U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

reuters ^ | 5/21/10 | Reuters

[Nachum]

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

[OneWingedShark]

BLOAT.

[Carry_Okie]

Treaties are treated the same as laws passed by Congress - if they’re unconstitutional, they’re unenforceable and struck down.

Name a treaty that has been "struck down."

[Red Badger]

That’s not how the Left views it. They see it as a way of bypassing the Constitution in lieu of International Laws. That is why SCOTUS looking at international laws in making their decisions is so alarming.............

[IYAS9YAS]

That is why SCOTUS looking at international laws in making their decisions is so alarming.............

100% in agreement on that.

[CPOSharky]

Consensus? A consensus of libtard politicians? Each country gets one vote?

How many countries have conservative leadership? Certainly conservative leaders are outnumbered by tin-pot dictators.

[ronnyquest]

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

[SunkenCiv]

The United States... said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision... overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better... Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

IOW, Clinton and the rest of the administration is lying -- there is no change at all in US policy, just in the semantics, one of the favorite forms of lie among leftists. Thanks Nachum.

[green iguana]

Maybe struck down was a bad phrase - I don't know of a blatantly unconstitutional treaty, such as this would be, that has been ratified. The point is that a treaty is legally considered no different from a law passed by Congress. If it's unconstitutional, it's void - even if it makes it through ratification. They both are subject to the court system.

[Carry_Okie]

I don't know of a blatantly unconstitutional treaty, such as this would be, that has been ratified.

OK, allow me to offer this treatment of the topic. It discusses a notable example that is an absolute outrage. If you find that informative, there are more like it here.

[deks]

Author and date is just to the right of the first paragraph...

Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT

[Nachum]

Ah. Thanks for that.

[deks]

It never hurts to repost this for vigilance. There are probably many who have not heard of it yet. Thanks for all of the work you do in posting articles.

[deks]

U.S. Support for the Arms Trade Treaty

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 14, 2009

Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.

The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.

On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers. On a bilateral basis, the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions. Multilaterally, we have consistently supported high international standards, and the Arms Trade Treaty initiative presents us with the opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.

The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation as the continuation of the process that began in the UN with the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts on the ATT and continued with the 2009 UN Open-Ended Working Group on ATT.

PRN: 2009/1022

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm

[deks]

There’s some information here too...

http://www.armscontrol.org/node/3909

[green iguana]

I’m sorry, but that guy’s totally wrong - bordering on being a nutcase wrong.

Treaties, even ratified ones, don’t work like that.

[Carry_Okie]

Treaties, even ratified ones, don’t work like that.

The hell they don't. I give you the Endangered Species Act, which lists treaty powers for its authority, including the Convention on Nature Protection cited in the article.

USC Title 16, Section 1531:

the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to—

(A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;

(B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;

(C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;

(D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries; (E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;

(F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora;

Other international agreements.

You asked for a treaty usurping powers exceeding Constitutionally enumerated powers and I gave you one. Too bad you don't like it; it's just the way the system works today.

I’m sorry, but that guy’s totally wrong - bordering on being a nutcase wrong.

BTW, these people don't think I'm wrong, or a "nutcase."

[green iguana]

Sorry about that - I retract my previous comments. I was a bit hasty in reviewing the links you sent, but have since remedied that.

That’s some good work - gave me a lot to think about.

[Carry_Okie]

Not a problem. I am responsible for all the work on that articles page. The first four represent a very serious body of work that should be taken in sequence.

I might also recommend the picture book, The Responsible Party. Caution: it is an Acrobat pdf of over 40MB.