A dramatic sculpture created from weapons reportedly
taken from child soldiers and street gangs welcomed the delegates to the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in
All Its Aspects which was held at the UN from July 9-20. To be armed, or not to
be – that was the question that
surrounded the conference where mixed messages fueled the controversy over
the meeting's true agenda. The questions, however, originated not from within – where the
participants repeated mantra-like statements as if they were suffering
from mass hypnosis – but rather from
conservative media outlets who sought to attach solid definitions to UN
double-speak.
What do they mean by small arms? Do
they want to disarm private citizens or militias? How much lee-way does
the vague term "All Its Aspects" provide for UN
shenanigans? With the UN's history of concocting subtle phrases that
they interpret at will, it is safe to assume that what they say,
is not always what they mean.
Deciphering the double-speak
"This
week's conference is not meant to infringe on national sovereignty, limit
the right of states to defend themselves, interfere with their
responsibility to provide security, or subvert the right of peoples to
self-determination," reassured UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
in the International
Herald Tribune on July 10, "nor
is it meant to take guns away from their legal owners." Talk is
cheap. Before the world can take the Secretary General at his word,
further investigation is needed.
It
didn't take very long to discover the truth about Annan's hollow words. If the UN does not intend to
"infringe on national sovereignty," then why did he close
the above-mentioned article with the following statement? "In
recent years, campaigns against landmines, for debt relief and for an
International Criminal Court have demonstrated the extraordinary capacity
of ordinary people to band together behind a cause and fundamentally
change the policies of Governments. Surely, the illicit trade in
small arms and light weapons deserves similar attention." (bold and
italics added) Apparently they do not intend to infringe on
national sovereignty; they intend to eliminate it.
Reminiscent
of Clinton's veiled meanings and plays on words, the UN stresses that
they are not concerned with "legal weapons properly attained,"
yet their concept of legal weapons are those owned and operated by
governments. They are concerned, however, with the weapons that you,
the private citizen, properly attained. Another catch-phrase, "small arms and light
weapons," was repeatedly echoed throughout the conference right along
with "weapons of mass destruction," conjuring up images of
machine guns and assault rifles. But is there a gap between people's understanding of these expressions and the real UN definitions behind
them? Of course. According
to the UN's own website:
Small arms are weapons designed for personal use,
while light weapons are designed for use by several persons serving as a
crew. Examples of small arms include revolvers and self-loading
pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light
machine-guns. Light weapons include heavy machine-guns, some types of
grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, and
portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems. (bold added)
Worldwide "mass destruction" through
pistols and rifles
The
Small Arms Survey, an independent research project located in Geneva,
Switzerland, serves as the world's principle source of information on small arms
and as a resource center for governments and other policy makers,
including the UN. Keith
Krause, Programme Director for the project, reveals the collective mindset
of the global elite with these words from a recent press
release: "With 1,300 people killed daily –
half a million annually –
it is no exaggeration to call small arms and light weapons the real
weapons of mass destruction. They exacerbate conflicts, cause much
human suffering, and undermine economic development across the globe."
(bold added)
Bingo. If pistols and rifles are the real
"weapons of mass destruction" that the UN is trying to eliminate, then
John Q. Public's next deer hunting expedition may become a criminal offense if the UN
succeeds in their agenda – and they are certainly not working alone. The UN has found a way to keep their
fingerprints off the gun control evidence by creating an NGO-sponsored
group to take the heat – the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA),
whose stated purpose aims for "creating norms of non-possession"
and "reducing the availability of weapons to civilians." That
sure sounds alarmingly similar to "taking guns away
from their legal owners." IANSA has been busy organizing gun-burning
rallies in several countries. South
Africa police dutifully destroyed tons of confiscated weapons in
recognition of International Small Arms Destruction Day on July 9.
No one should be surprised,
however. The UN tipped its hand years ago. The real "smoking gun"
for eliminating civilian ownership of all guns is found
on page 131 of a 1995 UN document written by the Commission on
Global Governance in their report, Our
Global Neighborhood: "We strongly endorse community
initiatives to protect individual life, to encourage the disarming of
civilians, and to foster an atmosphere of security in neighbourhoods.” (bold
added)
Mr. Annan's assurances that the UN does not want to
subvert citizens' constitutional rights has been weighed and found wanting. The
writing on the wall is crystal clear, regardless of what spin the UN's
public relations cronies put forth on recent events. Even the conference's
website acknowledges that "In short, it has become clear that the Conference
is an arms control and disarmament undertaking." But why does the UN
have its sights set on privately-owned firearms?
The reason for the seizin'
In a rare moment of honesty, the UN brazenly admitted that a prime
reason for removing weapons from the hands of civilians is to prevent
people from opposing the UN itself: "...the easy availability of
small arms and light weapons has led to the targeting of UN peacekeeping
and humanitarian field staff as well as its non-governmental partners on
the ground." It's own peace-keeping operations (which include
collecting and destroying weapons) do, in fact, "infringe on national
sovereignty and limit the right of states to defend themselves,"
negating Annan's claims to the contrary. How can un-armed freedom-fighters resist a
tyrannical world government? They cannot, and that is
precisely the goal.
During the conference, alarming statistical propaganda made the rounds while
feeding people's fears and tugging on their heartstrings: 500 million
small arms circulating worldwide – 40-60% being illicit; $1 billion in
annual illicit trade of arms; armed conflict as the second cause of death
worldwide after AIDS – over 1,000 deaths per day; 300,000 child
soldiers; the horror of war-torn nations; four million war deaths – 90% of
whom were civilians (mostly women and children); and ethnic
conflicts were all named as stimuli for international intervention.
Illicit or isn't it?
Despite assurances that the
conference was only a means to curb the illegal flow of weapons
into the world's conflict zones and into the hands of criminals, the
backlash against the US for its resolute position in protecting its
citizens' constitutional right to bear arms exposed the sinister truth.
While Americans sit back and confidently assume that civilian disarmament will never happen
here, the UN – with the support of NGOs and a
majority of countries around the world – is
hard at work to accomplish that very objective. In fact, the United States was the only
country that refused to allow language that would limit gun ownership for
common citizens!
The president of the conference, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez
from Columbia, issued the following statement
revealing the vast criticism directed at the US for "sticking to
their guns:"
While congratulating all participants for their
diligence in reaching this new consensus, I must as President also
express my disappointment over the Conference's inability to agree –
due to the concerns of one state – on language recognizing the need
to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these
deadly weapons, and the need for preventing sales of such arms to
non-state groups." (bold added)
In a NewsMax article on July 10,
Lawrence Auster plucked
the nagging question from everyone's mind and transferred it into black and white
when he asked, "Why should legal arms that
are used to harm civilians be
of any less concern than arms traded illegally?" Foreign Minister Jozias
van Artsen, a powerful speaker from the Netherlands, supplied the answer when he changed the standard phrase "the illicit trade in small
arms and light weapons" to "the uncontrolled trade in
small arms and light weapons." He argued that stopping illicit traffic is not enough, and that we must increase regulations on the legal trade
of arms to
prevent spillover to the illegal arms trade.
So much for the "illicit" pretense. According
to the U.N., the illicit arms trade is "international trade in
conventional arms which is contrary to the laws of states and/or
international law." Hal Lindsey, in a WorldNetDaily
commentary on July 11 states that "the UN is meeting to discuss
passage of laws making illegal something that, in order to qualify must
already be illegal. On its face, then, it would appear this must be
the brainchild of the UN Department of Redundancy."
Global gun control, phase one
The first global agreement on gun control became a
reality on July 21, 2001. The culmination of two
weeks of intense negotiations resulted in a non-binding 16 page document
which was signed by more than 160 nations. The United States, as in all international treaties, was
expected to put global concerns above national concerns, but prefers to
let each country address its own weapons problems through its own laws.
Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) praised US efforts by stating, "I commend the
Bush administration, and particularly Undersecretary of State John Bolton,
for holding the line and blocking a back-door attempt to infringe upon our
Second Amendment rights."
The final draft of the Program of Action to Prevent,
Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in
All Its Aspects reached all of its objectives except the two considered to be the most important: prohibiting private ownership of
weapons, and preventing governments from selling weapons to rebel groups
(who would then be deprived of the ability to overthrow illegitimate
rulers). Two of the offending paragraphs that the US took issue with have
since been removed, namely paragraph 15 "to supply small arms
and light weapons only to governments, or to entities duly
authorized by governments," and paragraph
22, "to seriously consider legal restrictions on
unrestricted trade in and ownership of small arms and light
weapons."
Although this accord is not legally enforceable at this point, the July 16 draft of the Working Paper
exposes that very goal in paragraph 42: "as a basis for an eventual legally
binding international instrument" which will supercede national
law. The treaty calls for government regulations on the sale of small
arms; marking methods to track movement of arms; disarming of combatants
at the end of a conflict; destroying stockpiles of small arms; and a
follow up conference in 2006.
The marking system provides the
first step in global gun control. Innocently
tucked away under the heading Program of Action;
section II, the document requires nations to
"apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and
light weapon as an integral part of the production process. This marking
should be unique and should identify the country of manufacture and also
provide information that enables the national authorities of that country
to identify the manufacturer and serial number, so that the authorities
concerned can identify and trace each weapon."
Do guns really cause crime?
The
conference revolved around the some form of this general theme: "Guns
cause violence, poverty, crime, and racism." By applying this one-dimensional
logic to
other social ills, the UN may have found a simple key to ending crime
altogether. Imagine the unlimited possibilities for more international
treaties. For instance: Matches cause arson –
which in turn could prompt
the "United Nations Program of Action to Eradicate the Trafficking of
Illicit Matches and Lighters." Or, Fetuses cause
abortions; Merchandise causes theft; Swords cause stabbing... the list is
endless.
A display in the UN
General Assembly
building includes this text: "Light weapons circulate easily into
communities at peace, where they are often put to criminal use." It
is as if their very arrival devastates peaceful nations, but guns do not
have wings, legs or fins. In fact, their only method of propulsion is the
people who tote them. Human conflicts attract the firearms,
rather than the reverse. The truth is that countries who have the strictest gun
control laws have the
highest crime rates. There is no shortage of weapons among criminals,
even in countries that have totally banned private ownership of small
arms. This illustrates the saying that "When guns
are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Crime skyrockets
because they know that innocent citizens have no way to protect
themselves.
The only way that crime will be
eradicated, is for people's hearts to be changed, and that will only be accomplished
through an encounter with Jesus Christ, not through international
legislation. Although the US temporarily squeaked a narrow victory
out of this conference, the door to UN regulation of the world's arms is
now wide open, and government tracking of weapons is just the beginning. Expect
the NGOs to turn up the heat using their tools of fear and
misinformation. If anyone still
does not believe that a world government is being formed, it is time to face
the facts. The next gun seized may be your own.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/about.htm
About the Conference
- http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/
Small Arms Survey
- http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/sg.htm
Sec. General's statement
- http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/files/aconf192_l5r1.pdf
final draft of Programme of Action
TOP
