In this issue: CIDA-DFAIT merger
Illegal trade with Israel UN peace ‘enforcement’ Rio + 20
6 8 10 11
‘Building a World Community’
May 2013
Published in Canada by the World Federalists, a non-profit organization that advocates more just and effective global governance through the application of the principles of democratic federalism to world affairs.
Arms Trade Treaty: Will it really be effective?
Fergus Watt is Executive Director of World Federalist Movement – Canada.
“Six years of negotiation among governments has yielded a treaty text that is far from perfect.”
by Fergus Watt Will the recently concluded Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) actually lead to meaningful limitations in the international trade in arms? Estimated at $45 billion annually, the arms trade fuels conflict and armed violence affecting millions of people, and inhibits the UN from carrying out its mandate to maintain peace and security. After numerous delays and years of campaigning by a great many civil society organizations around the world, a majority of governments at the United Nations voted April 2 in the General Assembly to adopt the ATT. There were 154 votes in favor, 3 against and 23 abstentions. The treaty enters into force after 50 states have ratified it. The ATT sets international standards for the trade in conventional arms. It covers exports of tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms and light weapons. Governments will now be required to publish annual reports of their arms exports. The treaty explicitly prohibits transfers that violate arms embargoes authorized by the UN
Security Council, or when a country “has the knowledge at the time of authorization” that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. And in addition to these prohibitions, governments are required to conduct (and make available to the public) an “assessment” of the transfer, to determine that there is not an “overriding risk” of weapons being used to: – undermine peace and security; – commit or facilitate serious violations of humanitarian law or human rights law; – commit or facilitate violations under international conventions relating to terrorism and to transnational organized crime; – commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children. Six years of negotiation among governments has yielded a treaty text that is far from perfect. According to an analysis by Glenn McDonald, senior researcher for the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, some of the ATT’s weaknesses include the following: • The treaty focuses on arms
sales, and not on all the ways in which conventional arms are transferred, including gifts, loans, leases and aid. • Definitions of weapons systems covered don’t include the full range of military equipment present in national arsenals, including transport, refueling, and command and control systems. Further, provisions relating to ammunition, parts and components have one foot inside the treaty and another foot outside of it; the export licensing obligations apply to these items, while most other provisions, including those relating to import, transit/ trans-shipment, brokering, and diversion, do not. The ATT requires states parties to submit annual reports on authorized or actual exports and imports. Transparency is limited, however. These measures do not apply to ammunition or parts and components. Export/import reports for conventional arms may also exclude “commercially sensitive or national security information.” Further, the ATT does little to advance the cause of weapons traceability. The treaty does not specify that export must records See “Treaty…” page 2