U.S. Policy on Small Arms and Light Weapons

Article from the Naval War College Review.

Bondi goes into some of the history and perspective on the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

I'm a bit suspicious about the article and it's political leaning. I found it disturbing that she quotes a study that states most gun owners supported a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. She doesn't bother to state that the study was by two Gun-Control Advocacy groups, the Consumer Federation of America and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. If you think the CFA isn't a gun control advocate, just look at their little publication stating that teddy bears are more regulated than guns. Bloody Nauseating.

I guess I'll just jump to the conclusion and note that I find the conclusion a bit ignorant when it comes to the 2nd Amendmant of the US Constitution. She apparently sees no issue with having an international treaty suspend a specified right.

U.S. policy to prevent and control the spread of small arms and light weapons has changed little over the past ten years and is unlikely to evolve dramatically in the foreseeable future. Incremental and parsimonious since its inception, the policy has hinged upon discreet limited interventions, such as destruction of weapons in regions of conflict, as well as capacity building and norm development. The Bush administration has showed little enthusiasm for multilateral initiatives under the aegis of the United Nations, which has taken the lead in confronting the problem of small arms proliferation. The sheer magnitude of this phenomenon in Africa and elsewhere has, however, grave implications for U.S. security, particularly when a nexus forms between arms trafficking and terrorism. Although the United States has recognized the perils of this nexus, it has not devoted commensurate resources, focus, or expertise to tackle it. The influence of the pro-gun lobby, which has many allies in the White House and Congress, has increased over the past four years. Such influence has ensured that the United States does not deviate from its minimalist path either at home or abroad. Failure to renew the domestic assault-weapons ban has cast doubts on commitment to weapons reduction in a nation that contains half of the worldÂ’s small arms and light weapons. Both abroad and at home, prevention is preferable to injecting more weapons in areas of instability, where belligerents (be they government forces or nonstate actors) can perpetrate human rights abuses and criminal networks can wreak havoc upon entire communities. This is why it is crucial to control and keep track of arms supplies.

American leadership and example in fostering and supporting legally binding commitments aimed at keeping transfers in check, and in tracing weapons throughout their itinerant lives, is essential but long overdue. Finally, failure of the United States to build on the United Nations Conference has the potential to undermine the collaboration and support of allies and partners in an array of other fields of security cooperation.

Bondi doesn't seem to see that the right to bear arms in the US and the issue of small arms abuse in Africa are completely separate issues. The vast majority of firearms in the US are used for peaceful purposes or at least in a legal manner. Weapons in African civil wars and other conflicts are not even in the same moral standing.

No doubt the US will take stands on the control of the weapons such as MANPADS and on weapons trafficking. But expecting the US to suspend one of the rights outlined in the Bill or Rights is exceptionally myopic.

I would have thought that the Naval War College Review would have expected a bit more balanced view of a topic.