Arms treaty backfire
The Obama administration might well have finessed itself into a tight foreign policy corner, first by endorsing the United Nations' intolerable Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), then by offering aid to Syria's rebels.
That could explain why the United States wasn't among the more than 65 nations that rushed in last month to sign this gun-grabbing abomination. Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. would sign “soon.”
More than a few analysts say that the treaty expressly prohibits signatories from supplying arms to the Syrian government's opposition, according to The Heritage Foundation. A long-standing criticism of the treaty (among many) is that it protects tyrannies by targeting arms shipments to rebels.
Stuart Casey-Maslen, a research fellow at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, says the arms treaty makes transfers “arguably ... unlawful.” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman disagrees: “I can't say that if the ATT were enforced today for the United States that this issue (Syria) would be any easier or harder than it already is.”
Complicating matters further, the Syrian rebels don't exactly meet the treaty's human rights standards — not amid reports that the Free Syrian Army massacred Christian villagers, writes Ted R. Bromund for Heritage.
Of course, abiding by the rules, domestic or otherwise, has never been the strong suit of the Obama administration.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Public records: Updates needed
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse