jpk1md
Ultimate Member
- Jan 13, 2007
- 11,313
New Vector for forcing Gun Control on the US. The UN, Norming and Treaties.
You all recall John Bolton the former Ambassador to the UN appointed by GW right?
Many of you may recall the media lambasting the guy for all kinds of trivial crap.
What you may not know is that he's incredibly intelligent, very well spoken and very much Pro 2A.
Cam and Company the nightly NRA News program has touched on this issue a number of times and done interviews with Bolton who has repeatedly raised the specter of "Norming" and the UN pushing its agenda on the US and other nations.
What is "Norming"? Its the process/act of using International Agencies to establish Global Standards or "Norms".
A good example of one of these NGO's is IANSA who has been instrumental in the gun bans in Australia and the UK in recent years...you can find others here http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=9992
These "Norms" are typically pushed upon sovereign nations via UN Treaties.
Treaties do not necessarily supersede contitutionally guaranteed rights but they nonetheless become Law by a majority vote in the Senate by a 2/3 majority and the signing of the POTUS......the sad fact is that the Senate has historically rejected very few treaties in the past and this is why it is particularly troublesome as a vector for the Anti's to force Gun Control and more Restrictions on the US. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
The Mon installment of Cam and Company, the NRA News show that airs every night which each of you should tune into on the Web if you can, had a very good interview with John Bolton who went into great detail about the threat of Gun Control from the UN in the next administration.
You can see it here but may have to listen to the whole show to get to it.
http://www.nranews.com/nranews.aspx
Below is a write up of a discussion between Bolton and Holbrooke who are both former UN Ambassadors that touches upon the Norming issue.
One thing that is clear to me personally is that GW Bush was right on the money in his choice of Bolton as the Ambassador to the UN.
You all recall John Bolton the former Ambassador to the UN appointed by GW right?
Many of you may recall the media lambasting the guy for all kinds of trivial crap.
What you may not know is that he's incredibly intelligent, very well spoken and very much Pro 2A.
Cam and Company the nightly NRA News program has touched on this issue a number of times and done interviews with Bolton who has repeatedly raised the specter of "Norming" and the UN pushing its agenda on the US and other nations.
What is "Norming"? Its the process/act of using International Agencies to establish Global Standards or "Norms".
A good example of one of these NGO's is IANSA who has been instrumental in the gun bans in Australia and the UK in recent years...you can find others here http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=9992
These "Norms" are typically pushed upon sovereign nations via UN Treaties.
Treaties do not necessarily supersede contitutionally guaranteed rights but they nonetheless become Law by a majority vote in the Senate by a 2/3 majority and the signing of the POTUS......the sad fact is that the Senate has historically rejected very few treaties in the past and this is why it is particularly troublesome as a vector for the Anti's to force Gun Control and more Restrictions on the US. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
The Mon installment of Cam and Company, the NRA News show that airs every night which each of you should tune into on the Web if you can, had a very good interview with John Bolton who went into great detail about the threat of Gun Control from the UN in the next administration.
You can see it here but may have to listen to the whole show to get to it.
http://www.nranews.com/nranews.aspx
Below is a write up of a discussion between Bolton and Holbrooke who are both former UN Ambassadors that touches upon the Norming issue.
One thing that is clear to me personally is that GW Bush was right on the money in his choice of Bolton as the Ambassador to the UN.
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/news_detail.cfm?id=796
Ex-UN Ambassadors Spar over Institution's Role
March 13, 2008
Former United Nations Ambassadors John Bolton and Richard C. Holbrooke ‘62 sparred over the future of the UN on Thursday afternoon in a lecture sponsored by the Janus Forum. “Having John Bolton and I on the same platform will give you a clear choice,” Holbrooke, a University professor at large based at Watson, said in his opening remarks. Holbrooke sees the UN as a “flawed but vital institution,” one of many ways for the US to coordinate international policy with other governments. Bolton, on the other hand, worries that UN policy might constrain the United States’ ability to make its own decisions on foreign policy.
Bolton focused on his views of the “norming” process, which means using international organizations to create global standards or “norms.” He sees efforts at passing UN resolutions about issues such as gun control and the death penalty not as useful policy debates, but rather as certain interest groups “looking for international approval on issues which should be fundamentally domestic.” On the foreign policy front, Bolton does not believe that US use of force should be subject to global approval. For instance, he stated that the US should not sign the Ottawa landmine convention because, “Our landmines are not the kind that have caused the damage people talk about.” He cited the use of landmines on the border between North and South Korea as one example of how these weapons are effective in certain situations.
Holbrooke agreed with Bolton that the UN should not decide US foreign policy. “Nobody is arguing that the UN should take precedence over the US in war and peace issues,” Holbrooke said. “I am not of the view that the UN is the only place to legitimize military action.” However, he sees the UN as “one of a number of vehicles” for implementing US and international policy. Holbrooke believes that the US and all member states must be more consistent in enforcing their policies. He disagrees with the way that the US weakens the UN by not enforcing resolutions, but then asks for its help in situations such as Iraq, where the UN is expected to run elections and contribute to humanitarian operations. Holbrooke stressed that the UN should not be seen as an organization in itself, but as a “club” of member states who are, as individual countries, responsible for the agreements that they make. “Failure is not in the [UN] resolution, but in the countries that signed it not enforcing it.”
Holbrooke and Bolton’s ideological differences were very apparent as they discussed whether the US should negotiate with enemies, such as Iran. Holbrooke advocates the wide use of negotiation. “I personally would favor that we have a dialogue with Iran. Negotiating with enemies is not a sign of weakness. You can and should talk to your adversaries. That is not a sign of weakness, especially when you’re the United States, the most powerful country in the world. Those talks strengthen your hand,” Holbrooke said. “If they won’t talk to us, if they refuse, let everyone see that. It will enable us to create a stronger coalition. If they do talk to us, let’s talk about everything.”
Bolton, on the other hand, saw Holbrooke as advocating negotiation over every issue and stated that he sees negotiation, not as a comprehensive policy for all situations, but as one of many tools in diplomacy. He believes that Iran will never give up nuclear weapons. Negotiation, in Bolton’s opinion, will only benefit Iran by giving the country more time to develop nuclear technology. “Time favors the proliferator,” he said.
Despite the ambassadors' ideological differences, the debate did not become confrontational. However, during a discussion of whether the UN ambassador serves the entire US government or the president who nominates him, Holbrooke did take one jab about Bolton’s controversial recess appointment. “In my case, I was confirmed by the Senate,” he said pointedly. Holbrooke believes that the UN ambassador chiefly serves the American people, because he was confirmed by the legislative branch and because US taxpayer money funds US contributions to the UN. Bolton, however, believes that because the chain of command is structured such that the president gives direct orders to the UN ambassador, he is most responsible to the executive branch.
The next Janus Forum debate will be a debate on global climate change on April 15 featuring Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, environmental economist Robert Mendelsohn, and Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute and American Environics.
By Watson Institute Student Rapporteur Phoebe Sloane ’08