Negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty a Victory for Advocacy Groups
Negotiations for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) start at the UN headquarters in New York today, 2 July. These negotiations are arguably a major victory for organisations that have been vigorously lobbying governments for close to a decade for such a treaty.
Guy Lamb, Senior Research Fellow, Transnational Threats and International Crime Division, ISS Pretoria Office
Last week London
motorists and pedestrians were surprised to see a lone Cold War era military
tank adorned with ‘Control Arms’ banner slowly navigating its way around the
tourist hotspots of the British capital. Curiously, it was not a military
exercise, but rather a publicity stunt by Oxfam and Amnesty International to
draw attention to the need for a treaty to regulate the international
conventional arms trade, which is widely referred to as the Arms Trade Treaty
(ATT). The negotiations for the ATT will be initiated at the UN headquarters in
New York today, 2 July. These negotiations are arguably a major victory for
arms control advocacy groups and civil society organisations, which have been
vigorously lobbying governments for close to a decade for such a treaty.
Until a few
years ago, many governments were reluctant to enter into negotiations about an
ATT. This was due to the sensitive security and political considerations
attached to arms transfers, especially concerns by some governments that such a
treaty would weaken their ability to protect themselves and/or provide military
support to their allies. There were also substantial commercial interests at
stake, with sales of arms and military services by the top 100 global
arms-producing companies in 2010 being estimated to be US$ 411 billion
(according to the highly respected Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute). However, the destructive and destabilising nature of the illicit
arms trade, which has thrived in an unevenly regulated environment, combined
with effective lobbying campaigns, led to most UN Member States agreeing to
enter into negotiations on an ATT.
In the build-up to
the negotiations there has been considerable debate among governments
concerning those categories of conventional arms that should be included in an
ATT. A minority of governments have suggested that the future treaty should
only comprise those conventional arms that are defined by the UN Register of
Conventional Arms (UNRCA), a voluntary international arms transfer reporting
instrument that was established in 1991. The UNRCA requires reporting on the
following seven categories of arms: battle tanks; armoured combat vehicles;
large-calibre artillery systems; combat aircraft; attack helicopters; warships;
and missiles and missile launchers. Nonetheless, a large majority of governments
have raised concerns that the seven UNRCA categories are out-dated, and have
motivated for a more comprehensive conventional arms list, particularly one
that includes small arms, light weapons and ammunition.
Control Arms,
the civil society coalition advocating for a comprehensive ATT, have suggested
that such an agreement will primarily “ease the suffering caused by
irresponsible transfers of conventional weapons and munitions”. Such an outcome
is a distinct possibility, but there is related critical benefit from such a treaty
(if it is successfully negotiated). That is, an ATT will establish
international standards for the regulation of the arms trade, which are likely
to include criteria that governments will need to adhere to when authorising
arms transfers, as well as transparency provisions. Importantly, these
standards will enable citizens to hold governments to account for their arms
transfer decisions.
In this regard, there has
been widespread acknowledgment by governments that, under certain
circumstances, arms transfers would have the potential to undermine
international peace and security. Therefore a provisional list of arms transfer
criteria has been proposed by the Chairman of the ATT negotiations, which is
based on consultations with governments. According to the proposed criteria,
governments shall not authorize conventional arms transfer if there is a
substantial risk that those conventional arms would:
- Be used in a manner that would
seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate
internal, regional, subregional or international instability;
- Be used to commit or facilitate
serious violations of international humanitarian law;
- Be used to commit or facilitate
serious violations of international human rights law;
- Be used to commit or facilitate
serious violations of international criminal law, including genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes;
- Seriously impair poverty reduction
and socio-economic development or seriously hamper the sustainable development
of the recipient State;
- Be diverted to unauthorized
end-users for use in a manner inconsistent with the principles, goals and
objectives of the Treaty, taking into account the risk of corruption;
- Be used in the commission of
transnational organized crime as defined in the United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime; and
- Be used to support, encourage or
perpetrate terrorist acts.
As the
ATT negotiations get underway in New York this week it is apparent that
governments are unevenly equipped in terms of arms control experience and
knowledge. Major arms exporting States are likely to have a negotiation
advantage over other States, particularly African States, the vast majority of
which do not manufacture and export arms. Consequently, the Institute for
Security Studies (ISS) has compiled an ATT Negotiation Toolkit for African
States in an attempt to contribute to a leveling of the treaty negotiation
‘playing field’. The main objective of this toolkit is for it to be a reference
guide for those African government representatives that will be negotiating the
provisions of the ATT.
Click here for the `Supporting the Arms Trade
Treaty` press release
Click here for the `Negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty: A Toolkit for African States`