PRESS BRIEFING - UNITED STATES BRIEFING ON SMALL ARMS CONFERENCE

UNITED STATES BRIEFING ON SMALL ARMS CONFERENCE

The ambiguity in the definition of small arms and light weapons and in determining their militarily use, could lead to regulations and restraints in areas that were inappropriate, John R. Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs of the United States, said in response to a correspondent’s question at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon concerning his statement this morning at the United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects.

He said there was considerable disagreement about the definition.  A lot of weapons had a military aspect in some respects and a civilian aspect in other respects.  The automatic M-16, used in the United States Army, had its civilian counterpart in the AR-15, a single shot weapon.  Yet, with a small adjustment, the AR-15 could be made into the M-16.  If the AR-15 was viewed as a military weapon as opposed to a legitimate hunting weapon, that ambiguity would cause the United States great concern.  The definition as it stood now was very broad, covering everything from a standard hunting rifle to crew-served mortars.  

If the Conference could concentrate on the central issue of the flow of illicit weapons to areas of conflict, there was room for agreement, he told another questioner.  But if it drifted off into areas more properly subject to national decision-making, there would be difficulties reaching consensus.  One of the aspects of the draft programme of work was the commitment to engage in negotiations leading to binding agreements.  In the process of United Nations decision-making, a phrase in a resolution that nobody reads gets turned into a political declaration and suddenly becomes a binding international agreement.  “You can see that from little acorns bad treaties grow”, he said.

There were some differences between the United States and the European Union on issues that were legitimate domestic policy debates, he said.  However, he said, there was room for important international concerted action to deal with a very serious problem.  If no consensus was reached, the United States was not going to leave the Conference.  His delegation wanted to work on a constructive Programme of Action.

Answering further questions, he said he supported enforcement of Security Council embargoes and a number of steps involving restrictions on the export of small arms and light weapons.  The United States had an extensive system of licensing, “the most thorough regulatory scheme of any country in the world”, dealing with shipments of military weapons overseas.  If other countries had similar systems of export controls, the problem that threatened peacekeepers and humanitarian workers in international conflict situations would be greatly reduced.  The United States did not agree with the idea that in order to deal with illicit weapons flows you had to deal with all weapons flows.

One of the aspects of the system of export controls was reaching the ultimate end-users.  In the export licenses granted in the United States, prohibitions were included about onward sales of weapons to people who would not get purchase licenses from the United States.  The United States was about the only country in the world that had concern about end-use of weapons built into its

export controls.  Concern that weapons from other States might end up in the hands of countries at odds with the United States or “rogue States” was legitimate.

In answer to another question he said the second amendment [of the United States Constitution] provided the constitutional basis on which domestic policies were based, subject to legitimate democratic debate within the country.  That was not a legitimate issue for discussion at the Conference.  His country did not seek in any way to “multilateralise” the second amendment.  By the same token, he expected that domestic constitutional and policy choices of the United States would also be respected.

Regarding his delegation’s objection to advocacy by international non-governmental organizations, he said that in the United States, political advocacy through the use of tax dollars was not desirable.  He therefore opposed support through multilateral organizations for the same kind of advocacy internationally. Continued support for particular political points of view through international organizations was not legitimate, he said.

Asked about the opposition of the United States to “any follow-up” to the Conference, he said his country was opposed to a mandatory five-year review process or a mandatory negotiations schedule.  Negotiations ought to flow at a pace that member Governments determined.  They should not be subject to any arbitrarily determined time limits.

Answering another question, he said the position of the President of the United States on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was quite clear: continuing the moratorium on critical nuclear testing and undertaking a comprehensive review of the safety and reliability of his country’s nuclear deterrence.

Answering another question, he said he was not, nor had he ever been, a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA).  He did not know about NRA-membership of other delegation members.  The NRA did not write out the United States position.

* *** *