The chair of the Africa Progress Panel, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, has pushed back on an oil industry attack against the landmark US Dodd-Frank Act oil and mining payment disclosure provision. In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, Annan said the lawsuit launched by the American Petroleum Institute against the US Securities and Exchange Commission was a “strategic folly” and those companies supporting the suit, such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell were “swimming against the tide of reform”.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Chair of the Africa Progress Panel. UN Photo/Evan Schneider

The Africa Progress Panel’s 2013 report “Equity in Extractives” was released today in Cape Town and focuses on steps to take to ensure that Africa’s oil, gas and mining boom actually benefits the majority of African’s rather than a select few. The panel includes the former head of the IMF, Michel Camdessus; former US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo; former first lady of Mozambique Graca Machel; and Peter Eigen, founder of Transparency International and former chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, among others.

These heavy hitters stand behind a report that says there “is no credible evidence to indicate that the Dodd-Frank requirements will impose significant additional costs, let alone threaten the competitive position of some of the world’s largest companies.” The report says that the “Cardin-Lugar” or Section 1504 provision of Dodd-Frank and forthcoming European Union disclosure requirements provisions represents an important opportunity for African civil society groups to work with multinational companies to “achieve higher standards of disclosure” but notes that some companies appear “to be squandering that opportunity” with the US lawsuit.

In advance of June’s G8 summit, the report says “all countries must adopt and enforce” project-by-project disclosure standards such as in the US and EU—“as major players in Africa’s extractives sector, Australia, Canada and China should be the next countries to actively support this emerging global consensus.”

Oxfam’s new Executive Director, Winnie Byanyima, is from Uganda, a country undergoing its own oil boom, and is in Cape Town for the World Economic Forum Africa. She said “African governments must use oil, gas and mining to raise revenue, but this boom must not steamroll the rights of communities living on top of Africa’s mineral wealth. It is important that local communities are informed and consulted about extractive industry projects that affect them.”

With the political boost from today’s African Progress Report we are one step closing to realizing the so far unrealized potential of Africa’s resource endowment.

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 Monday April 16, I attended an event in Washington, DC where senior State Department officials gathered with representatives of the US arms industry, NGOs like Oxfam, and members of the public to discuss the US position on the Arms Trade Treaty. The event provided the US government with an opportunity to lay out its positions on the Treaty in anticipation to the negotiations at the United Nations in July. You can watch the event here.

For years Oxfam has been calling for a robust Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that will help to stem the flow of weapons to irresponsible end users. A robust and comprehensive ATT can help save innocent lives, contribute to economic development, promote regional stability, and protect human rights.

Private sector, NGO, and State Department representatives at a panel discussion following Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman’s speech as part of Monday’s event on the Arms Trade Treaty.

At the event, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, made a speech outlining the US position on the treaty negotiations. The speech contained very positive elements but also some positions that I have a hard time understanding. On the positive side, Assistant Secretary Countryman stated that the US is open to suggestions from other countries on ways to include ammunition within the treaty’s scope. This is a major shift in the right direction; prior to this speech, the US position was that ammunition must not be included in the treaty in any circumstance.

However, I am left confused and dismayed over one thing that the Assistant Secretary said. The most important part of the treaty from my perspective is the part detailing what countries should do when it is determined that an arms sale will likely contribute to war crimes or human rights abuses. The US position is that the treaty should require states to consider before transferring a weapon to another country whether the particular transfer would facilitate serious human rights violations or war crimes (among other things). Mr. Countryman said:

“We want the Treaty to tell each State Party what factors it must consider before authorizing a transfer—that is, criteria to keep in mind to review seriously and decide whether the transfer in question is responsible or not.”

Factors to consider? Keep in mind? This position is unacceptable.

The US seems to hold the position that as long as a government “considers” the impact of the arms transfer and “keeps it in mind,” the treaty should allow states to transfer weapons to war criminals or human rights abusers. Such an Arms Trade Treaty would significantly lower the current international standards on respecting human rights and the laws of war, and it runs contrary to the US position on human rights and international humanitarian law at the United Nations.

International humanitarian law, as established by the Geneva Conventions, requires that all state parties “undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances.” Ensuring respect for the laws of war is a far cry from “considering” or “keeping in mind” the laws of war when providing war criminals with the tools to commit their heinous crimes.

The UN Charter (which is international law) contains an obligation on all members to promote and respect human rights. How would a treaty that gives states the right to transfer weapons to human rights abusers as long as the exporting state “keeps in mind” their obligations under international law be reconciled with the obligation to promote respect for human rights?

One week after being confirmed by the Senate as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Susan Rice went to the UN Security Council to give her first address as Ambassador. In her speech she pledged US support for a “new era in support for international humanitarian law.” She said:

“The United States is steadfast in its commitment to safeguard human rights and end violations of international humanitarian law, both in conjunction with the United Nations, and through our other efforts throughout the world. Beyond this commitment, however, is a pledge by the United States to work together with the United Nations…in a new era in support for international humanitarian law.”

After hearing Assistant Secretary Countryman’s speech, I am left asking how the US position on the ATT can be reconciled with Ambassador Rice’s vision for using the US voice and vote at the United Nations.

I think the answer must be one of the following:

First, I misunderstood the US position. If this is the case, I hope to hear from the negotiators where I am wrong.

Second, maybe Ambassador Rice’s strong call for a new era of support for international humanitarian law was just empty rhetoric. Yet, given Ambassador Rice’s strong efforts in support of civilian protection at the UN since she arrived, I do not think her words were empty rhetoric.

Third, maybe the new era of support for international humanitarian law is over, and we are in the era of “keeping in mind” international humanitarian law.

Or fourth, those leading the development of the US position on the Arms Trade Treaty didn’t receive the memo and are still operating in the old era.

I can understand if Assistant Secretary Countryman and the others designing the US position on the ATT didn’t get the message that the Obama administration is operating under a new era and that the US will work to safeguard human rights and humanitarian law at the United Nations.

Yet, with less than three months until the negotiations of the ATT commence, someone better resend the message…Quick!

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.

My colleague Tim Gore, climate change policy advisor at Oxfam International, wrote this blog laying out what governments can achieve at UN Climate talks which are starting this week in Durban, South Africa. We’ve adapted the blog to the US context and are reposting it here.

It’s now two years since the frantic campaigning and manic diplomacy that led to the Copenhagen climate change conference, and the blame games that followed its inadequate result. As the next UN climate talks get under way this week in Durban, South Africa, we need a new script to explain what has been achieved since 2009 and what must come next in the fight to tackle climate change.

The good news is that the UN talks on climate change are not a re-run of the zombie negotiating process in the World Trade Organization. But the ten year anniversary of the launch of the ‘Doha development round’ should give us pause for thought about where we want the multilateral climate change regime to be ten years after Copenhagen, and whether we are on track to get there.

The agreements struck last year in Cancún did not deliver everything needed to address the perils of our warming world, but they are leading to action.

New targets for emissions cuts have been set by an unprecedented range of countries, and for the first time developing countries have pledged greater reductions than developed countries against projected emissions levels. New institutions—most notably the Green Climate Fund—are being created to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.

In no small part as a result, China is leading the race to invest in renewable energy, Brazil and Indonesia are serious about tackling deforestation, Australia has finally put a price on carbon, and the EU is planning for near complete decarbonization of its economy by 2050. Poor countries in all continents are starting to build the need for adaptation to climate change into their development plans, and facing up to the grave implications of doing so.

The problem is that none of this is going far enough nor happening fast enough. Global emissions are growing faster than ever, despite the economic crisis. The International Energy Agency recently warned we have five years left to change course before the lock-in effect of carbon-intensive infrastructure pushes out of reach the 2°C limit to global warming set by governments in Cancún. The gap between projected emissions in 2020 and the levels scientists say are needed to have a chance at staying within the 2°C target—let alone the 1.5°C needed—is actually widening.

Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

This blog was written by Noah Gottschalk, Senior policy advisor for humanitarian response.

The Republic of South Sudan will become the world’s newest country on July 9, just over three weeks from today. Casting a shadow over the celebrations that should mark South Sudan’s first independence day will be the situation along the new country’s border with the north.

Since I last wrote about the contested area of Abyei, from which the United Nations now estimates over 100,000 people have been displaced, the situation has deteriorated, with fighting spreading to neighboring South Kordofan. Latest reports indicate 6,000 people are seeking safe haven around the UN compound in the state capital Kadugli, with estimates of nearly 60,000 more displaced and unknown numbers seeking refuge in the Nuba Mountains, their exact whereabouts and condition unknown. To further complicate matters, ongoing violence and serious fuel shortages are making it harder for people to flee fighting and for aid groups to reach people in need. Higher fuel costs also mean higher commodity prices, a serious problem in a place where 90% of people live on less than one dollar a day.

While aid efforts are underway to assist people who have fled Abyei, the UN has been investigating why its peacekeepers were unable to prevent the crisis from escalating in the first place. Last week, General Babacar Gaye, the former commander of UN troops in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo and currently the top adviser to the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) visited Sudan to find out for himself. His conclusions were damning. A spokesman said the peacekeepers “could have and should have had more visibility to deter any violence against civilians” and insisted that they would learn from these mistakes.

This family recently returned to southern Sudan after 21 years of living in the north, in the hope that after independence they would be able to have a better future. Photo by Caroline Gluck/Oxfam

Discussions in New York over the coming weeks will have a big role in determining if this will actually happen. South Sudan will get a new UN Peacekeeping mission when it becomes a new country. At issue is whether the new mission prioritizes the protection of civilians from violence with a mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to physically intervene – with force if necessary – when civilians’ lives – including aid workers – are under threat. Some within the US government are reluctant to give the new mission the mandate to do so, worrying that it might be seen as undermining the new government of South Sudan. The reality, however, is that the new government, despite its laudable public commitments to protecting its people from violence, still needs support from the international community. The new government continues to work to transform its fighting forces into a professional army and to develop a civilian police service, and faces significant challenges in protecting southern Sudanese against the wide array of threats they face. North-South tensions are not the only such threats: civilians are also increasingly put at risk by violence between the SPLA and other armed groups, large scale clashes between communities, and the ongoing threat of the Lord’s Resistance Army.

As one of my colleagues working in Juba recently said, “Protection of civilians is an extremely complex, resource-intensive and politically sensitive task, one which arguably UNMIS was not set up to effectively do.” We can change that if the new mission gets it right from the start. It should have a mandate both to protect civilians from violence and to work with the new government to make it better able to protect its own people in the longer term, so in the future it can do so without a peacekeeping force.

In January, President Obama described the relatively peaceful referendum in which southern Sudanese overwhelmingly voted for secession as giving “the world renewed faith in the prospect of a peaceful, prosperous future for all of the Sudanese people — a future that the American people long to see in Sudan.” That future is at risk right now. But our government can and must make the right decisions to support the world’s newest country and its people, and to restore the hope we all felt just five months ago. Supporting a Chapter VII mandate is the best way to start.

This blog was written by Noah Gottschalk, Senior policy advisor for humanitarian response

Tensions are running high in Sudan, where an upsurge in violence in the border region of Abyei has displaced tens of thousands of people and raised fears of a return to all-out war.

With just over six weeks to go before South Sudan becomes the world’s newest country, the world’s focus has largely been on the incredible accomplishments of the largely peaceful referendum held last January to determine the future of Sudan. The results of that vote, which was a key provision of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended more than two decades of conflict, were overwhelmingly for secession, and southerners have been readying themselves for what they had hoped would be a peaceful independence day.

Yet with the violence in Abyei – an area roughly the size of Connecticut that was one of the worst-affected areas during the war and has long been seen as a key flashpoint of conflict –the security situation is on a knife-edge. The conflict in Abyei comes at a time when southern Sudan is facing its most violent year since the end of the civil war in 2005. Not including these recent events, over 1,400 people have been killed in southern Sudan so far this year – already more than in the whole of 2010 – and at least 117,000 have fled their homes, as violence has dramatically increased in recent months.

The Sudan referendum happened peacefully, but violence has broken out in the border region of Abyei. Photo by Alun McDonald/Oxfam

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 »