Question: Did Chinese agree to global warming agreement because it doesn't change anything or because they know that with Republicans controlling the Senate no treaty will be approved?

The promise of 20% of energy from non fossil fuels actually requires a slower growth rate for those sources than has been true up until now.  Meanwhile, the US has agreed to a dramatically greater reduction in carbon emissions.

As part of its plan, the U.S. said Wednesday it would double the average pace of its carbon-dioxide reductions after 2020, eyeing an overall reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions of between 26% and 28% by 2025, compared with 2005 levels. . . .

But the agreement requires that the Senate pass the UN Treaty.  It seems extremely convenient for China to make this agreement immediately after Republicans take control of the Senate.  It is unlikely that an agreement would have been ratified with the Democrats in control, but with the Republicans there, it will allow Obama to attack them when the treaty is defeated.

Obama to push for UN Arms Trade Treaty in Senate

The Obama administration kept promising that the treaty would only be approved by unanimity, but, of course, the president broke that promise.  From The Hill newspaper:

The Obama administration defied a majority of the Senate on Tuesday by voting to approve a United Nations treaty on the trade of small arms and other conventional weapons. 

The treaty, overwhelmingly approved by the U.N., requires countries to create internal mechanisms to ensure that their arms exports aren’t likely to be used to harm civilians or violate human rights laws. 

President Obama is expected to sign the treaty within the next few months, but it faces a tough road to win the two-thirds majority support needed in the Senate for approval.  

It is opposed by the National Rifle Association, which argues the accord violates the Second Amendment by regulating small arms, such as rifles and handguns, and calling for the creation of an “end-user registry.” 

Fifty-three senators voiced their disapproval late last month by voting in favor of a nonbinding amendment to a Senate budget resolution to stop the U.S. from entering the treaty. . . .

What the UN Arms Trade Agreement means

Newest Fox News piece: "Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership"

This is the way my newest piece starts:

The U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty, which seemed dead last July, is beginning to wrap up negotiations.  The Obama administration is committed to getting it passed . Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed: “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty." 

The treaty was resurrected on Nov. 8 – the very day after President Obama’s re-election. Very conveniently, that the Obama administration delayed the U.N. vote in favor of renewing negotiations delayed until the president was no longer constrained by public opinion. 

The Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership all across the world. Each country will be obligated to “maintain a national control list that shall include [rifles and handguns]” and "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.”  In fact, the new background check rules approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee include just those rules -- a registration system and a record of all transfers of guns. . . .

The Arms Trade Treaty is available here.

Article 2, 2: Each State Party shall "shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within paragraph 1"  included "Small arms and light weapons"

Article 6, 4: "establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition for conventional arms under the scope of this treaty."

Article 6, 5: "parts and components"

Article 8: "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms"

Article 10: records of "quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms . . . end users, as appropriate.  Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or longer . . . ."

UN takes up arms trade treaty on Monday

From The Hill newspaper:

The United Nations on Monday will once again take up an arms trade treaty that has drawn the NRA's ire amid assurances that the Obama administration is “steadfast in its commitment” to getting it done. 

The White House helped pull the plug on treaty talks ahead of last year's election amid heavy lobbying by the U.S. gun lobby. Now the world body is taking another shot at reaching consensus on a treaty, and this time the Obama administration says it's committed to getting it done. 

“The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement Friday. . . .

For those interested in a copy of the treaty, it is available here.

Wealth per country and per person

Source: The Economist

Theories for last minute switch by Obama on UN Arms Trade Treaty?

Assuming that this is true, why the last minute switch?  Politics with the election coming up?

The UN had spent the entire month of July hammering out a deal, and Friday was the deadline for an agreement on a treaty that has met with the staunch opposition of the National Rifle Association and bipartisan concerns in the Senate.   

“This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line,” said Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of Amnesty International USA. “It’s a staggering abdication of leadership by the world’s largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough that would have required all nations to deny arms export licenses where there was an overriding risk that the weapons would be used to facilitate serious crimes against humanity.” . . .

BREAKING NEWS: TEXT OF UN ARMS TRADE TREATY

A copy of the treaty is available here.  It does include restrictions on small arms.

UPDATE: From Fox News:

But even without amendments, there is plenty for the U.S. not to like in the draft, say critics. The treaty could set the stage for legal challenges to U.S. aid to allies like Israel and Taiwan, and it could also expose private information about U.S. gun owners.  . . .
But release of the draft so close to Friday’s deadline for a final text sends a strong signal that the treaty’s broad strokes are already set, observers say.
While critics say U.S. gun owners and interests would be left exposed by the draft, it has drawn criticism on other fronts. Activists on the political left say it is a gift to illicit gunrunners around the world, and the only group that seems to like it is the rogue states leading talks, say critics. . . .

Newest Fox News piece: UN gun control treaty will reveal gun laws Obama really supports

Since I wrote this piece, I am hearing that the UN is unlikely put out the Arms Trade Treaty either tomorrow or next week. I have also heard the problem is with China and Russia who don't want any restrictions on government selling guns. My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:

Sometime later this week, the UN will finally unveil its Arms Trade Treaty. The exact date the treaty will be released is a secret.

Russia, China, France -- with its new Socialist government -- Britain and the Obama administration are writing the treaty behind closed doors. Yet even if the final treaty is being kept under wraps, we still have a pretty good idea of some of the requirements that will be in it.

The group writing the treaty is not promising. Russia and Britain ban handguns and many other types of weapons. The possession of guns for self-defense is completely prohibited in China. The Obama administration is undoubtedly the most hostile administration to gun ownership in US history, with Obama having personally supported bans of handguns and semi-automatic weapons before becoming president. And remember the recent scandal where the Obama administration was caught allowing guns go to Mexican drug gangs, hoping it would help push for gun control laws.

The treaty seems unlikely to ever receive the two-thirds majority necessary to be ratified by the US Senate, but that doesn't mean it still won't have consequences for Americans. . . .

UPDATE: A couple of people suggest that Obama is not hostile to gun ownership. For those who don't know about Obama's views on guns, I suggest that they go here and here.

Four days after the piece was published it was still number one in terms of views.

UPDATE: Fox News: "UN arms treaty aims at terror, but puts Second Amendment in crosshairs"

American Second Amendment rights and U.S. foreign policy interests could be directly threatened by the latest wording of a United Nations draft treaty seeking control over international trade in conventional weapons, FoxNews.com has learned. . . .

Update on UN Arms Trade Treaty

The treaty is basically a way for governments to blame individuals for what governments are doing. Government, not individuals, are the almost exclusive suppliers of guns to rebel and terrorist organizations. In addition, the treaty will be used to to accomplish all sorts of other political aims. From Fox News:

A clause permitting arms transfers solely between UN member states would allow UN member China to object to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a non-UN member that China considers to be a renegade province. This would be highly problematic for the U.S. at a time when Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup. Another fear is that Arab or other states critical of Israel may use any treaty language on human rights standards to argue against U.S. arms transfers to the Israeli government – much in the same way they currently use the UN Human Rights Council to repeatedly condemn Israel. . . .

Why do we want to set up rules that are being pushed by a country such as Iran?

A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial. . . .

My concern about Iran is more for its ability to stop rebel groups from getting arms in its country than it is for them getting a hold of lists of Americans who own guns. Here is an old article that I wrote for the Washington Times in July 2010:

. . . “Some type of micro-stamping regulations seems all but inevitable. It is very, very likely,” the Heritage Foundation’s Theodore R. Bromund, who tracks the U.N., told The Washington Times. “Restrictions on trade between private individuals are somewhat less than 50-50, but you surely can’t rule that out. Some kind of gun registration and licensing system is an extremely likely probability.” Registration proposals cover guns as well as individual rounds of ammunition. The Obama administration strongly supports the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and no doubt will use the process to push for gun-control regulations that it can’t get through Congress otherwise. . . . Gun registration is being promoted despite evidence that the costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in solving any crimes or stopping criminals from getting access to guns everywhere it’s been tried. “None of these treaties have a relationship to reality,” Mr. Bromund explains. “Terrorists are still going to have access to guns because governments give them guns, and they are still going to be able to give them guns.” As an example, he pointed out, “The FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from Venezuela.” . . .

Mass murderer Robert Mugabe asked to be the UN's "leader for tourism"?

Is this really serious?  Can anyone take the UN seriously when they do things like this?  From the UK Guardian:

Despite that fact Mugabe, 88, is under a travel ban, he has been honoured as a "leader for tourism" by the UN's World Tourism Organisation, along with his political ally, Zambian president Michael Sata, 75. The pair signed an agreement with UNWTO secretary general Taleb Rifai at their shared border at Victoria Falls on Tuesday.
Zimbabwe's state-owned Herald newspaper quoted Rifai urging tourists from around the world to visit : "I was told about the wonderful experience and the warm hospitality of this country … By coming here, it is recognition, an endorsement on the country that it is a safe destination." . . . 

Grad Students wrote the IPCC report

From Fox News:

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change -- which sets the world's agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate -- claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements.
Grad students often co-author scientific papers to help with the laborious task of writing. Such papers are rarely the cornerstone for trillions of dollars worth of government climate funding, however -- nor do they win Nobel Peace prizes.
“We’ve been told for the past two decades that 'the Climate Bible' was written by the world’s foremost experts,” Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise told FoxNews.com. “But the fact is, you are just not qualified without a doctorate. In academia you aren't even on the radar at that point.”
The IPCC insists that the lead authors of individual sections of its climate report are indeed the pre-eminent experts in their field.
"These authors are nominated by governments and selected based on expertise,” a spokesman told FoxNews.com. “Author teams on IPCC chapters are a mix of individuals who have excelled in their fields of specialism." . . .

Maxim's new piece at Fox News: Proposed U.N. Treaty to Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns for U.S. Gun Makers

Maxim's piece starts out this way:

A controversial U.N. proposed treaty aimed at regulating guns worldwide has been shrouded by confusion and misinformation.
Known informally as the 'Small Arms Treaty,' its detractors have charged the proposed agreement with secretly trying to take guns out of the hands of Americans and circumventing the 2nd Amendment.
While that is unlikely, a working draft proposal obtained by FoxNews.com contains language that some gun advocates say could have a real impact on American gun makers.
Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide. . . .

Canada to the rescue in the UN Arms talks?

This should be the role of the US to say that there are legitimate civilian uses of guns, but not this time. From the Vancouver Sun:

Canada has thrown a wrench into negotiations toward a United Nations arms trade treaty by proposing hunting rifles be exempted from the draft accord, gun control groups say.

But firearms advocates are praising the move, calling it evidence that the Harper government is on their side when it comes to gun control.

Preliminary talks on a future Arms Trade Treaty are being held this week at the United Nations in New York. The treaty would establish common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, and likely establish a reporting framework as well.

Thursday Canadian diplomats proposed that hunting rifles and other sporting arms be omitted from the draft accord.

"Canada would like to see language in the 'Principles' section that explicitly recognizes that there is a legal trade in small arms for legitimate civilian uses, including for sporting, hunting and collecting purposes," read the speech.

Canada proposed the following clause be added into the draft accord: "Reaffirming that small arms have certain legitimate civilian uses, including sporting, hunting and collecting purposes."

Canada also proposed that ammunition and other "high volume items" be exempted from reporting requirements. . . .

Is the UN exempt from paying its bills?

A court case may soon determine if the UN has a legal obligation to pay the contracts that it enters into.

A federal judge in New York has issued an order that could lift the U.N.’s long-recognized diplomatic immunity in the United States involving contract disputes, opening the doors for claims of “hundreds of millions of dollars” against the world body, according to lawyers involved in the case.
Following a ruling by Judge P. Kevin Castel, both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times on Wednesday published legal notices on behalf of Kahraman Sadikoglu, a Turkish billionaire businessman who is suing the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) for $150 million. . . .
The notices are a legal substitute for the process of officially serving the lawsuit to U.N. officials, who have refused to accept the authority of U.S. courts in this and other legal matters.
Sadikoglu was hired by the UNDP to clear the Iraqi harbor of Um Qasr, Iraq’s largest port in 2003, so that supplies could be delivered to the war-shattered nation. He has fought since that time to be paid for the work, and according to his lawyers is suing now because the U.N. failed to honor the terms of a 2008 agreement that would have settled the matter. . . .

Rand Paul has ad against the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty

A copy of his ad is available here.

How Obama tried to use money and threats to get UN to adopt Climate treaty

Diplomacy as practiced by the Obama administration.

The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. . . .

Some countries needed little persuading. The accord promised $30bn (£19bn) in aid for the poorest nations hit by global warming they had not caused. Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister, Ahmed Shaheed, wrote to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, expressing eagerness to back it.

By 23 February 2010, the Maldives' ambassador-designate to the US, Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed, told the US deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing, his country wanted "tangible assistance", saying other nations would then realise "the advantages to be gained by compliance" with the accord.

A diplomatic dance ensued. "Ghafoor referred to several projects costing approximately $50m (£30m). Pershing encouraged him to provide concrete examples and costs in order to increase the likelihood of bilateral assistance."

The Maldives were unusual among developing countries in embracing the accord so wholeheartedly, but other small island nations were secretly seen as vulnerable to financial pressure. Any linking of the billions of dollars of aid to political support is extremely controversial – nations most threatened by climate change see the aid as a right, not a reward, and such a link as heretical. But on 11 February, Pershing met the EU climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, in Brussels, where she told him, according to a cable, "the Aosis [Alliance of Small Island States] countries 'could be our best allies' given their need for financing". . . . .

The confidential cable records a blunt US threat to Zenawi: sign the accord or discussion ends now. Zenawi responds that Ethiopia will support the accord, but has a concern of his own: that a personal assurance from Barack Obama on delivering the promised aid finance is not being honoured.

US determination to seek allies against its most powerful adversaries – the rising economic giants of Brazil, South Africa, India, China (Basic) – is set out in another cable from Brussels on 17 February reporting a meeting between the deputy national security adviser, Michael Froman, Hedegaard and other EU officials.

Froman said the EU needed to learn from Basic's skill at impeding US and EU initiatives and playing them off against each in order "to better handle third country obstructionism and avoid future train wrecks on climate". . . .

Perhaps the most audacious appeal for funds revealed in the cables is from Saudi Arabia, the world's second biggest oil producer and one of the 25 richest countries in the world. A secret cable sent on 12 February records a meeting between US embassy officials and lead climate change negotiator Mohammad al-Sabban. "The kingdom will need time to diversify its economy away from petroleum, [Sabban] said, noting a US commitment to help Saudi Arabia with its economic diversification efforts would 'take the pressure off climate change negotiations'." . . . .

The Washington Times on the UN's push towards gun control

My latest piece from the Washington Times.

U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments

Report on the UN Arms Trade Treaty

The Second Amendment Foundation has this report:

The Following is an up to the minute report from Julianne Versnel, Director of Operations
for the Second Amendment Foundation who is representing SAF as an NGO delegate at the United Nations ATT meeting.

The Arms Trade Treaty Prep Committee began on July 12, 2010 and will conclude on July 23, 2010. Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina is the Chair. On Friday, July 19, Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) representatives were told that the majority of the meetings would be closed to them. The critical discussions on the scope of the treaty will have no input from any non-governmental entity. Scope is critical in the Arms Trade Treaty process. In North America, some Pan Asian Countries and in some other parts of the world, the arms that we expect to have covered in this treaty are nuclear weapons. In much of Europe and most all of Africa, the delegates anticipate that the ATT will cover rifles, shotguns, handguns and ammunition as well.

There appears little doubt that some sort of treaty will be adopted by 2014, if not by 2012. It is anticipated that the final treaty will attempt to register all firearms, require micro-stamping, destruction of surplus ammunition on a very set schedule, registration of all firearms and restriction on any transfer of arms including between private individuals and many other restrictions. If the United States is a signatory and this is ratified by the U.S. Senate, this UN treaty would be the law. On October 30, 2009, UN members voted in favor of an ATT. The United States voted in favor of an ATT.

The UN has an aggressive schedule of meetings planned to push for these restrictions and we will be there representing you in every way we can. We will be at the CTOP/COP meeting in Vienna the week of October 18 and a General Assembly meeting at the end of October. In January, the five permanent members of the Security Council will meet and this is on the agenda. There will be another ATT Preparatory meeting at the end of February in New York. The regional UNIDIR meeting sponsored by the EU will start in March. We will come full circle with the Programme of Action Experts Meeting in May 2011 and the July 17-21 ATT Preparatory meeting that is expected to offer the final draft to the treaty.

"U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade"

Obama administration moves towards strict gun control rules in US.

The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making." . . .

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton says:

"After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," he said. "The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."