Democrats hang fire on guns
The party in power is split on new controls
Friday, May 22, 2009
There is one thing that can be said of President Obama with certainty -- his election has had a phenomenal effect on gun sales.
Across the country, ammunition prices are soaring and many guns are in short supply as weapons fly off the shelves at stores. This is a telling economic indicator about consumer confidence as many Americans stock up for fear that the end is nigh. It's also a logical reaction to gun-owner fears that Democrats will implement far-reaching new gun controls. There is cause for concern. Leaders in the Obama administration and Congress have stated that they plan to limit what guns Americans can buy and that guns should be registered.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Feb. 25 that, "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi poured fuel on the fire five weeks later by admitting that Democrats want to register guns. "It's a Democratic president, a Democratic House," she said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered."
The gun controllers are at odds with public opinion. Despite Americans constantly being bombarded with attacks on guns by an anti-gun media, Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, notes that "Attitudes toward gun control have become more conservative, people not wanting gun control." A Gallup poll released April 8 shows that only 29 percent of Americans support banning handguns. According to Gallup, "the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago."
Popular support for the Second Amendment isn't lost on all congressional Democrats. On May 12, 27 Senate Democrats voted with 39 Republicans to end a ban on law-abiding citizens carrying legal firearms in national parks. The amendment was attached to unrelated legislation to regulate credit cards. The same tactic was used Feb. 26 when an amendment striking down most of the District's gun-control laws was attached to a Senate bill giving the District a vote in Congress. Twenty-two Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, voted for this amendment, which passed 62-36.
It's too early to celebrate Democratic respect for gun rights. Some Senate Democrats who voted for the national park amendment complained that they were painted into a corner on the issue. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, the party's chief vote counter, told National Public Radio last week that they were concerned about "how many more times they'd have to face such votes." Democrats are torn between their constituents' support for gun rights and an Obama administration committed to gun control.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
LOZANSKY: Is NATO disrupting Russia 'reset'?
Caucasus role risks antiterror support
By Edward Lozansky
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Only a couple of short months after the United States and Russia exchanged encouraging remarks about resetting troubled relations, the two countries find themselves again at odds over Georgia. Last week, NATO began monthlong military exercises in Georgia that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has called an "open provocation."
It's unfortunate that these current NATO exercises have the capacity to disrupt much broader strategic interests that the United States and Russia have in common, most notably the mutual fight against al Qaeda. At stake are strong U.S.-Russian cooperative efforts in defeating al Qaeda and stopping its encroachment into the Central Asian and Caucasus regions.
Although NATO describes the exercises, run by its Partnership for Peace program, as routine and small-scale (only 1,000 soldiers or so will take part), Russia credibly argues that, less than a year after its war with Georgia, any NATO training there is confrontational. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made Russia's concern very clear, saying it was "dangerous to appease the current Georgian regime, which has in no way abandoned attempts to solve its problems via militarization and the use of force." Other countries originally planning to participate in the NATO exercises seem to think so as well. Armenia, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Moldova have already pulled out of the exercises.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is a threat not only to the United States and Russia, but to many other countries as well. Handling this threat requires a joint Herculean effort similar to, or perhaps even more substantial than, the anti-Nazi alliance during World War II. This time, the task is more complicated. We face dedicated and hardened fanatics without a centralized government, using different warfare techniques, and working through numerous cells that enjoy support - even if just moral support - throughout the world.
In Pakistan, considered a U.S. ally, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups feel comfortable enough to plan and execute major terror attacks and disrupt supply lines to U.S. and NATO forces, sometimes with a helping hand from Pakistani security services. So working together has taken on new importance, especially as NATO seeks Russian cooperation in the war in Afghanistan, and the West seeks Moscow's help with Iran's nuclear program.
It is the West's goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, and it is in Russia's strategic interests to join the West in this fight. Working together toward this goal is an area where "pressing a reset button" in bilateral relations could bring quick results. Russia has allowed nonlethal supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan through its territory, a vital complement to the existing supply route through Pakistan.
However, this is not enough. Russia could and should do much more - for example, allow the transit of military hardware through its territory, urge the former Soviet southern republics and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to contribute to this effort, and permit the United States to use Russia's military base in Kant as a replacement for the loss of the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan.
The current Afghan government would welcome the supply of familiar Russian weapons and training by Russian instructors, as was done for the Northern Alliance during the first, successful war against the Taliban in 2001 and 2002.
After Sept. 11, 2001, when he was president, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin offered America sympathy and solidarity not only with words, but with deeds. Russia contributed more to the defeat of the Taliban than any other U.S. ally, including NATO members.
And how did former President George W. Bush show Russia his gratitude for the relatively easy victory? Abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without so much as consulting Russia, a decision to place components of a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and NATO expansion into Russia's backyard.
Any one of those things would greatly diminish Russia's appetite for helping the United States. However, the Kremlin should look at this from another perspective. For argument's sake, let's suppose America is defeated in Afghanistan. This would mean Russia would be left one on one with the Taliban and al Qaeda on its southern border, holding the potential for some 20 simultaneous Chechnya-like conflicts in or near Russia's territory. Would Russia be able to manage all these conflicts by itself?
With such compelling, mutual interests at stake for the United States and Russia, it is time the two countries make serious efforts to reset relations. Strained relations between the two will only embolden their mutual enemies, endangering not only themselves, but the rest of the world as well. All these strategic interests are being undermined by the lack of sensitivity toward Russia's security concerns that NATO has shown by holding military exercises in Georgia.
An early wrap-up to NATO's activities in Georgia - a nation engrossed in internal political turmoil - would go a long way toward restoring confidence within Russia that NATO and the United States are willing to consider Russia's legitimate national-security interests.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.