Press Conference at UN Headquarters

I take it that most of you or all of you have a copy of the prepared statement that I delivered on behalf of the United States this morning and I won't repeat that in the interest of time. Except to say we think there are some important issues that this conference can address in terms of eliminating the flow of illicit small arms and weapons to areas prone to conflict. We strongly hope that the delegations present here can reach consensus on a program of action coming out of the conference in the two weeks we have. There are a lot of other issues that are extraneous to that we think are inappropriate and we hope the conference doesn't get bogged down on. Of course, in UN conferences, only time will tell. But we're hopeful that we can focus on the real problem area and not get off into other political questions that we think are more properly left to the processes of representative governments of the Member States.

So, let me just stop there and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about either this conference or other aspects of arms control and international security as well.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Could I just ask also, because it has been a long time since I've been up here in an official capacity, if you could just tell me who you are and who you are with, please?

QUESTION: On behalf of the UN Correspondents Association, I welcome you to this briefing. My name is Jim Worsten from Interpress Service. My question concerns the question when President (inaudible) was here a couple hours ago, he talked about the sort of a movement -- moving towards some sort of a compromise. Where do you see the U.S. interests in a willingness to move to achieve consensus?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: I think if the conference can concentrate on the central issue of the flow of illicit weapons into areas of conflict, then I think there is broad room for agreement. But if it drifts off into areas that are more properly the subject of national level decision making, then I think there will be difficulties. And I mentioned several areas in the draft program of action that the United States will strongly support, and I mentioned several areas that we would not support.

So we would be looking for progress in the areas where I think consensus is achievable, and I hope we could reach consensus. But we are not going to join, if it gets off into the byways of some of these other issues.

QUESTION: Bill Varner of Bloomberg News. The U.S. made it clear, it has been made clear, that this is not a binding document. There is no international law we are talking about here. Yet one of your statements -- one of the paragraphs in your statement says, we do not support measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms. That isn't the case (inaudible)…

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: One of the aspects of the program, of the draft program of work, is commitment to engage in negotiations leading to binding legal agreements. And I think if there is anybody in the press corps anywhere in the world who understands the process of accretion in UN decision making, it's probably this group. You start off with a half of a phrase in a resolution that nobody reads that then gets turned into a political declaration that suddenly becomes a binding international agreement. You can see that from little acorns, bad treaties grow.

And our interest here is in making it clear that we're not interested in that approach. There is a serious issue of the flow of illicit weapons into areas of conflict, and that's what we think people ought to engage on.

QUESTION: One of the things you singled out -- Irwin Arieff of Reuters -- one of the things you singled out in your remarks was -- Paragraph 20, section 2 of the National Commitments which reads "does seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes." How is that? What are your objections to that?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Right. There are two questions with respect to that particular provision. The first is, what exactly is the definition of "small arms and light weapons" and, as I think I said in my statement -- I would refer you back to that -- I think there is considerable disagreement about exactly what we mean.

There are a lot of weapons that have both a military aspect in some respects and a civilian aspect in other respects. And I don't think -- I think the definition as it stands now is very, very broad. It covers everything from a standard hunting rifle to crew-served mortars. And I think those are really very different -- very different questions and ought to be addressed in that way.

I think the ambiguity, both in the definition of small arms and light weapons, and in the question of whether they're militarily related or not leaves us concern that an ambiguous declaration could lead to regulation and restraints in areas that we think are inappropriate.

QUESTION: Why do you think a hunting rifle is specifically developed for military purposes?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: What I am saying is that there are -- let me give you one example. And my exclusive involvement with firearms was when I was in the Service, so this is the one example that I can speak to from any degree of personal knowledge. I've never owned a weapon in my life.

When I was in the Army, a depressingly long time ago, the weapon we used then and the weapon they use now is the M-16. And in its non-automatic variety all those years ago, 30 years ago, at that time, there was a civilian version of that weapon called the AR-15 that was a single-shot weapon manufactured by Colt. And yet with a relatively modest change, an AR-15 could be made into an M-16.

Now, if the AR-15 is viewed as a military weapon, as opposed to a legitimate hunting weapon, then the ambiguity in the provision I just referred to would cause us great concern, because there would be a wide variety of weapons that are used for sports and hunting and recreational activities in the United States that might fall under that definition. And it is precisely that kind of ambiguity that shows the potential diffusion of focus of this conference away from the flow of illicit weapons to regions of conflict.

QUESTION: My name is (inaudible). Mr. Bolton, two questions. The NGOs and diplomats from among (inaudible) how harsh -- they said harsh -- your term was in your address to the conference. I wonder what you think of that. And, secondly, do you see here the European Union favors binding agreements another area where it could be viewed that the EU and the U.S. might have a conflict?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: I try to be clear when I speak and, hopefully, I'm successful. So that's all I can really say about the tone question. I think clarity is a good thing.

In terms of the differences between the United States and the EU or others, I think there are undoubtedly a number of differences on issues of what are legitimate domestic policy debates. And what I've said consistently, both in the statement and here earlier, is that we do see room for important international action, concerted action, to deal with a very serious problem.

And our hope is that member governments here at the conference can focus on that problem and not get diverted into other things. And on that score, I would hope we would reach consensus with all governments present.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) My question is a follow-up of the question of this lady. I noticed a lot of "we do not support." As a matter of fact, I counted about six or seven "we do not support," "we do not support."

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: That's clarity. Well, what we support is in the first four pages of the statement where I talked about a range of things like support for enforcement of Security Council embargoes and a number of steps involving restrictions on the export of illicit small arms and light weapons. I referred at length to the extensive system of licensing that -- the United States has the most thorough regulatory scheme of any country in the world dealing with shipments of military weapons overseas.

We have many bilateral programs that work with other governments to strengthen their export control systems and their custom systems. We would be prepared to continue that, to expand it in a multilateral context.

So basically the first half of the statement was an explanation of what we were for. But I think it is useful in conferences like this to be very clear about what you're for and what you're not for. I think it helps the negotiations, I think it clarifies the issues. And then nobody can say we're surprised later that the United States had this position or that position. I believe in transparency and debate in the United Nations and today was my small contribution.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Actually, a number of delegates came up and said, thank you very much for a clear statement.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) So my question is, are you a member of NRA and how many members of the NRA do you have on your delegation?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: I am not a member of the NRA. I have never been a member. Let me start over. I am not now and never have been a member of the NRA, and I have no idea who on the delegation is a member of the NRA. The NRA did not write our position. And that's that.

QUESTION: Greg Barry, BBC News. W e heard from other people speaking here that in developing countries where there is conflict, it is not really a case of whether it's a military rifle or a hunting rifle. If it shoots bullets, it's going to kill people. And I think that is the issue they're trying to address.

Isn't there a danger that this particularly selfish approach by the U.S. is going to draw away from that approach to dealing with the problem that looks specifically at weapons that kill?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Well, I think all weapons have the potential for killing. And that's, I think, part of the problem we're trying to delineate here, is to avoid an approach that would be so all-encompassing that it paralyzes us from finding a way to address the really serious issue that threatens peacekeepers and humanitarian workers and others in international conflict situations.

And that is the risk, I think, of this idea that to deal with the problem of illicit weapons flows, you have to deal with all weapons flows. We don't agree with that. We think we have, in our own country, developed a very elaborate system of export controls. If other countries had similarly elaborate systems of export controls, this problem would be greatly reduced.

But it is of concern to us that we focus on what is both legitimate and practical for an international gathering to deal with. And we have substantial experience in that regard, we're eager to discuss these issues, and look forward to finding constructive solutions to a real international problem, not making political points on domestic policy agendas.

QUESTION: Colum Lynch, Washington Post. Could you sort of just talk a little bit more about what's the objection to the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or NGO groups, and you're talking about money through the UN to pay for these things or do you object to the idea in principle?

And also, in general, it sounds like that the idea you are sort of promoting here is kind of internationalizing the Second Amendment, that what's good in the United States is good everywhere and that international sort of norms should follow that line of reasoning.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Let me address the second question first. That's absolutely not what I said. What I said was that the Second Amendment provides the constitutional basis on which our own domestic policies are based. And they are the subject of legitimate, democratic debate and disagreement within the United States. Some people favor stricter gun control laws, other people favor less restrictive gun control laws.

My only point here today is that that issue is not legitimate for discussion at this forum. What other countries choose to do in terms of their own domestic gun control policies is entirely their business and we do not seek to, in any way, multilateralize the Second Amendment. By the same token, we expect that our own domestic constitutional and policy choices, as made through a system of representative government, will also be respected.

Now, in terms of the NGOs, I think that there is widespread agreement in the United States that political advocacy through the use of tax dollars is not something that we want to support. And to the extent that the draft program of action purports to create conditions where advocacy of particular policies would be supported through multilateral organizations, that's something that we would oppose.

As I said in my statement, what individual governments do on their own is up to them. And we, certainly, in the United States have our own views on it. And to answer a partial question you didn't ask, we don't intend to try and multilateralize our preference, except we're going to say, as I just indicated, that we think continued support for particular political points of view through international organizations is not legitimate.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), Disarmament Times. In your speech you said that you were against the prohibition of arms sales to private parties. But the United States wanted to sell arms to private parties in case there was a genocidal government that had to be opposed. Where does this apply now? Which countries would you say the United States is selling arms to (inaudible).

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: I would refer you to the exact text of the speech, which I won't repeat here, except that I also said that, read broadly, which is one thing we feared, that provision could lead to the elimination of all private arms sales internationally. And if you take into account the very extensive system of export controls that we have on arms sales, we think that that is the better approach, and that that is one of the concerns we have.

But it is also the case that there are legitimate cases for the sale of -- to private groups -- of small arms and light weapons. We don't think that that addresses the main problem that this conference is here to discuss, and that's why we took the view that we did.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: That is a question I cannot answer off the top of my head. I couldn't answer that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Taking into account you statement, if there is a clear definition of small arms and light weapons that's acceptable to United States, would their position change?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Well, I think it would depend on what part of the program of action you're talking about. What I was trying to raise was our concern that the definition is susceptible of over-breadth and that that is something that our delegation will be looking at as we discuss the whole -- the whole text.

QUESTION: Evelyn Leopold from Reuters. Your position seems to be closer to India and China, (inaudible) than the European Union, which seems to be in the forefront of all this. Are you saying that if everyone (inaudible)? Do the Europeans have the same type of export rules as the United States and can something be done there for an agreement? And if you don't reach consensus, is the U.S. delegation going to leave or how is this going to end?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: No, we're not going to leave. Come on, we like it here. No, we want to work constructively to reach an agreement on a program of action that really addresses the critical problem that I have been discussing. And we think that will be possible if we keep the focus on what the problem is, and not get diverted into other areas.

You know, I haven't studied the position of India and China, so I can't comment on that. And we arrived at our position based on what we thought our national views ought to be. But I don't want to understate the importance that we attach to the conference and our hope that we can come to something that is constructive, and not simply engage in a battle of political rhetoric.

QUESTION: Edith Lederer from the Associated Press. We have spoken on the phone. I have a personal question, and --

QUESTION: We always called you in your previous job, when we were looking for critics of the United Nations. So I guess seeing you sitting here and representing the United States at a UN conference makes me want to ask, how do you feel in this role, and do you really feel that this conference and this organization can do anything?

QUESTION: And one of the reasons that brought this back to my mind was what you said in your speech about the United States being opposed to any follow-up, even this morning some of the other countries, including the Netherlands, have called for follow-up conferences in two years to work on this issue, which obviously some of our allies and partners think is a very important issue, and the United States seems to be pooh-poohing any sort of serious follow-up to this, and I just wondered whether this played into skepticism that the United Nations could really do anything about this.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: I didn't say that I was opposed to any follow-up; what I said was we were opposed to a mandatory five-year review conference or a mandatory schedule for negotiations. And I think that that is a view that we hold -- again, not restricted to this conference. I think negotiations ought to flow at the pace that member governments determine they ought to flow, and not be subject to arbitrary time limits.

That is very different from saying that there shouldn't be any follow-up. We think that if we can reach agreement on constructive solutions to the problem of the illicit flow of weapons into areas of conflict, that follow-up might well be appropriate. What we don't want is an endless series of meetings that continue down these political byways that are extraneous to the central and important international issue that we are here to discuss.

QUESTION: Barbara Crosette, New York Times. But the fact remains that big arms manufacturing countries -- the weapons do get out we've just heard some NGO people talking about American getting, even though you've got a ban on Paraguay, they still come through Brazil (inaudible).

Is there anything you can do outside the conference formula or outside the international arena, or anything you thought of that the big arms manufacturers could get together and work better at this, just as an initial step?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Well, let me give you one example of something that might be productive. One of the things that we try and do in our system of export controls is have our controls reach the ultimate end-users; that is to say, even if a purchaser, let's say, is in Europe, we include prohibitions in our licenses about onward sales of those weapons to people who would not get a license from us to be purchasers of the weapons in the first place. And we are just about the only country in the world that really has, built into its system of export controls, that kind of concern about ultimate end use.

If others -- for instance, countries that -- even those that have systems of export controls that purchased weapons from us would agree to further prohibitions on onward transfers of the weapons, we think that would go a long way toward mitigating the problem. Because even though we have lots of on-site inspections to prevent that onward transfer, onward movement of the weapons, they can't be everywhere, they can't be totally effective.

So, I mean, that's one thing that other governments could do, that we would be pleased to work with them, that we think would have an impact.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) some of the arguments that we heard this morning from the U.S. sound very similar to what we've heard also from the Chinese, in terms of not wanting restrictions on what they export, markings and things like that. Are you concerned that weapons from other states outside the US, weapon producing states, might end up in the hands of countries at odds with the U.S., or rogue states, and what do you think should be done about that?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: That's an entirely legitimate concern, for us and for others, and it is one of the reasons our system of export controls, the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic and Arms Regulations are such a complex system that prospective sellers and buyers have to go through. And it is exactly concerns about keeping weapons out of the hands of potential adversaries, terrorists, or rogue states that underlies so many of the restrictions we place on American -- on the sale of American manufactured arms overseas. And it really ties into the question from Barbara Crosette I was just trying to answer, that if other governments had equally dense systems of export regulations, I think that there would be a much greater chance of preventing leakage of weapons into the illicit trafficking system.

So we have worked on a bilateral basis with other countries to strengthen their export controls and customs systems, and I am sure we will do so in the future. That might be a useful topic of discussion here. Another example is how we have tried to work in terms of our compliance with Security Council weapons embargos. And I think I mentioned in my speech, we have cut off all weapons sales to five countries over the past several years for lack of compliance with our regulations.

So there are a lot of things that can be done that directly address the flow of small arms and light weapons into conflict-prone regions that can really, really make a difference. And if the conference focuses on those practical and effective steps, we think we really can make a difference.

QUESTION: Since you started off saying that you'd talk about other arms control issues, let me yank you in a completely different direction. I've got an article from The [New York] Times in front of me about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, that talks about the Bush Administration hoping to persuade the Treaty's allies to acknowledge that the pact is effectively dead.

Now, less than a year (inaudible) of the meetings again on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, how are you -- what are you going to tell people that you have been telling for the last six years that the CTBT is a priority?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Well, the President's position on the CTBT is quite clear. He is continuing the moratorium on critical nuclear testing, and he has directed the Secretary of Defense to undertake a comprehensive review of the safety and reliability of our nuclear deterrent. And that is the position, and that is what we are going to tell people.

In terms of that New York Times article, as Cary can tell you, they called me for comment, and I declined to comment on it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the conference started with a (inaudible) accumulation of arguments that seemed to be incompatible, and I wonder, do you see a possibility for a final resolution that (inaudible), and still make sense, and still have any practical effect on a country that is flooded with weapons?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Yes, I believe there is a strong possibility we can reach agreement, and we certainly hope that happens. I laid out in my statement -- we are running out of time here, and they are about to throw me off the -- I don't want to take up repeating it -- but we laid out in the statement a number of things that we think we could reach consensus on, and we believe that if delegations focus on those areas, we can come away with a very strong and effective program of action, which we want to try and do.

QUESTION: You mentioned, I'd like to follow-up on your statement (inaudible). You said in your statement also that you -- that if the United States opposed all restrictions on legal manufacture and trade, would that cover then marking and tracing (inaudible)?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: What we are talking about is making sure that the conference does not purport to end up either in a program of action or political statements or anything else that deals with those issues in a domestic context, and that is what that was intended to cover.

QUESTION: Well, marking and tracing is a national law to require manufacturers in that country to (inaudible)?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: And the reason the United States has agreed to that in other contexts is an effort really to bring other governments up to the same standards of firearms markings that we have in the United States. But as I said, that is what that comment was intended to cover.

QUESTION: But I still don't understand -- the United States is satisfied with that section being in the declaration or wants it out?

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: No, I think we are concerned about the ambiguity in the section and the extent to which people could -- some people already have tried to argue that it requires further domestic regulation of firearms, which as I have said in other sections of the paper, we think is not an appropriate area of concern for this conference.

CAMP GUNFREE.
A common sense and historically proven way to keep those dangerous and destructive GUNS out of YOUR life.
MEMBERSHIPS AVAILABLE NOW!
Details below

Concerned about the easy availability of guns in our society?

Alarmed about the "gun nuts" and other freedom wackos the government allows to run loose?

Wish the government would just repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns because you believe sensible people shouldn't suffer because of some idiotic notion about some antiquated “right?”

While we can't take the guns away from the people, we CAN take the people (or at least SOME of them) away from their guns.

At CAMP GUNFREE, we have created an atmosphere of near-total tranquility where you and your family will experience the benefits of a GUN FREE environment.

The unique main gate at Camp GunFree. Most arriving camp guests never see this view from their comfortable rail cars.

Each of our camps is a gated community designed to keep guns away from camp guests. Firmly enforced security measures ensure that these dangerous and destructive devices are kept outside. Each camp boasts 24 hour, 7 day a week sentries and state-of-the-art enclosure systems, guard dogs, trenches and surveillance equipment to absolutely GUARANTEE that no firearms enter the facility. Rigidly controlled access ensures that no guns can ever be smuggled in.

No cost has been spared to ensure that Camp GunFree remains gun free.

All camp members are given distinctive uniforms to distinguish them from any gun-toting barbarians who might attempt to evade our security measures. Each camp member is also assigned a distinctive ID number to ensure that only the right people are allowed within the camp.

Room and board are provided to each member in exchange for rewarding tasks designed to provide a sense of accomplishment and to demonstrate that large numbers of people CAN exist in a gun violence free community.

Camp members engaged in one of our many fun-filled organized work activities.

The current headlines prompt us to remind you that there has NEVER been a shooting by a student in any of the camp schools and we can GUARANTEE that there never will be!!

For more information, call 1-800-GUNFREE
OR visit our new website at
http://www.privategunsareabadthingandwe'llseethatyouare”safe”.batf.gov

(This idea from a pamphlet originally created by The Minnesota Center for Individual Liberty, PO Box 32170, Minneapolis, MN 55432-0170)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.