Editorial: ‘Scarelore’ and the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Scarelore existed before the Internet, of course. It’s why people burned witches. But the Internet, combined with the rise of echo-chamber mass media, makes propagating scarelore much easier.

Which brings us to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on April 2 and signed so far by 81 nations. Sometime this month, while Congress is in recess, President Barack Obama is expected to sign it on behalf of the United States. However, ratifying a treaty takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Why? Scarelore.

The arms trade treaty sets out international standards for the sale of weapons of war — everything from warships and jet aircraft to missiles and grenade-launchers to small arms. Sellers would have mad e the case that the weapons would be used by buyers in accordance with international rules of warfare.

Black market arms sales have long been the source of weapons for terrorists, dictators and would-be dictators. The idea is to make it harder for thugs to lay their hands on items like shoulder-launched missiles or for 12-year-olds in Uganda to carry AK-47 rifles.

Sound like a good idea? Yes, it does, unless you’re the government of North Korea, Iran or Syria, the three nations that voted against the treaty, or the National Rifle Association. NRA scarelore claims the “Obama-U.N. collusion is a freedom-crushing disaster.”

Actually, the treaty is very useful for the NRA, which has been using the non-existent threat it poses to the Second Amendment as a fundraising gimmick all summer. It’s a scarelore hat-trick for the right-wing: Barack Obama, the U.N. and a gun-grab.

In fact, the treaty wouldn’t have much impact on the already strict way the United States regulates its international arms sales. Nor would an international treaty, even if it were ratified (which, to repeat, it won’t be) provide a way to bypass the Second Amendment. In 1957, in Reid v. Covert, the Supreme Court — the famously liberal Supreme Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren — ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties.

Finally, the language of the treaty itself recognizes the right of nations to control arms within their own territory and acknowledges the “legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of conventional arms for recreational cultural, historic and sporting activities.”

In short, if facts mean anything, this is not a U.N. gun-grab, and anyone who says otherwise is (a) simply misinformed or (b) trying to fleece you.

Unfortunately, whether the United States is a signatory or not, the treaty is not likely to make much of a dent in the $85-billion-a-year international arms business. Russia and China, two of the world’s biggest arms suppliers, abstained from the vote.

Russia supplies most of the weapons being used by the Assad government against the uprising in Syria. China has aggressively marketed cheap weapons in 16 nations in sub-Saharan Africa, less for political reasons than economic reasons — China is trying to build market-share.

The United States is the world’s biggest arms dealer. It has imposed far stricter rules on foreign sales than most nations. It should be a beacon to the rest of the world. Nations that govern fact-free don’t make much of a beacon.