PRESS CONFERENCE BY UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR

The latest draft final document of the United Nations Conference on Small Arms, distributed this morning, did not provide the basis for a consensus as far as the United States was concerned, a Member of the United States Congress told a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.

Bob Barr, Member of the United States House of Representatives from Georgia, said at a Headquarters press conference that the latest text, if not revised, would move the Conference in an unacceptable direction.  Mr. Barr is an official observer with the United States delegation to the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, which entered its second week today.  The Conference is scheduled to conclude on Friday,

20 July. 

Mr. Barr said that as a Member of the United States House of Representatives he was concerned whenever an international body moved “in the direction of disrespecting sovereignty and begins the process of interfering in the domestic policies, laws and regulations of a member nation”.  He believed that a “line continues to be crossed in this latest draft programme of action”.

He implored those who would be involved in the subsequent redrafting –- “should there be subsequent redrafting of this document” -- to re-read the United States statement to the Conference, which contained a number of positions that would be necessary for a consensus to be achieved from the United States standpoint.

Mr. Barr said the latest draft programme of action “continues to move in a direction that seems to me unacceptable” because it would open the door for “a very, very substantial increase in required United States record keeping on lawful transfers and possession of legal firearms”.

He said it would also “tie the hands of Member States, including but not limited to the United States, which in the exercise of sovereign and official policies might deem it necessary to lawfully transfer weapons to a freedom group fighting a terrorist or genocidal regime”.

He recalled that Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton, in making the United States statement to the Conference, had indicated that whatever document was arrived at should not limit such arms transfers only to governmental entities.

Mr. Bolton said the latest draft text would seem clearly to continue efforts by anti-gun nations and outside groups, working through the United Nations, “to limit the lawful possession, the lawful transfer of firearms”.  That was also unacceptable, he added.

Furthermore, he said there were some areas in the latest draft programme of action that seemed to indicate that the United Nations would seek funds, and certainly would try to move in the direction of institutionalizing those types of negotiations.  Those activities would also be unacceptable to the United States.

It was not the position of the United States to commit itself to further mandatory meetings and other efforts that would “institutionalize United Nations interference and involvement” in those matters, he asserted.

“So, very clearly, this latest draft programme of action is unacceptable”, he declared.  He hoped the leadership of the Conference would “refocus their efforts” rather than “chasing after specific nations such as the United States that enjoy constitutional and lawful freedoms to own, possess and transfer lawful firearms”.

He believed that “this is ill-advised course, and a counterproductive one to the United Nations”.

A correspondent asked what sort of action the United States Congress would take if the Conference adopted an agenda which was seen as a threat to American constitutional rights.

While not speaking for the United States Government, he said he still thought that it would “not agree, and certainly would not lend itself to a consensus document based on the latest draft”.

With regard to what might happen in the Congress if, in fact, the United Nations moved forward, in the absence of United States support, he said:  “I think that it would not result in a more productive appropriation process.  It would not lend itself to a smoother process of garnering support in the United States Congress for the continued work of the United Nations in a number of areas.”

He thought it would be “rather counterproductive from the United Nations standpoint”.

How long had he been monitoring the arms issue carefully, and when did he become aware that the disagreement posed a threat to American gun owners?

He said he had over the past four years been substantively aware of United Nations work in the area of illicit traffic in small arms.  He had also been aware during the period of the possible use of the Organization by some to move it in the direction of curtailing domestic United States freedoms as reflected in the United States Constitution and laws.

He told a questioner that he was optimistic about the possibility of further room for negotiation, even though he was disappointed that the last week had not resulted in a document that reflected United States views as well.

“Hopefully, the next four days would see a turnaround and we would see something more productive come out of the Conference”, he observed.

* *** *