After years of waiting, the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty got underway, sort of, on July 2. The first two days were wasted by an off-topic debate over credentials and seating arrangements. But on the evening of July 3, work began.

Campaigners from Control Arms demonstrated in front of the UN building for the opening of the diplomatic conference on the future Arms Trade Treaty. Credit: Control Arms/ Andrew Kelly

As these negotiations unfold over the next two and a half weeks, I believe there are five key questions governments will have to address. I will quickly introduce these issues here and write in more detail in the coming days and weeks.

Question 1: How strong will the “criteria” be?

Some governments want a strong legally binding set of criteria that require states to assess the potential use of weapons transferred to other countries and to restrict the transfer based on the likely use.

However, other countries want the criteria to not require them to restrain transfers, but only consider the impact and make a decision based on the totality of the circumstances, balancing national security, economic, and humanitarian concerns. And still others want no binding criteria language at all.

Question 2: What type of weapons and what type of transactions will be covered by the treaty?

Currently the majority of governments want the treaty to cover all conventional weapons and all ammunition associated with those weapons.

Additionally most states want the treaty to cover a broad range of transactions, including import, export, transshipment, transit, as well as brokering activities. But others want certain types of weapons or certain types of transactions exempted and to create loopholes so that business can continue as usual.

 Question 3: How much transparency will the treaty require?

We know that this treaty will be implemented by national governments and enforced through bi-lateral relations, meetings of state parties, and by national governments themselves. But without transparency, this treaty will not have much hope of reaching its goals.

Many states will seek to limit the transparency required by the treaty in order to shield themselves from criticism, protect what they see as national security imperatives, or protect information that allows corporations to maintain their competitive advantage.

Question 4: How much will the opponents distort the truth about the treaty’s content in order to raise funds?

In recent days we have seen an increase in the activity of the civil society opponents of the treaty. Much of what they are saying is intentionally distorted. Other statements from opponents of the treaty are based on a complete lack of any understanding of how the arms trade, or, for that matter, how the US Constitution, operates.

Question 5: Will skeptical countries be able to effectively block the will of the majority?

One of the reasons why agreeing to a treaty over the next month will be so difficult is that the final agreement must be adopted by consensus. Any one intransigent state can block the will of the rest of the world. Whether one of the skeptical countries will stand up against international momentum and block the treaty remains a hanging question.

These are the some of the most difficult questions governments will address, but by no means an exhaustive list of the hurdles. There is not much time to develop a treaty. If the governments of the world do accomplish the goal of a legally binding agreement on the arms trade, it will be a historic feat. But we at Oxfam are calling for the world to do just that. The human impact of the irresponsible arms trade requires nothing less.

Are there more international laws on the trade of bananas than conventional weapons, like AK-47s?

The short answer is astonishingly, yes. The global trade in bananas or banana plants is governed by at least three binding global agreements and the non-binding, though strictly adhered to, Codex food code. The arms trade is not governed by any binding global agreements.

The long answer for those who need to know the details is:

1) Bananas: As agricultural products, the trade of bananas is governed by the World Trade Organization/Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. The goal of this agreement is to reform trade in the sector and to make policies more market-oriented and improve the predictability of global pricing.

AK-47s: No WTO agreement includes arms within its scope. In fact, Article XXI of the GATT exempts “the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment.”

2) Bananas also fall under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the “SPS Agreement”). This Agreement sets out the basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards.

AK-47s: The arms trade is not governed by any legally-binding agreement covering all countries. While there are some international arms trade agreements, no global agreement is binding and most agreements are regional in scope and limited by significant gaps in coverage. For example, over 40 states are not part of any regional organization that maintains an arms trade control instrument.

3) Banana safety standards are set and governed on a voluntary basis by the international food code. The Codex Alimentarius contains recommendations for voluntary application but serves in many cases as a basis for national legislation and sets the standards for the SPS Agreement. While not technically binding, international commerce on food strictly adheres to the standards set out in the Codex.

AK-47s: There are no global standards on the arms trade in regard to when a particular arms transfer is or is not appropriate. Out of a total 154 countries that have reported, only 73 countries said they have basic controls on the export of AK-47s and other small arms.

4) Banana plants, as opposed to bananas, are also regulated by an international convention: the International Plant Protection Convention which aims to protect cultivated and wild plants by preventing the introduction and spread of pests.

AK-47s: Only 56 governments have indicated they have specific crimes related to the illegal international transfer or illegal manufacturing of small arms. And astonishingly some countries do not even have criminal penalties associated with violating UN arms embargoes. (See Beyond Viktor Bout by Oxfam for details.)

Does it matter?

The fact that the world’s governments have come together to ensure the banana trade is governed by some basic rules and have not done so on the arms trade is a great concern. It is beyond ridiculous that governments and corporations are far more constrained by international law when trading bananas than when trading arms.

I have to admit that while the comparison between the amount of international law governing bananas as opposed to arms shows how absurd it is that there are no controls on the arms trade, there are significant differences between global commerce on each that need to be raised.

The goals of international agreements covering bananas are to reduce trade barriers, establish uniform enforcement of contracts, and prevent contamination of the global food supply. The primary goal of the a potential Arms Trade Treaty is to prevent conventional weapons from making their way into the hands of human rights abusers and from being used to perpetuate conflicts and undermine development. It is thus not surprising that because the goals are different the means for addressing the issue are different. Up to now, the major arms exporting states have preferred to forgo international agreements and instead address the process of making arms deals and limiting arms transfers to dangerous end-users through domestic law and regional agreements.

Notwithstanding these differences, the reluctance by countries to add global regulations on the arms trade has resulted in a patchwork international regulatory system where some states have strong controls and others have next to nothing.

The patchwork of laws allows irresponsible dealers and governments to operate in the black holes of the international regulatory system and supply weapons to entities that would use them to commit war crimes and human rights abuse with impunity.

If governments can get together to ensure food is safe and the price of bananas is free from protectionist policies, they should be able to come together and forge an Arms Trade Treaty that would save lives and protect livelihoods.

On April 5, the Federal New York District Court is expected to announce the sentence for Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer believed to be the inspiration for Nicolas Cage’s character in Hollywood’s “Lord of War,” who was found guilty of four counts of conspiracy, including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

Viktor Bout (furthest on the left). Photo by Control Arms.

Though the sentencing marks a major victory for those who spent decades tracking Mr. Bout, it’s unlikely that he will ever serve justice for other alleged acts, such as supplying weapons to countries in violation of UN arms embargoes, selling weapons to abusive regimes unable to purchase weapons through the legal market, or fueling civil wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. That’s because Mr. Bout, like many arms dealers, is skilled at operating in the black holes of the international regulatory system and circumventing the jurisdiction of countries. Indeed, more can be done to prevent unnecessary death caused by the irresponsible and under-regulated arms trade.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Mr. Bout, it’s that the world needs an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). While the United States and a few other countries have strict laws regulating the arms trade, many countries still have weak, ineffective, or no regulations. For example, only 52 governments have laws regulating arms brokers and less than half of these have criminal or monetary penalties associated with illegal brokering. If more countries had stronger laws on the arms trade, Mr. Bout may have been held accountable for the crimes he allegedly committed.

An ATT would require countries to adopt strong laws that would govern the flow of weapons in and out of their borders and prevent weapons from reaching the hands of warlords and human rights abusers. When the world gathers at the United Nations this summer to negotiate the treaty, governments must make the most of the opportunity and close the loopholes that allow arms dealers like Mr. Bout to flourish on the suffering of others.

Unfortunately, opponents to the treaty, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), claim the United Nations will chip away at Americans’ right to own guns. This nonsense couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, an ATT would bring the rest of the world closer to the standards on international arms transfers followed by the United States; these standards do not affect US citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Unless more countries adopt rigorous standards and regulations, the United States and other countries will continue facing challenges apprehending irresponsible arms brokers.

For too long, innocent people have become victims of atrocious acts of violence and investigation because there are no international laws governing the cross-border sale of weapons. It’s time to close the loopholes and tackle the problem of the irresponsible arms trade.

Send a message to Secretary Clinton now asking her to support a strong Arms Trade Treaty on April 16.

Could it be easier to buy weapons? (c) Fortune; Designers; Katerina Arvanitidou, Harris Theodoratos, Gabriela Vati, Photo: Corbis/Apeiron Photos.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is concerned with protecting the US Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. Why would this organization care about the international arms trade and global efforts to prevent weapons from being transferred to places where that will be used for war crimes and human rights violations? There are rules that bind countries to agreed-upon conduct for many areas of international trade. But while the US and other countries chose to control arms flows in its national law, there are still no global rules for the cross-border trade in weapons. The resulting unrestrained arms trade has fueled war crimes, human rights abuse, organized crime, terrorism, and undermined development endeavors.

I have been working on this issue since 2004, and I still don’t really understand their objections. Excerpts from Mr. LaPierre’s speech are below, accompanied by the facts.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Wednesday June 29, France confirmed that it parachuted arms, including guns and rocket-propelled grenades, to the Libyan rebels in the Nafusa Mountains. This arms transfer is a blatant violation of the arms embargo which was agreed to by the UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011. The embargo placed on Libya is comprehensive and applies both to rebels and forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. The subsequent authorization of the use of force in UNSC resolution 1973 amends the February 26 resolution by calling on Members States to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo through inspection of all sea vessels and planes bound for Libya believed to be carrying arms.

France’s action is spurring a legal debate. While the UNSC resolution 1973 appears to strengthen the embargo by calling for strict implementation, France is arguing that the authorization of the use of force to protect civilians overrides the embargo since the weapons were used to protect civilians. Russia has formally disagreed and officially complained about the arms transfer, saying that “if it is confirmed, it’s a flagrant violation” of the arms embargo.

Read the rest of this entry »

On the road between Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul. Arms control regulations must strengthen development efforts in countries like Afghanistan. Photo by the Control Arms campaign.

Section 2773 of the US Arms Export Controls Act states that since “the problems of Sub-Saharan Africa are primarily those of economic development…the President shall exercise restraint in selling defense articles and defense services, and in providing financing for sales of defense articles and defense services, to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. “

I see this section of US law as an affirmation by Congress that guns and tanks alone do not make countries safe and that arms trade decisions must be linked to and strengthen poverty reduction efforts.
Read the rest of this entry »

Control arms campaigners at a 2006 Africa illustrate how northern countries spread weapons all over Africa. Photo by the Control Arms Campaign.

The AK-47, probably the most ubiquitous weapon used today in conflict zones, was designed to have a life-span of 40 years. These and other weapons, distributed decades ago to fight the Cold War, are now being used to terrorize women, men, and children in conflict zones and areas of instability. Old weapons remain deadly because there are always a steady flow of bullets to load into them. A weapon only becomes lethal when it is supplied with ammunition. Controlling the flow of ammunition into zones of instability and conflict is just as important as controlling the actual weapons. An example from the Kenyan-Sudan border provides a window into why it’s so critical to control ammunition supplies. According to a Small Arms Survey investigation, “a dispute between Toposa and Turkana pastoralist warriors degenerated into a firefight that consumed all of their ammunition.” As a result of their rifles becoming useless, the rivals decided to resolve their differences peacefully.

So if controlling ammunition flows can help save lives and shorten the length of conflicts, why is it that I heard the Obama administration representative make an intervention at the United Nations yesterday saying that it opposes adding controls on international transfers of small arms ammunition into the proposed Arms Trade Treaty?

Read the rest of this entry »

Thanks to a massive global campaign and strong US support, a global arms trade treaty is moving forward. The question is when it will happen and how strong it will be. Photo by Crispin Hughes/Oxfam

Next week at the United Nations, governments and civil society representatives will gather for the latest round of discussion toward a global arms trade treaty (ATT), aiming to close a gaping hole in international law. One of the signature characteristics of the numerous fragile countries where Oxfam provides humanitarian relief is the failure of governments to control their own territory. In such environments, armed groups at times provide security for populations and at other times prey on populations for financial and political gain.

In places like Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the lack of accountability and effective security institutions has enabled all parties to the conflict to perpetrate gross human rights abuse with impunity. Regaining civility in these contexts is one of the most vexing problems governments and the international community faces and requires a variety of approaches.

It is clear that no effort to regain civility in fragile and conflict affected countries will succeed unless arms flows are addressed. At a 2007 Oxfam event, the former UN Commander in the DRC described his efforts to address the armed groups destabilizing the country as “mopping the floor when the tap was open. One moment you disarm a group, and then a week later the same group has fresh arms and ammunition.”
Read the rest of this entry »