In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

SAIS Review 23.1 (2003) 322-324



[Access article in PDF]

Loretta Bondi's Response


David Kopel and I obviously view small arms proliferation from different perspectives, and his article distorts my previous commentary for the SAIS Review.

There are only two points on which we agree: governments have abused and butchered their civilian populations and too many governments continue to do so. Recognizing the responsibilities of all states to prevent abuses against civilians, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of the International Action Network on Small Arms insisted on adopting measures to curb the supply of weapons to state and non-state actors that violate human rights and international humanitarian law. NGOs pushed for legislation to control the activities of arms brokers catering to these forces, and for marking and tracing weapons to ascertain the origin of supply. However, the U.S. delegation at the 2001 UN Conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons was not interested in any legally binding treaty encapsulating such norms, despite the fact that U.S. laws capture much of the intent and scope of these NGOs' proposals, including the Arms Export Control Act, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

Mr. Kopel espouses the U.S. government's stand that effectively prevented a partial ban on the transfer of light weapons to non-state actors. He argues, "A look at the governments that support the ban indicates that it will likely be used to bolster the power of regimes that lack legitimacy," over civilians and bona fide freedom fighters. He goes on to say that Iran, China, and "kleptocracies" advocate such a ban, but he conveniently forgets to mention that the earliest proponent of this ban was the notoriously tyrannical and rapacious regime of Canada. Others supported Canada's position. South Africa, a country now governed by former resistance fighters, was among them. And so were many other African countries which face the twin evils of abject poverty and ruthless non-state actors (rebels, bandits, and murderers), whose access to weapons enables them to prey on [End Page 322] civilians and undermine fragile economies and hard-won peace agreements. Beneficiaries of U.S. largesse such as Colombia, which is fighting a non-state actor group that is on the U.S. terrorist list, also supported the ban.

I appreciate Mr. Kopel's concern for the freedom of non-state actor Taiwan, but he should take a closer look at the kind of weaponry with which the people of Taiwan protect their liberty. Taipei puts its trust not so much in pistols, assault rifles, and hand grenades, but in a mighty arsenal of heavy weaponry. I trust that Mr. Kopel would find the figures and analyses of the International Institute for Strategic Studies Military Balance, for example, and the database of the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers, helpful to put these matters into their proper perspective. Mr. Kopel goes on to affirm that: "The non-state actors language would have also made it illegal for . . . anyone to help the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto." He ought to know that by April 1943, when the uprising began, most of the ghetto population had been deported. No one helped those victims. The remaining civilians held approximately 100 pistols, 150 hand grenades, and a handful of rifles. 1 It is disingenuous to suggest that an injection of additional weapons would have enabled them to prevail over the three fully equipped and trained battalions that suppressed the uprising and whose intent was exterminating the insurgents.

If my reading of Mr. Kopel's larger argument is correct, then he is presenting a just slightly less crude position than the one adopted by some supporters of the National Rifle Association (NRA). NRA supporters are in the habit of sporting yellow stars of David at their rallies and thereby manipulating the Holocaust to assimilate it to what they perceive as attacks to their interpretation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which mentions the right to bear arms. The issue of rights that the pro-gun lobby ascribe to the Second Amendment—a view...

pdf

Share