Maddow: UN Arms Treaty creates strange bedfellows

[pampango]

The Arms Trade Treaty has been working its way through the United Nations, and at times, appeared to be struggling. But yesterday, with the support of the Obama administration, the ATT drew strong international backing.

Although implementation is years away and there is no specific enforcement mechanism, proponents say the treaty would for the first time force sellers to consider how their customers will use the weapons and to make that information public. The goal is to curb the sale of weapons that kill tens of thousands of people every year -- by, for example, making it harder for Russia to argue that its arms deals with Syria are legal under international law.

That said, Iran, North Korea, and Syria -- arguably the nation's three largest pariah states -- took a stand against the Arms Trade Treaty. What's interesting about that? At a certain level, nothing, given the expectations surrounding these three countries, but what I find noteworthy is that the National Rifle Association and Republican policymakers are taking the Iranian, North Korean, and Syrian side of the argument.

The ATT will go to the Senate where it will almost certainly fail in the face of overwhelming Republican opposition. The treaty would need 67 votes for ratification, and given a recent non-binding vote on an ATT resolution, it will struggle to get 50 votes. The U.S. has, I believe, entered a post-treaty phase of international diplomacy.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/03/17585093-arms-treaty-creates-strange-bedfellows

A post-treaty phase of American leadership

It probably wouldn't make much difference, since Senate ratification of treaties has gone from difficult to practically impossible.

After Senate Republicans killed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Dan Drezner called the opposition "dumber than a bag of hammers," but added something that stuck in my head:

I've blogged on occasion about the development of a sovereigntist lobby that reflexively opposes all treaties because they erode U.S. sovereignty. For these people, any infringement on American sovereignty is a death blow to freedom, regardless of the benefits from joining.

That's true, but what goes generally unsaid is that this sovereigntist lobby, coupled with the radicalization of Republican politics, has created conditions in which the United States may no longer be able to ratify any treaty for any reason on any issue.

By constitutional mandate, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty, which means any measure that has even the slightest chance would need a significant chunk of the Senate Republican conference to meet the two-thirds threshold -- and by all indications, that's no longer a realistic option.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/14/15907173-a-post-treaty-phase-of-american-leadership?lite

The sovereigntist lobby has emerged on the right and opposes US participation in international negotiations and agreements. To them the prospect of the US agreeing to act in certain ways ("regardless of the benefits&quot infringes on our 'sovereign right' to do anything we want, to whomever we want at any time we want.