Senator Feinstein Urges Secretary of State to Reconsider Apparent
U.S. Opposition to Accord on Small Arms that Feed International Terrorism and Drug Wars
July 11, 2001

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is urging Secretary of State Colin Powell today to reconsider the apparent opposition and open questioning by the United States of efforts by the international community to address the illegal trafficking of small arms through a United Nations Accord.

"I am writing to express my deep disappointment with the speech that John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs made at the opening session of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects. Mr. Bolton's speech gave the appearance that the United States is in opposition to the efforts by the international community to address the illegal trafficking of small arms - a position which I believe is absolutely contrary to U.S. national security interests," Senator Feinstein wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Powell.

"The mass proliferation of small arms -- shoulder-mounted missiles, assault weapons, grenade launchers and high-powered sniper rifles - is fueling terrorism and drug wars throughout the world. The United States should be a leader in curbing the carnage the weapons create, not encouraging and enabling it.

Unfortunately in a speech Monday at the opening of the first U.N. Conference on Small Arms, John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Small Arms Control and International Security Affairs, challenged such efforts as a possible infringement of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Not only is Mr. Bolton wrong in his assertion about the nexus between the Second Amendment and the work of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, but I also believe that it is bad public policy to oppose measures to control the proliferation of small, but highly lethal, arms like AK47s, when a rampant explosion of these types of weapons is fueling hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world and placing U.S. interests in jeopardy.

First, Mr. Bolton's position on the Second Amendment is in direct contradiction to decades of Supreme Court precedent. Not one single gun control law has ever been overturned by the Court on Second Amendment grounds. Contrary to the constant claims of the NRA, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been well-settled for more than 60 years - ever since the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller. In that case, the defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines.

In rejecting a motion to dismiss the case on Second Amendment grounds, the Court held that the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment was 'to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness' of the state militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a state militia (like the National Guard), the Second Amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said the Court.

If a sawed-off shotgun is not protected by the Second Amendment, why does the Administration seem to feel that the Second Amendment protects the international trafficking of shoulder-launched missiles? If an American citizen cannot freely transport a sawed-off shotgun across state lines, why can't we work to stop the international transportation of grenade launchers and high powered, military sniper rifles? The Second Amendment argument simply makes no sense, and has no place in this debate.

Second, I believe that Mr. Bolton's statement puts the United States on the wrong side of an important international policy issue in which we have a vital stake.

The proliferation of small arms is a staggering problem: An estimated 500 million illicit small arms and light weapons are in circulation around the globe, and in the past decade four million people - more than 50% believed to be civilians - have been killed in civil wars and bloody fighting. The grimmest figures come from developing countries where small arms and light weapons have become the weapons of choice for narco-traffickers, terrorists and those involved in bloody civil conflicts.

The volume of weaponry has fueled cycles of violence and been a major factor in the devastation witnessed in recent conflicts in Africa, the Balkans, and South Asia, among other places. These conflicts undermine regional stability and endanger the spread of democracy and free-markets around the world.

They also pose a clear and present danger to U.S. national security interests and to U.S. armed forces based overseas and participating in peacekeeping missions. To take but one example: More than 650,000 weapons and 20,000 tons of explosives disappeared from government depots in Albania in the three years leading up to the outbreak of violence in the Balkans, according to the U.N. The continued presence of the weapons poses a very real threat to NATO and U.S. peacekeepers in the region.

The increased access by terrorists, guerrilla groups, criminals, and others to small arms and light weapons puts in jeopardy U.S. law enforcement efforts, business people based or traveling overseas, and even U.S. tourists.

In approaching the United Nations Conference, the U.S. government should negotiate and support making the trafficking of small arms traceable and eliminate the secrecy that permits thousands of weapons to fuel crime and war without anyone's knowledge of their source. The United States has some of the strongest arms export controls in the world, and it is in the U.S. interest to see that those standards are replicated by the world community. We should be taking the lead on this issue based on our foreign policy and national security interests, not taking the NRA line based on domestic political considerations.

U.S. leadership should ensure that the Conference is the first step, not the last, in the international community's efforts to control the spread of small arms and light weapons. I urge you to reconsider the approach enunciated by Undersecretary Bolton in his opening statement, and to work to make sure that this conference is a success in which U.S. leadership plays a critical role."

###