Wednesday, April 3, 2013

"State Control": What the UN Firearms Treaty is All About

"Comrades! Turn in your weapons!"

White House mouthpiece Jay Carney says that the Obama administration will “conduct a thorough review” of the UN’s newly enacted gun control pact “to determine whether to sign the treaty.” The suspense is hardly unbearable, given that the UN treaty would codify the proposition that national governments should have a monopoly on weapons. 

The announced objective of the treaty is to regulate the sale and transfer of small arms and light weapons, a category that includes all civilian-owned firearms. According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, the treaty “will help to keep warlords, pirates, terrorists, criminals and their like from acquiring deadly arms.”

Well, actually, it would not. Nothing in the dense and nearly unreadable text of the 15-page treaty will prevent member states from arming terrorists and criminals. Article 2, Section 3 specifies that nothing in the treaty will “apply to the international movement of conventional arms by, or on behalf of, a State Party for its use provided that the conventional arms remain under that State Party’s ownership.”

Article 11, which deals with “Diversion” of weaponry, requires that parties to the treaty work to “mitigate the risk” that weapons would fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists, and that they “share relevant information … on effective measures to address diversion.” But nothing in the language forbids such diversions from States to “non-state actors” – a point that was made, ironically, by the Communist government of North Korea when it opposed the treaty

Each government that signs the UN gun treaty agree to create “a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition [and] munitions” (Article 3), which is described in the preamble as “the primary responsibility of all States.” The document repeatedly refers to the “inherent right” of States to arm themselves and to control the weaponry within the boundaries over which they claim jurisdiction. Not a syllable can be found in the document recognizing the innate right of the individual to armed self-defense. This omission was not accidental.

UN-style civilian disarmament at Wounded Knee, 1890.
For more than fifty years, the United Nations, with the enthusiastic support of the U.S. government, has pursued a vision of “general and complete disarmament” in which the world body, or its successor, would claim a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force. Within that global monopoly, each national government would have an exclusive territorial franchise. 

“Controlling the proliferation of illicit [that is, civilian-owned] weapons is a necessary first step towards the non-proliferation of small arms,” wrote former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his official 2000 report, We the Peoples. “These weapons must be brought under the control of states, and states must be held responsible for their transfer.” (Emphasis added.) 

It was in pursuit of that formula that UN “peacekeepers” were deployed in Rwanda in 1993. The peace treaty they were sent to enforce required the collection of all civilian-owned weapons. Despite that country’s history of bloody ethnic conflict, Rwandans were assured that they had nothing to fear from a UN-approved government that claimed a monopoly on weaponry; after all, the Blue Beret-wearing emissaries of the “international community” were there to protect them, in the event their government turned feral. 
Haunted: Dallaire at Rwanda genocide exhibit.
In January 1994, Lt. Col. Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian officer commanding the UN contingent in Rwanda, learned that the Hutu-dominated regime was planning to massacre the Tutsi population. He sent an urgent fax to UN headquarters requesting permission to disarm the government-backed militias by raiding their arms caches. He wasn’t allowed to take this pre-emptive action, because the UN’s self-assigned mandate called for civilian disarmament, not the disarmament of government operatives. 

Less than three months later, the massacre began – a 100-day orgy of bloodshed in which roughly one million people were slaughtered. Most were hacked to death with machetes – but behind the machete-wielding goons were government troops, police, and militiamen armed with guns. Dallaire’s troops did nothing to protect the victims; indeed, many of them were butchered as well. 
Sucked to be them, I guess: Genocide facilitator Annan.
The UN official who was given advance warning of the massacre, and ordered Dallaire not to take any preventive action, was Kofi Annan – who at the time was undersecretary general for peacekeeping operations. In the finest tradition of Soviet career advancement, Annan was rewarded with a promotion to Secretary General, and eventually received the Nobel Peace Prize. Dallaire, who had done what he could to prevent the genocide, succumbed to near-suicidal depression and alcoholism. He was eventually rehabilitated after a reporter found him freezing to death under a park bench in Hull, Quebec. 

Rwanda is a nearly ideal case of the UN’s model of “human security,” which requires, among other things, the establishment of “norms of non-possession” of firearms by civilians. That phrase was taken from the UN-approved “Hague Appeal for Peace,” which was unveiled at the 2000 “Millennium Summit” at UN Headquarters. 

According to the Hague Appeal:

“Full-fledged demobilization programs must reclaim and destroy weaponry…. Steps toward stopping the flow of weapons include: controlling legal transfers between states; preventing illicit transfers … collecting, removing, and destroying surplus weapons from regions of conflict … [and] creating norms of non-possession.” 

Those objectives are woven into the UN’s new arms treaty – but those threads run back to the late 1950s, when the world body first became involved in the “arms control” process. 

Barack Obama is a left-leaning corporatist from an exotic background, but he is not the first U.S. president whose administration has promoted a UN-centered gun grab. That distinction belongs to Dwight Eisenhower, the conservative Republican whose State Department served as an incubator for a proposal called Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

That program, also known as State Department Document 7277, was introduced to the world in the fall of 1961 by Eisenhower’s successor, John F. Kennedy.

Freedom from War, and its follow-up Blueprint for the Peace Race, outlined a three-stage global program in which the UN’s machinery for “peace enforcement” – what honest people would call “warmaking” – would be built up pari passu with disarmament of national governments. In Stage III, national governments would retain only those armaments and establishments necessary to carry out UN-ordained “global obligations” and to “maintain internal order.”

“All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes,” dictates the U.S.-created program. “Peaceful purposes,” in the statist lexicon, include all acts of government-sanctioned aggression and violence. “All other armaments” would, of necessity, include civilian-owned weaponry. Those points were made with plangent clarity in a 1962 State Department-commissioned study called A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, which was written by MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield. 

Dispensing with the utopian pretenses of many world government advocates, Bloomfield observed that the pursuit of a world “effectively controlled” by the UN would be to create a “stable military environment” for the benefit of the U.S. government and allied interests. This would eventually require the creation of a nuclear-armed UN “Peace Force” – a multilateral body that itself would be effectively controlled by Washington – that would include a “disarmament policing agency.” Each constituent member of the UN would be permitted a military establishment that would be limited “to the right to maintain sufficient police forces to ensure domestic security.”

One source frequently cited by Bloomfield in his study is World Peace through World Law, a 1958 book co-written by Wall Street attorney Grenville Clark and Professor Louis B. Sohn. That book unflinchingly endorsed the creation of “A World Police Force” that would possess “a coercive force of overwhelming power.” It would initially be equipped through “the transfer of weapons and equipment discarded by national military forces during the process of complete disarmament.” However, it would also benefit from a research and development program devoted to providing it with a prohibitive advantage against any potential adversary.

Such an entity does not exist within the United Nations, of course. But what Clark and Sohn envisioned looks a great deal like the military-industrial complex that serves the interest of the de facto world government operated out of Washington, D.C. 

“Even in a world in which all national military forces were abolished,” continued Clark and Sohn, “it is conceivable that … an aroused nation with a strong grievance could marshal quite a formidable armed force even if no on in it possessed any weapon stronger than a rifle.” This is why, they concluded, “a strong and well-armed police force is part of the indispensable price of peace and the sooner the world faces up to this conclusion the better it will be for all peoples.” 
This is what a UN-style "Peace Force" looks like.
Oh, sure, they acknowledge, the nuclear-armed world “Peace Force” they envisioned “might be perverted into a tool of world domination” – a concession they make without explaining how what they describe is something other than a plan for world domination. 

They then feinted in the direction of checks and balances, insisting that “careful limitations and safeguards” would be incorporated into the system – without providing so much as a hint of what they would be in a world where everybody but UN-approved government bodies would be disarmed. 

In his 1962 study, Bloomfield took note of one critical complication: “In the United States, the people have the constitutional right to `keep and bear arms’; the government monopoly is legally abridged to that extent.”
Once we peel the propaganda and persiflage away from the new UN arms treaty, it becomes clear that establishing that monopoly is the entire purpose of the document.

Dum spiro, pugno!


K said...

Exquisite short piece Will.

Unfortunately, I must predict, and I also assume to be largely correct on this outlook, that the American people will raise some political ballyhoo and be sold out by their own local insiders, all the hand out chasers in their midst and their political whores.

"From my cold dead hands" is ironic, since we've been getting starved, broken financially and mentally demolished by intelligent, well organized scammers. And its been going on for a LONG time. Everyone waits for a saviour, and that's exactly why we have the saviour mindset and Messianic prophecies. As long as people wait for someone else to "do something," things will continue to work admirably well for the scammers.

Ironically, they attack religion, yet it is religion itself that gives them their power. You are taught that someone else will save you, that someone else will make it allright. That's why all attacks by the scammers against the belief based mind are always attacks against some of its beliefs designed to provoke indignation and the so called "clinging," but never attacks against using beliefs as knowledge and training into rational thought. These people are chess players, not fools, and they feint at a belief, but not at the real issue, because enshrining respect for knowledge would instantly devastate the astounding level of control which the scammers and criminals in power around the world, currently enjoy. Why would they do that? Why would the real chessmasters of the world, the manipulators behind the curtains, why would they lose to the masses, who on average can think strategically at least poorly enough to barely rival a typical factory farm chicken?

And to top off that irony, the real issue is that if you see it from the religious perspective, the Catholics might well have been right. Look around folks, WE, all of us, good and evil, are "God's hands on earth." Its people that change the world as we know it for better and for worse, and it is people who react to natural disasters and other "acts of God."

It is people who will complacently march into the camps, as ever they have in the past, and it will be people, who will unquestioningly obey orders to suicidally assail emplacements and pillboxes a month after their allies have won the war. It will also be people who will rebel. Its all about people, and the irony of it all is that people mostly exhibit magical thinking, expecting God to reach down and fix their ills.

As the old "joke" goes. The guy in the flood turns down 2 boats and a helicopter, drowns and questions God's benevolence, and God answers "Son, I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"

Nothing new under the sun, and I certainly am not holding my breath for the masses of Americans to suddenly develop balls AND brains (balls is a possibility, but brains, from the majority? Hah!)

Still, keep telling the truth, brother. Some are listening and feeling heartened that we aren't the lone madmen screaming in the woods anymore. By this point, "some" maybe even be "many."

Bill in IL said...

I see this attempt to be completely illegal under the constitution, as if they care. I understand the senate does not have the votes to pass it, but Oblah - blah has stated he will enforce via executive order. This is a scary development and I still hold out some hope it will be struck down.

DiscConnected said...

"Barack Obama is a left-leaning corporatist from an exotic background

You're being generous.

He's a Marxist, plain and simple!

Sadly, Americans are too poorly educated these days to remember their history. Our country was founded because we did not like bowing to a strong central government where the people had limited representation (sound a little like the UN?).

The second amendment was put in that rag we used to govern ourselves by to allow the people some defense again a strong central government.

Look how well it turned out for Germans after their government began to disarm people in the 20's (may have been early thirties)-they ended up with the nice "up with people" style government that laid waste to a quarter of the continent.

I'm not sure Americans have the sass anymore to rebel. I think they are too busy playing video games and watching American Idol.

The strongest weapons against American freedom have been television and the internet.

The only thing you can't pry from an Americans' cold dead hand is his remote control and Wii controller.


Matt Bracken said...

Any U.S. Senator that signs this document might as well tattoo TRAITOR on his or her forehead, for we shall see it there anyway.

Semper Fi, 0321 said...

Why would the US even think of signing this? They're the largest arms exporter in the world, or were. Talk about cutting your profit margin to zero. Kind of like Jack Daniels signing another prohibition bill.
So it also tells you they, FedGov are lying through their teeth and have no intention of following any of the laws set forth in the treaty. And another reason why we shouldn't either.

Anonymous said...

70 million people applied for a background check to buy a gun during Obama's time in office.

And those purchases are just the ones we know of.

If 70 million isn't 'many', I don't know what 'many' is.

That number sure is reassuring when reading about plans like "they" have for us.

I seriously doubt that a single person who purchased a gun during this time period has any intention what-so-ever of turning them back in. They knew the score when they made their move.

Time marches on...

- One who waits AND acts.

Anonymous said...

Excellent blog post!

One reference I would like to give, comes from none other than CAMILO REYES RODRIGUEZ former President of "The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects".

In July 2001, he stated:

"In addition, the Programme of Action includes a follow-up that states must put to use. We know that in the future, we will have to deal with two important matters: the transfer of SALW to non-state actors, and the restrictions on SALW ownership by civilians. We reached no consensus on the latter issue because of the position of one delegation."

That delegation was the US delegation under President George Bush.


Dutch said...

Great article. One accentuated by a chilling 2 word closing salvo: Peace Force. I’ve heard the term before but after reading the article, the reality of the term became so clear and disingenuous that I actually laughed out loud.

Peace Force. The penultimate oxymoron. Everything you ever wanted to know about the intent, dishonesty and fraud of all government collectively is neatly summed up by these two words and their undying efforts to make us swallow them. No doubt more such terminology will logically follow. Like maybe “Death Fun” or “Starvation Food” or “Ignorance Education”. Come to think of it, these things are already in place too. As I see it, either this is our inevitable future, or the shit is going to hit the fan real hard. Neither option is very appealing. And the mere existence and proliferation of governments are due all the blame.

Yet with the writing so plainly on the wall, what do so many ‘freedom loving’ Americans do…? Watch American Idol. To the point made above, regardless what our pols do in the future, we have already sold ourselves out to these shady agendas, by sitting idle. Is this 'treaty' really any more offensive than the twice renewed Patriot Act?

Maybe hope is already lost. But kudos to Will for keeping attention on these things for what it’s worth.

MoT said...

K, above, is absolutely correct. There is this mindset that goes "Oh, the calvary of pro-constitutionalist pols will some day ride over the hill and rescue us!" Not going to happen! The only ones who can "save" us IS us! And it doesn't mean it will be clean or pretty or even working withing "the system" that so many sheep bleat about.

Anonymous said...

Any attempt at enforcing this illegal contrivance at violating American civil rights must be resisted by all Americans with whatever force necessary to sustain their rights and Liberty and any who attempt to enforce or promote this illegal contrivance should be arrested and tried, by those same people, for treason.

There can be no middle ground in this nation for the corruption of civil rights and/or the advancement of totalitarian government at any cost.

Yank lll

Anonymous said...

Dear Leader will keep the kulaks out! They hate all of humanity and won't stop at any means or brutality to achieve their ends. Get the seeds of life with abortion, kill the elders with glorious socialized state run healthcare. Slowly poison the masses with synthetic foods that are time release poison. Distract the 'mundanes' with divide and conquer grievances and disposable pop culture trash. Disarm everyone before a mass waking up occurs. The true believers in statism worship the state, it is their religion. Total corruption and debasement of a society leads to total collapse every time.