The InterDependent

The United Nations finalized work on its Arms Trade Treaty last month, in time for a 2012 deadline, adopting a declaration in favor of limiting illegal arms sales across borders. The treaty’s aim is to prevent the international trade of illegal weapons from getting into the hands of those who could hurt civilians, in places like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet U.S. gun-rights advocates remain fiercely opposed to it, calling it a threat to American liberties despite the fact that the treaty explicitly does not cover the sale of domestic U.S. firearms.

The UN General Assembly resolution, which began the treaty process, says, in part, “The right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.”

The UN and the Obama administration favor the treaty because of its goal to restrict illicit cross-border gun transfers into war zones. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the National Rifle Association, however, have framed the debate around Second Amendment rights, voicing concerns that are not only irrelevant to the treaty but misrepresent its intent.

The third session of the preparatory committee for the UN conference on the treaty, which aims to cover small arms and conventional weapons, was held in New York July 11 to 15. For the first time since work began on the treaty, the five permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. -- formally adopted a joint declaration supporting it. This step is considered a major breakthrough since the five countries dominate the arms trade, along with Germany, Italy and, increasingly, Israel, says the U.S. Congressional Research Service, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Jane's Defence Weekly. Arms sales represent $1.4 trillion a year globally.

Speaking for the permanent-five Security Council members, Eric Danon, ambassador of France to the Conference on Disarmament, reiterated that the treaty does not apply to sales within a country’s own borders: “Our countries agree that our document is not a disarmament treaty nor should it affect the legitimate arms trade or a state's legitimate right to self-defense.”

All countries, he noted, ”share responsibilities to ensure that weapons transferred are not diverted for illicit purposes or illicit activities."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also made clear that the treaty was aimed at “denying arms to those who would abuse them,” not limiting the rights of Americans, she said in 2009. As Factcheck.org points out, Clinton said that a key condition of U.S. approval was that the agreement be made by consensus. In practical terms, this means that the U.S. has veto power, and therefore no treaty will take effect if the U.S. does not agree.

In July 2012, a four-week UN conference will be convened in New York to formally adopt the treaty. The conference is supposed to create a universal binding instrument setting out international standards of transparency and control for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Joe Penney

The proposed UN arms trade treaty will prevent the illegal transfer of arms across borders, slowing the flow of guns to conflict zones. A Guinean soldier, above, near the border of Ivory Coast.

The first two meetings of the preparatory committee, held in July 2010 and March 2011, confirmed the growing international momentum approving the treaty. While the two meetings helped define the treaty's structure, the latest meeting, in July, decided how the treaty would be carried out.

Danon said that the countries "support efforts aimed at establishing an international instrument on the transfer of conventional weapons that could contribute to solving key problems resulting from the illicit trafficking and uncontrolled proliferation of conventional arms on a global scale."

As Clinton similarly pointed out, “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.”

While gun advocates like the Heritage Foundation perpetuate fears that the treaty poses a “threat to American liberties and interests," the treaty, in fact, has nothing to do with the sales of guns within U.S. borders— or American liberties. Such thinking misrepresents the treaty’s objective of the treaty, which is to prevent illegal trafficking of small arms across borders to areas of conflict.

The Arms Trade Treaty does not threaten American liberties and interests, but misguided fearmongering and empty rhetoric that could allow such illicit sales to continue do.

[Herve Couturier contributed reporting to this essay.]