense sequestration and to maintain a military that provides for the common defense."

No Responsibility Here!

Out of Touch and Out of Favor . . . U.S. Voters Turn Their Backs on Obama’s World in Washington, Yorkshire Post, June 8, 2012. "Washington inherently likes nothing better than spending other people’s money. That’s why it’s so regularly out of touch. The President has spent four years cheerleading big government. He’s not the only one suffering from that, but whether he likes it or not, he personifies Washington. And in November, Washington’s irresponsibility could end up being a very big story indeed."

The ATT Will Be Bad for the US-Taiwan Alliance

Arms Trade Treaty Could Jeopardize U.S. Ability to Provide for Taiwan’s Defense, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3634, June 8, 2012. "The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be negotiated in July in New York. One reason to be concerned about the ATT is the risks that it poses to America’s ability to sell arms to Taiwan. The U.S. is legally—as well as strategically and morally—obliged to provide for Taiwan’s defense. It should neither sign nor ratify a treaty that would increase the difficulty of meeting that commitment."

Terrorist Legitimation, UN-Style

Arms Trade Treaty Risks Increasing the Threat of Armed Terrorism, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3624, June 5, 2012. "The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be negotiated at a conference held July 2–27, in New York. The ATT purports to seek, in part, to reduce the ability of terrorists to acquire conventional weapons. But as the U.N. has not defined terrorism, it is at best unclear how the ATT will achieve this aim. Moreover, if the U.N. negotiations follow precedent, the ATT will include a clause that legitimates the supply of arms to terrorists."

A Classic Aspirational Treaty

The Risks the Arms Trade Treaty Poses to the Sovereignty of the United States, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3622, June 4, 2012. "The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be negotiated in July in New York. One reason to be concerned about the ATT is the risks it poses to U.S. sovereignty. Some of these risks are specific to the ATT, but the fundamental problem with the ATT is that it is an aspirational treaty and, as such, will impose constraints on the U.S. that will not in practice affect the dictatorial regimes at which the treaty is nominally aimed."

The Coming Anti-American Campaign

When the UN Arms Trade Treaty Fails, What Next?, The Commentator, May 31, 2012. "So what happens when the Treaty doesn’t work? You can bet that the ATT’s proponents aren’t going to accept that they were wrong. They’ll do three things. First, they’ll blame the U.S. (and Britain, but mostly the U.S.) for the Treaty’s failure. Second, they’ll argue – no matter who is actually doing the arms supplying, and to what conflict – that the U.S. and Britain are ‘setting a bad example’ by engaging in even the well-regulated sale of arms to fellow democracies. Third, they’ll assert that the treaty needs to be tightened up, and its review conferences will be an occasion for running battles between countries that are easily swayed by left-wing NGOs and British and American diplomats who don’t want to double down on failure."

Too Much Is Never Enough, Apparently

A Bottom Up Look at the Top Down, Centre for Policy Studies, May 30, 2012. "If you believe that it is not possible to demonstrate that any particular level of taxation, welfare spending, or redistributive policies are economically counter-productive, and if you are in principle in favor of these things, then when do you say “enough,” and why do you decide to say it? A reliable way to get liberals excited is to say that they’re socialists. Fine, they’re not. But if Britain – where the government currently spends 50 percent of the nation’s GDP – is not verifiably well past the point of diminishing returns on state spending, where does that point lie? Is it 60 percent? 70 percent? 99 percent? If neither evidence nor principle tells you when to stop – and to go into reverse – then what does? At what point does the distinction between a really big government and socialism become irrelevant?

Bigger, But Not Better

From Britain, More Evidence That Smaller Government Is Better Government, Heritage Foundation Foundry, May 29, 2012. "The past week has seen the publication of two important studies on the virtues of smaller government by our friends in the United Kingdom. Neither paper is short, and both are technical in places, but they are both analytically careful and important contributions to the most important debate of our time, over when government grows so large that it becomes incompatible with the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Economist's Curious Views on Unions

Britain, Europe, Scotland – and the Economist, SAIS Review, May 7, 2012. "No policy can contribute to solving every problem, as E.E.C. membership claimed to do, and policies that pretend to do so are answers in search of a question. Arguments about Britain’s European destiny are so much fluff: there is no end of history, and if there is, the EU is not it."

Obama's No Shoo-In

"Obama Must Not Celebrate Yet As US Voters Look For More Than Likeability in White House Race," Yorkshire Post, May 4, 2012. Not available online. "When I was in London last month, everyone agreed on two things: David Cameron is doing badly, and Barack Obama is doing well. So well, in fact, that Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, has no chance at all to win in November. The only question in the British mind appears to be about Obama’s margin of victory."

Extremism: A Classic Irregular Verb

Are Republicans Crazy?, The Commentator, May 2, 2012. "My own view is that error and unreason are widely distributed across humanity, and any reasonably-sized group of people is likely to contain a similar amount of both. To an extent, that’s one reason I’m conservative: since people (including the very educated) are likely to get it wrong most of the time, I think it’s prudent to keep government as small as possible so as to limit its opportunities for inflicting damage. On the other hand, so much contemporary liberalism – dating back to the Progressives of the late-nineteenth century – is based on the idea that while the people are dopes, the elites are wise."

American Conservatives and the Constitutional Order

Limitless Liberalism, Centre for Policy Studies, May 2, 2012. "One of the subjects I found the least understanding about in Britain – though not, I hasten to add, in the Centre – is the connection that American conservatives draw between constitutional and limited government, American exceptionalism, and their discomfort with both the American Progressivism and the Obama administration. A common motif in press comment in Britain (and in the U.S.) is that Republicans or conservatives – the mash-up of the two is revealing, if incorrect – are simply unreasonable, petulant, and extreme. That charge is false, but it is a very old one, and it reveals something about the nature of the fundamental conflict in the U.S. political system."