'George, This Is Not the Time To Go Wobbly!'

The following article has been re-posted by permission from Newsmax.com. If you are not familiar with Newsmax.com, it is our favorite news & opinion journal on the Internet, with a great variety of topics and authors, and it is updated at least once daily. We highly recommend you visit their site!

Boge Quinn

America to White House: 'George, This Is Not the
Time to Go Wobbly!'

Lawrence Auster
Thursday, July 12, 2001

To anyone who attends the speeches and reads the documents of
the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light
Weapons in All Its Aspects, one thing becomes abundantly clear:
The ultimate aim of this conference is nothing less than a global
system of gun control.

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.

Got something to say about this article? Want to agree (or disagree) with it? Click the following link to go to the GUNBlast Feedback Page.

Thanks for stopping by!