UN Civilian Disarmament, Genocide And The Concentration of Power
September 10, 2003
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
The direct link between governments disarming their civilian populations and genocide seems obvious to many people who have studied the gun control issue at any length. But it is one that is denied by the anti-gunners.
Some believe that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms (JPFO) was the first organization responsible for the earliest efforts to demonstrate that linkage publicly. Certainly their studies and published reports of the Nazi Holocaust and German gun laws made an outstanding contribution in that area.
However, JPFO and its members were not the first to study the issue and publish papers. Others did so in a variety of publications, but seldom in general opinion journals.
But while the subject gets much discussion in the firearms community, it frustrates gunowners, activists and scholars to see how so many in academia, politics and the media can ignore the evidence.
Whether this situation will ever change remains to be seen. But in spite of the fact that many gunowners might erroneously believe that genocide—the rancid fruit of gun control and confiscation—is being ignored, especially at the United Nations, that is not the case.
At an early August meeting in Vienna, Austria, noted American constitutional scholar and author, Don B. Kates, addressed the subject admirably at the UN Commission on Human Rights, Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 55th Session on “Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons.”
The intended purpose of the meeting, while not stated, was to promote the global gun control agenda through UN agencies and committees by attempting to link civilian disarmament with promotion of human rights. You may find such thinking absurd, but it is common among some UN officials and non-government organizations which lobby the UN diplomats and professionals.
Kates was representing the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), an NGO comprising gun organizations and the firearms industry from around the world.
Kates began by introducing himself and congratulating Dr. Barbara Frey, rapporteur to the subcommission, on her report’s discussion of wrongs by police agencies. “This is a much-needed addition to the human rights debate,” Kates noted.
“To her report, and to the entire UN debate on firearms,” he added, “it is essential now to add a crucial issue: The fact that widespread civilian firearms ownership is the only measure with the potential to deter genocide from occurring in the first place, and to prevent it from succeeding if it does happen. Fortunately, there are many countries where genocide is not occurring. Concomitantly, the Swiss Small Arms Survey shows the vast majority of firearms in the world are legally held by civilians. It is time to recognize that where there are many civilian firearms there is more likely to be lasting peace and security.
“The worst of all human rights violations is genocide. Thirty-four times more victims were killed by governments in 20th century genocides than were murdered in all the depredations of 20th century criminals. (Note that my genocide figures given infra do not include civilian casualties in ordinary wars.)
“The International Society for the Prevention of Genocide says: ‘Prompt defensive measures are the most effective means for the prevention of genocide.’ The idea of disarming the peoples of the world is not merely unhelpful, but counter-productive in precluding potential victim populations from taking the defensive measures that are the most effective means for the prevention of genocide,” Kates said.
“History proves genocide rarely works—in fact is almost never attempted—if the victim group is armed. Almost every 20th century genocide occurred in nations that had forbidden gun ownership. In many cases genocides were committed by military or quasi-military cadres of government using firearms denied by law to their victims. Many other 20th century genocides were committed by civilians using axes and other ordinary tools. But in almost every such case these killers were incited and led by armed officials. In the rare cases where civilian genocide perpetrators had guns, they were given them by government, and then collected after the killings. . . .
“Despite altruistic motives, those ignoring that truth are enablers of genocide. The UN must at all costs avoid international instruments, structures and institutions which, however well intended, have the effect of disarming target populations.
“Twentieth century governments massacred 170 million unarmed civilians. Among late 20th century genocides were 41 that each took a minimum of 50,000 lives in nations threatened by civil war or guerrilla attack. All 41 were undertaken by governments that calculated they could reduce problems by killing unarmed parts of their population deemed sympathetic to their attackers. . . .
“Genocide slackened considerably at the end of the 20th century because it had become clear from observing previous genocides that the costs had been too high. Sometimes it is cheaper to compromise and live with a minority group than to exterminate it. That is why armed minorities are rarely attacked: killing would cost more than compromising.
“Consider the 1990s Serbian genocides. Having inherited most of the arms of the former Yugoslav Army, the Serbs attacked the Croats. They stopped when it eventuated the Croats had enough guns to defend themselves. Instead the Serbs attacked the Bosnian Muslims who were unable to procure guns because of the UN embargo. 300,000 Muslims were murdered until finally Muslim nations smuggled in enough arms so that the Serbs stopped because their own were taking casualties instead of just killing unarmed victims.
“If the 300,000 Eritrean civilians had been armed, the ragtag Ethiopian Army could not have murdered them. Indeed, it probably would not have tried,” Kates noted as he discussed other 20th century genocides, including those perpetrated by the Nazis in Europe, by Idi Amin in Uganda, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
“It is crucial to understand how anti-gun advocates respond to the issue of genocide,” Kates noted. “They do not! They never consider that their goal of confiscating all guns from civilians facilitates genocide. To the extent they ever discuss genocide, it is to solemnly claim it occurs only when government is absent—and only because civilians have guns.
“After a thorough search of the literature I found not even one 20th century genocide following that pattern. One of the very rare examples of a genocide committed by civilians with little or no government involvement was the Hindu-Muslim slaughters that followed Indian independence. But all the killing was done with knives, machetes, scythes and other common tools, not guns. Generally when 20th century genocides were perpetrated by civilians they were incited and led by agents of government. If guns were involved they were supplied to civilians by government which then recollected them after the killing. In all cases laws promoted genocide by forbidding civilians from having guns.”
Kates went on to say that though guns can be used offensively, they are primarily defensive weapons. “They are the only weapons that allow the weak to defend against the strong.”
“To repeat, alone of all weapons, firearms allow the weak to defeat attack by the strong. In closing, let me reiterate that genocide took 34 times more 20th century lives than did ordinary gun murders. Moreover, though advocates of anti-gun policies seem to have scant interest in genocide, the reverse is not at all true. Perpetrators of genocide have a great interest in gun ownership of potential victims. Upon seizing power the Khmer Rouge conducted a house-to-house, hut-to-hut search for arms throughout Cambodia. As a witness recounts, they would knock on the doors and ask the people who answered if they had any weapons.
“ ‘We are here now to protect you,’ the soldiers said, ‘and no one has a need for a weapon any more.’ People who said that they kept no weapons were (nevertheless) forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves.
“When the soldiers were satisfied no one had guns, the killing began,” Kates concluded.
Return to Archive Index
